Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-14 Planning PACKET ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July 14, 2020 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. June 9, 2020 Regular Meeting 2. June 23, 2020 Special Meeting IV.PUBLIC FORUM V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2020-00017, 210 Alicia Street. B. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2020-00019, Vacant Tax Lots #10104 & #10105 on First Street (North of Lithia Way, Across from the Post Office). VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: #PA-T2-2020-00020 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 705 Helman Street (Helman Elementary School) OWNER/APPLICANT: 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 Helman Elementary School property at 705 Helman 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 12 significant trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; MAP: 39 1E 04 BD; TAX LOTS: 600, 2700, 2800 & 2900. VII. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - Draft June 9, 2020 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Alan Harper Maria Harris, Planning Manager Kerry KenCairn Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Haywood Norton Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Stef Seffinger, absent II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the City Council passed the second reading of the ordinance amending plaza requirements in the downtown during their meeting June 2, 2020. The City Council would hear first reading on the open space amendments at their meeting June 16, 2020. Mr. Molnar was looking into the feasibility of allowing live public testimony during the electronic meetings. They were hoping to start that with the meetings in July. III. PUBLIC FORUM - None IV. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. May 12, 2020 Regular Meeting 2. May 26, 2020 Special Meeting Commissioner Pearce/Thompson m/s approved the minutes of May 12, 2020.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Commissioner Pearce/Dawkins m/s approved the minutes of May 26, 2020.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC FORUM - None VI. A. PLANNING ACTION: #PA-T2-2020-00017 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 210 Alicia Street OWNER/APPLICANT: David Scott Construction, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review approvals for a 12-unit, 13-lot Cottage Housing Development for the property located at 210 Alicia Street. The application also requests a Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees including one 36-inch diameter multi-trunked Willow tree proposed to be removed as a hazard, and a 20-inch Plum tree proposed to be removed to accommodate driveway installation. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSE(Please note: The record and public hearing is closed Ashland Planning Commission June 9, 2020 Page 1 of 4 on this matter. The Planning Commission's consideration of this item will be limited to their deliberation and decision. No further submittals (evidence or argument) will be accepted into the record.) Chair Norton read the rules of the public hearing during an electronic meeting. The record and public hearing were closed for 210 Alicia. The Commission was limited to deliberation and decision only. Ex Parte The Commission had no ex parte contact on the matter since the meeting May 12, 2020. Chair Norton explained a power outage at the RVTV building in Medford interrupted the meeting on May 12, 2020. The record and hearing were closed during that meeting prior to the outage. The Chair continued the closed public hearing to the meeting May 26, 2020. At that meeting, there was some confusion when the item was re-noticed that prompted the Commission to continue it to this meeting. The public hearing and record were still closed, and no new evidence could be submitted. During the period the power was out, the Commission had discussed sewer capacity, emergency egress and garbage pick-up. Staff Report Mr. Molnar provided a presentation (see attached): Proposal Outline Plan Parking Vicinity Map Survey Outline Plan & Site Design Map Planning Commission Deliberations May 12 Planning Action Record Closed on May 12 Three items discussed during deliberation after losing o the RVTV feed: 1. Sewer Capacity 2. Fire Department Access Ralph Sartain, Fire Marshall 3. Garbage pick-up. There was nothing in the record from Ashland Recology on how they would accommodate garbage pick-up. Mr. Molnar addressed the emails and comments received after the record closed at the meeting May 12, 2020. There had been some discussion on submitting the comments if they pertained to procedural issues. After reviewing them it became clear that aside from concerns regarding RVTV, they reiterated issues already in the record. Staff determined not to receive them into the closed record. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Pearce noted the public comments concerns regarding parking overflow. It was not one of the land use criteria. The proposal was for a cottage housing development, and it met the parking requirements. For concerns on blocking solar access, it was addressed in the application and met the solar ordinance. Comment concerning the potential increase in traffic and crime was not land use criteria either. Commissioner Pearce/Harper m/s to approve PA-T2-2020-00017 with the conditions in the staff report. DISCUSSION: Commissioner KenCairn stated it met the criteria. Commissioner Pearce wanted to ensure the Findings 18.2.3.090.C.3 included the application met the block length connectivity under and waived the requirement to dedicate additional public right of way. The other item for the Findings was the minimum driveway separation of 24-feet required 18.4.3.080.C.3 in . The current driveway was an existing condition and did not need the 24-feet. It was a non- Roll Call Vote: Commissioner KenCairn, Harper, Thompson, Pearce, Norton, and Dawkins. The conforming lot. motion passed unanimously. VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS Ashland Planning Commission June 9, 2020 Page 2 of 4 A. PLANNING ACTION: #PA-T2-2020-00019 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Vacant Tax Lots #10104 & #10105 on First Street (North of Lithia Way, Across from the Post Office) OWNER/APPLICANT: Randy Jones for First Place Partners, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request to consolidate two vacant lots and construct a new 10,547 square foot, three-story mixed use building as the third and final phase of the First Place subdivision. The e the second floor will include three one-bedroom residential units and the third floor will have one two-bedroom residential unit. The proposal includes modifications to the common area landscaping and parking configuration to provide more efficient access from the accessible parking to the entrances, and two requests for for a staggered street setback and to allow vertical windows installed together in groups of three that are more horizontal than vertical. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; TAX LOTS: #10104 & #10105 Ex Parte Contact The Commission declared no ex parte contact but drove by site frequently. Staff Report Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation (see attached) Plaza North Notice Map Plaza North - West Elevation (rear, from parking lot) Plaza North site Plaza North - South Elevation (from Plaza North Proposal driveway) Renderings from 2014-15 on top and Plaza North Southwest View current design on the bottom Plaza North - Setback Exception First Place Subdivision Original Site Plan AMC 18.4.2.060.C.1 & C.6 2014-15 Place Central/East/North Recommended Treatments Approved Plan Plaza North Window Exception 2020 Plaza North Proposed Site Plan Similar Window Exception Granted 2015 Plaza North 1 Floor st & 2019 for Plaza East Plaza North 2 Floor nd AMC 18.4.2.060.C.1 & C.6 Plaza North 3 Floor rd Recommended Treatments Plaza North East Elevation (from First Wall Section & Materials Street/USPS) First Place Subdivision Parking Plaza North Southeast View Allocations Plaza North - North Elevation (toward Plaza North: Landscape Planting & Tree open space) Protection Plans Plaza North - Northwest View Questions of Staff Commissioner Thompson asked if the parking adequacy would be elevated if the commercial space use was more intense than office or retail. Mr. Goldman explained the Building Division would review any change in occupancy. The Planning Division would review the site to ensure there was adequate parking and it was zoned appropriately. Commissioner Thompson questioned the two on-street parking spaces. The project was within 200 feet of a C-1-D zone, so the on-street parking credits were not automatically counted. It was not a discretionary decision for the Commission. It was noted the Findings referred to 82 spaces instead of 84 spaces. Commissioner Thompson wanted the Findings to be clear that the Commission was not allocating the on-street parking spaces and only approving 82 spaces. Ashland Planning Commission June 9, 2020 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Harper asked if there were any conditions in the old subdivision approval that would impact the current proposal. Mr. Goldman had gone through the previous approvals and for the most part, everything was completed. There was a note regarding the amount of parking and how it correlated to the number of bike spaces required. The Findings for this proposal remedied bicycle parking. It would also replace vegetation that had not survived. Commissioner Harper wanted to know if there were any standards or conditions that needed approval for the lot consolidation request. Mr. Goldman responded there was not. This was a modification to the previous approval. Lots 3 and 4 were consolidated in 2019. This request would consolidate lots 4 and 5. The consolidation did not trigger any setback requirements. Mr. Goldman confirmed two balconies did extend into the common area where the parking was in the rear. Commissioner could approve that. At approximately 8:08 p.m. the Commission was notified that the RVTV livestream of the meeting was interrupted. Chair Norton continued both public hearings to June 23, 2020, 7:00 p.m. Staff would re-notice both public hearings. (See attached) Written Testimony - None Rebuttal by Applicant - None Deliberations & Decision VIII. A. PLANNING ACTION: #PA-T3-2019-00001 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1511 Hwy 99 N OWNER/AGENTS/APPLICANT: Linda Zare/Casita Developments, LLC & Kendrick Enterprise, LLC/ Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Annexation of a 16.87-acre parcel and Zone Change from County RR-5 Rural Residential) to City R-2 (Low Density, Multi-Family Residential) for the properties located at 1511 Highway 99 North. The annexation is to include adjacent railroad property and state highway right-of-way. The application includes conceptual details for the future phased development of 196 apartments (1- and 2- Bedrooms, ranging from 480-701 square feet) in 14 two-story buildings; Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review development approvals are not requested here, and would be applied for subsequent to annexation. The application also requests an Exception to Street Standards to deviate from city standard parkrow and sidewalk improvements to respond to constraints of right-of-way width and existing encroachments. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: Existing County RR-5, Proposed City R-2; s: 1700 & 1702. Item continued to June 23, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. IX. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned 8:18 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission June 9, 2020 Page 4 of 4 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - Draft June 23, 2020 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Alan Harper Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Haywood Norton Derek Severson, Senior Planner Roger Pearce Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Kerry KenCairn Stef Seffinger, absent II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced that Interim Public Works Director Scott Fleury would form a committee to evaluate updates to the water and storm drain system charges. Commissioner Pearce volunteered to serve on the committee. The first reading of the Open Space ordinance amendments was postponed due to concerns expressed by KDA Homes. Staff would review the concerns and bring the item back to the Commission at the Study Session in July. III. PUBLIC FORUM - None IV. A. PLANNING ACTION: #PA-T2-2020-00019 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Vacant Tax Lots #10104 & #10105 on First Street (North of Lithia Way, Across from the Post Office) OWNER/APPLICANT: Randy Jones for First Place Partners, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request to consolidate two vacant lots and construct a new 10,547 square foot, three-story mixed use building as the third and final phase of the First Place subdivision. The ercial space, while the second floor will include three one-bedroom residential units and the third floor will have one two-bedroom residential unit. The proposal includes modifications to the common area landscaping and parking configuration to provide more efficient access from the accessible parking to the entrances, and two requests for for a staggered street setback and to allow vertical windows installed together in groups of three that are more horizontal than vertical. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; TAX LOTS: #10104 & #10105 Chair Norton read the rules of the electronic public hearing. This item was on the agenda for the meeting on June 9, 2020. An issue occurred with RVTV and the livestream was interrupted. The public hearing was continued to this meeting. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Dawkins, Harper, and Pearce had no ex parte on the matter but drove past the site frequently. Commissioner Thompson declared no ex parte but had accessed the north parking lot to observe traffic during peak times. Ashland Planning Commission June 23, 2020 Page 1 of 4 Chair Norton had no ex parte and no site visit since June 9, 2020. Questions of Staff Senior Planner Brandon Goldman at the meeting on June 9, 2020. Jerome White, the architect submitted additional testimony that addressed concerns the Commission raised regarding a deck encroaching into a common area and the request for two on-street parking spaces within 200-feet of a C-I-D zone. The applicant consulted their attorney regarding the deck. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions could create an allowance for the easements to run with the land. It would give the applicant the ability to build an encroachment into the common area and maintain it over time. The two on-street parking spaces were on First Street and outside the 200-foot buffer. The applicants were requesting two on-street parking spaces for potential change of use in the future. The parking spaces were included in the original subdivision from 2012. If this application was approved, there would be no further development on the site. Submittal (See attached) Written Testimony - None Rebuttal by Applicant - None Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Thompson/Pearce m/s to approvePA-T2-2020-00019, with the exception of the two on-street parking places. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Thompson noted aspects she liked about the project. The code allowed on-street parking credits to reduce the number of required off-street parking. In this case the applicant did not need an on-street parking credit because they had enough parking off street. Commissioner Pearce agreed with Commissioner Thompson adding it did not prohibit them from requesting then if the use changed. He thought the findings should link 18.5.2.010Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Harper, Pearce, the exceptions to the purpose of the site design review in . Dawkins, Thompson and Norton, YES. Motion passed. V. A. PLANNING ACTION: #PA-T3-2019-00001 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1511 Hwy 99 N OWNER/AGENTS/APPLICANT: Linda Zare/Casita Developments, LLC & Kendrick Enterprise, LLC/ Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Annexation of a 16.87-acre parcel and Zone Change from County RR-5 Rural Residential) to City R-2 (Low Density, Multi-Family Residential) for the properties located at 1511 Highway 99 North. The annexation is to include adjacent railroad property and state highway right-of-way. The application includes conceptual details for the future phased development of 196 apartments (1- and 2- Bedrooms, ranging from 480-701 square feet) in 14 two-story buildings; Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review development approvals are not requested here, and would be applied for subsequent to annexation. The application also requests an Exception to Street Standards to deviate from city standard parkrow and sidewalk improvements to respond to constraints of right-of-way width and existing encroachments. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: Existing County RR-5, Proposed City R-2; s: 1700 & 1702. Staff Report / Questions of Staff Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached): Ashland Planning Commission June 23, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Grand Terrace Annexation Contiguity & the Railroad Property Grand Terrace Annexation AMC 18.5.8.060 Boundaries Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 222.170 2017 ORS 222.170 Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 222.170; Subject Properties; ODOT Right of Way ORS 222.170 Triple Majority railroad to achieve contiguity and satisfy the option. It would not need consent from the Railroad. Commissioner Thompson explained this was the first she was hearing of this option. It would be difficult to reach a determination. Commissioner Dawkins agreed and wanted to know how ODOT and the Railroad would determine a valuation of their properties. Commissioner Pearce explained there was no assessed value on either property. It was the assessed value of the private properties. It was half the owners who owned more than half the land in the annexation area that was worth more than half the assessed value. He clarified it would be contiguous by including the additional property in the annexation. Commissioner Thompson confirmed the Triple Majority option would annex the Railroad without their consent. She clarified it was one of three statutes that talked about annexation by consent before a public hearing. An order or election was not required if there was a Triple Majority. Mr. Molnar further clarified this was an update on key issues and the contiguity was evolving. ORS 222.170 was preliminarily discussed but needed more information. A draft report would come before the Commission for consideration prior to it going to the City Council. Commission Harper asked if the owners of the properties circled by the annexation wanted to be included. Staff explained the neighbors were noticed and some had sent written comments. Staff would reach out and let them know the proposed boundaries. Key considerations were services they currently had and what the obligation would be if they came into the city. Staff clarified the ODOT right of way would remain a state highway that was in city limits until it met areas where the city had jurisdictional limits. It would be subject to ODOT standards. The City would have no control over signals or crosswalks. Transportation and Circulation Access Frontage Improvements (North) Frontage Improvements (South) Transit Improvements Commissioner Thompson asked about a two-way bike lane to avoid left turns across traffic. Staff noted the Transportation Commission had raised the same question. Interim Public Works Director Scott Fleury thought they could have a two-way bike lane within the existing right of way pending ODOT approval. Affordability Calculations & Constrained Lands The applicant proposed to reduce the affordability requirement by removing the unbuildable areas and wetland buffers and base their density calculations on 13.7.5 acres of the site. It would result in 7-10 fewer affordable units. In the Code,the minimum residential density for annexation called for 90% of the base density of the zone to be provided with annexation unless reductions in the total number of units were necessary to that minimum density to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations or physical constraints. The section requiring affordable housing stated a percentage of the base density did not provide for any reduction to accommodate significant natural Ashland Planning Commission June 23, 2020 Page 3 of 4 features or physical constraints. The applicant was contending the number of required affordable units should be reduced based on the total land area after the unbuildable lands were removed from the calculation. Presently, the code did not provide for any such reduction. Staff was currently proposing code revisions that would remove unbuildable lands from consideration in the calculations. The Commission could choose to add in their recommendation to the City Council the applicant made a reasonable argument in support of this approach; that staff had drafted code language reflecting the change and the legislative nature of an annexation would allow the City Council to take that approach. The Commission did not support revising the ordinance for this specific project. They were open to potential changes in the future. The Commission needed to approve the application based on the current code. The applicant could ask the City Council for a legislative fix during that public hearing. Next Steps Commissioners to weigh-in on issues identified and indicate any additional information they believe is o needed from the applicant or staff to arrive at a formal recommendation to Council. Motion to continue the action to a date certain July 14, 2020 or later. o Based on discussion tonight, staff will prepare a formal recommendation with draft findings for o consideration and adoption at the continued meeting. The Commission wanted more detailed analysis on contiguity in the recommendation to the City Council. The Commission also agreed the number of affordable housing units did not meet the requirement. Transportation concerns included traffic volume and speed, entering and exiting the site and bicycle safety. Both left turns seemed problematic. Some were not persuaded the north entrance should be limited to emergency traffic only. Other comments supported a two-way bike lane but thought it should be separated. The Commission could recommend the City talk to ODOT about reducing the speed. If the annexation was approved, the number of units could be increased or reduced. It would depend on the conditions the City Council put on the annexation. The City Council could adopt the annexation by ordinance and conduct a public hearing and vote on whether to annex or not. The application would be conditioned upon first going through the site design review process before approving the annexation. Commissioner Pearce commented the issues the applicant and property owners were having regarding the easement He also wanted to know if the applicant had abandoned their request for street design standards. The code applied to new developments and not annexations. He suggested including that it was irrelevant in the recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Molnar clarified the exception would be determined during site review. Annexation criteria were very specific to pedestrian improvements along the frontage. It was something the applicant would have to do. Commissioner The Commission continued the meeting to July 28, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. The item would not be re-noticed. Anyone who had submitted comments would be notified. Commissioner Dawkins/Pearce m/s to continue the public hearing to July 28, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed unanimously. VI. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned 8:43 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission June 23, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Meeting Minutes Attachments Meeting Presentations, exhibits and documents submitted during the meetings can be accessed online on the Agendas and Minutes page. Hard copies are available upon request. FINDINGS _________________________________ PA-T2-2020-00017 210 Alicia Street BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 14, 2020 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2020-00017, A REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION AND SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVALS FOR A ) 12-UNIT/13-LOT COTTAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 210 ALICIA ) AVENUE. THE APPLICANTION ALSO REQUESTS A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ) TO REMOVE TWO TREES INCLUDING ONE 36-INCH DIAMETER MULTI- ) TRUNKED WILLOW TREE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED AS A HAZARD, AND A ) FINDINGS, 20-INCH PLUM TREE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE DRIVE- )CONCLUSIONS & WAY INSTALLATION. ) ORDERS ) OWNER/APPLICANT: DAVID SCOTT CONSTRUCTION, LLC/ ) ROGUE PLANNING ) & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC ) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #1700 of Map 39 1E 04DB is located at 210 Alicia Avenue and is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-5). 2) The applicant is requesting Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review approvals for a 12- unit, 13-lot Cottage Housing Development for the property located at 210 Alicia Street. The application also requests a Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees including one 36-inch diameter multi-trunked Willow tree proposed to be removed as a hazard, and a 20-inch Plum tree proposed to be removed to accommodate driveway installation. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development. AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in as follows: a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 1 g. The development complies with the Street Standards. AMC 18.5.2.050 4) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are detailed in as follows: Underlying Zone: A. 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. Overlay Zones: B. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). Site Development and Design Standards: C. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. City Facilities: D. 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. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. E. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. AMC 18.2.3.090 5) The development standards for Cottage Housing Development are detailed in as follows: C. Development Standards. Cottage housing developments shall meet all of the following requirements. Cottage Housing Density. 1. The permitted number of units and minimum lot areas shall be as follows: PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 2 Table 18.2.3.090.C.1 Cottage Housing Development Density Minimum Maximum Minimum lot Maximum number of number of size Maximum Floor cottages per cottages per (accommodates Zones Cottage Area cottage cottage minimum Density Ratio housing housing number of (FAR) development development cottages) 1 cottage R-1-5, dwelling unit NN-1-5 per 2,500 3 12 7,500 sq.ft. 0.35 NM-R-1-5 square feet of lot area 1 cottage dwelling unit R-1-7.5 per 3,750 3 12 11,250 sq.ft. 0.35 NM-R-1-7.5 square feet of lot area 2. Building and Site Design. Maximum Floor Area Ratio: a. The combined gross floor area of all cottages and garages shall not exceed a 0.35 floor area ratio (FAR). Structures such as parking carports, green houses, and common accessory structures are exempt from the maximum floor area calculation. Maximum Floor Area. b. The maximum gross habitable floor area for 75 percent or more of the cottages, within developments of four units or greater, shall be 800 square feet or less per unit. At least two of the cottages within three unit cottage housing developments shall have a gross habitable floor area of 800 square feet or less. The gross habitable floor area for any individual cottage unit shall not exceed 1000 square feet. Height. c. Building height of all structures shall not exceed 18 feet. The ridge of a pitched roof may extend up to 25 feet above grade. Lot Coverage. d. Lot coverage shall meet the requirements of the underlying zone outlined in Table 18.2.5.030.A. Building Separation. e. A cottage development may include two-unit attached, as well as detached, cottages. With the exception of attached units, a minimum separation of six feet measured from the nearest point of the exterior walls is required between cottage housing units. Accessory buildings (e.g., carport, garage, shed, multipurpose room) shall comply with building code requirements for separation from non-residential structures. PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 3 Fences. f.Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18.4.4.060, fence height is limited to four feet on interior areas adjacent to open space except as allowed for deer fencing in subsection 18.4.4.060.B.6. Fences in the front and side yards abutting a public street, and on the perimeter of the development shall meet the fence standards of section 18.4.4.060. 3.Access, Circulation, and Off-Street Parking Requirements. Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option and 18.4 Site Development and Site Design Standards, cottage housing developments are subject to the following requirements: Public Street Dedications. a. Except for those street connections identified on the Street Dedication Map, the Commission may reduce or waive the requirement to dedicate and construct a public street as required in 18.4.6.040 upon finding that the cottage housing development meets connectivity and block length standards by providing public access for pedestrians and bicyclists with an alley, shared street, or multi-use path connecting the public street to adjoining properties. Driveways and parking areas. b. Driveway and parking areas shall meet the vehicle area design standards of section 18.4.3. i. Parking shall meet the minimum parking ratios per 18.4.3.040. ii. Parking shall be consolidated to minimize the number of parking areas, and shall be located on the cottage housing development property. iii. Off-street parking can be located within an accessory structure such as a multi-auto carport or garage, but such multi-auto structures shall not be attached to individual cottages. Single-car garages and carports may be attached to individual cottages. Uncovered parking is also permitted provided that off street parking is screened in accordance with the applicable landscape and screening standards of chapter 18.4.4. 4. Open Space. Open space shall meet all of the following standards. a. A minimum of 20 percent of the total lot area is required as open space. b. Open space(s) shall have no dimension that is less than 20 feet unless otherwise granted an exception by the hearing authority. Connections between separated open spaces, not meeting this dimensional requirement, shall not contribute toward meeting the minimum open space area. c. Shall consist of a central space, or series of interconnected spaces. d. Physically constrained areas such as wetlands or steep slopes cannot be counted towards the open space requirement. PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 4 e. At least 50 percent of the cottage units shall abut an open space. f. The open space shall be distinguished from the private outdoor areas with a walkway, fencing, landscaping, berm, or similar method to provide a visual boundary around the perimeter of the common area. g. Parking areas and driveways do not qualify as open space. Figure 18.2.3.090 Cottage Housing Conceptual Site Plans 5. Private Outdoor Area. Each residential unit in a cottage housing development shall have a private outdoor area. Private outdoor areas shall be separate from the open space to create a sense of separate ownership. a. Each cottage unit shall be provided with a minimum of 200 square feet of usable private outdoor area. Private outdoor areas may include gardening areas, patios, or porches. b. No dimension of the private outdoor area shall be less than 8 feet. 6. Common Buildings, Existing Nonconforming Structures and Accessory Residential Units. Common Buildings. a. Up to 25 percent of the required common open space, but no greater than 1,500 square feet, may be utilized as a community building for the sole use of the cottage housing residents. Common buildings shall not be attached to cottages. Carports and garage structures. b. Consolidated carports or garage structures, provided per 18.2.3.090.C.3.b, are not subject to the area limitations for common buildings. Nonconforming Dwelling Units. c. An existing single-family residential structure PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 5 built prior to the effective date of this ordinance (date), which may be nonconforming with respect to the standards of this chapter, shall be permitted to remain. Existing nonconforming dwelling units shall be included in the maximum permitted cottage density. 1,000 square feet of the habitable floor area of such nonconforming dwellings shall be included in the maximum floor area permitted per 18.2.3.090C.2.a. Existing garages, other existing non-habitable floor area, of 1,000 square feet shall not be included in the maximum floor area ratio. Accessory Residential Units. d. New accessory residential units (ARUs) are not permitted in cottage housing developments, except that an existing ARU that is accessory to an existing nonconforming single-family structure may be counted as a cottage unit if the property is developed subject to the provisions of this chapter. 7. Storm Water and Low-Impact Development. a. Developments shall include open space and landscaped features as a component filtration and on-site infiltration of storm water. b. Low impact development techniques for storm water management shall be used wherever possible. Such techniques may include the use of porous solid surfaces in parking areas and walkways, directing roof drains and parking lot runoff to landscape beds, green or living roofs, and rain barrels. c. Cottages shall be located to maximize the infiltration of storm water run-off. In this zone, cottages shall be grouped and parking areas shall be located to preserve as much contiguous, permanently undeveloped open space and native vegetation as reasonably possible when considering all standards in this chapter. 8. Restrictions. a. The size of a cottage dwelling may not be increased beyond the maximum floor area in subsection 18.2.3.090.C.2.a. A deed restriction shall be placed on the property notifying future property owners of the size restriction. AMC 18.5.7.040.B 6) The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in 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 PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 6 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 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 trees, 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 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. 7) On April 15, 2020 Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order #20-16 Keep Government Working: Ordering Necessary Measures to Ensure Safe Public Meetings and Continued Operations by Local Government During Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak 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 PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 7 8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held an electronic public hearingon May 12, 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 http://www.rvtv.sou.edu. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report were made available on-line at http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=17902 seven days prior to the hearing. The applicant was required to submit any presentation materials for consideration at the hearing by 3:30 th p.m.on Friday, May 8, and these materials were made available on-line and e-mailed to Commissioners. Those wishing to provide testimony were invited to submit written comments via e- mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the subject line by 3:30 p.m. on Monday, May 11, 2020, and these comments were made available on-line and e-mailed to Commissioners. The applicant was invited to provide written rebuttal to these public comments by3:30 th p.m.on Tuesday, May 12 and these arguments were posted on-line and e-mailed to Commissioners in advance of the electronic public hearing. All written testimony received by the deadlines was made available for Commissioners to review before the hearing and has been included in the meeting minutes. As provided in the -16, no oral public testimony was taken during the hearing. During the initial hearing on May 12, 2020 there were technical difficulties with broadcasting the meeting due to a power outage, with the broadcast failing after the hearing and record were closed but before Planning Commission deliberations had concluded. As such, the meeting was continued for the Planning Commission deliberations and decision until 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at which time the meeting was reconvened electronically and the Planning Commission, after consideration of the materials received, approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 8 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 Outline Plan approval, Site Design Review approval, Cottage Housing, and Tree Removal Permit meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3; for Site Design Review described in AMC 18.5.2.050; for a Cottage Housing Development described in AMC 18.2.3.090; and for a Tree Removal Permit as described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B. 2.3 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval. The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that, ordinance requirements of the CityCommission finds that the proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements, is requesting no Variances or Exceptions, and that this criterion has been satisfied. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development The Planning Commission notes that the application materials assert that adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the development, and that based on consultations with representatives of the various City departments (i.e. water, sewer, streets and electric) the proposed small cottage housing units will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. Water, Sewer, Electricity and Urban Storm Drainage Water The application explains, and Public Works has confirmed, that there is a six-inch water main in Sylvia Street, a four-inch water main in Alicia Street, and a fire hydrant is in place directly across from the driveway on Alicia Street. The applicant further asserts that there is adequate water pressure available to provide water service to the proposed new units. Sanitary Sewer The application explains, and Public Works has confirmed, that there is a six-inch sanitary sewer line within the right-of-way for Alicia Street and Sylvia Street. The applicant further notes that in discussions with the sanitary sewer department, there are no reported capacity issues in the vicinity. The application concludes that the 12 proposed small, water-efficient units should not cause the system to operate beyond its current capacity. Public Works staff have indicated they do not believe that this development will be putting enough new flow into the system to PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 9 negatively impact downstream capacity, that lines are very flat in this neighborhood, and they see no issues for sanitary sewer capacity, noting that the development drains into a sewer trunk line east of Sylvia Street, and on into the Oak Street line north of Nevada Street where there are no known capacity issues. Electricity The application indicates that electrical infrastructure is available in the immediate vicinity, and that the applicant has worked with the electrical department to design the provided electrical service plan, and is seeking to address desired solar panel installation and net-metering while existing electrical infrastructure. Urban Storm Drainage The application notes, and Public Works has confirmed, that there is a ten-inch storm sewer line within the Sylvia Street right-of-way. The applicant explains that the project is required to Standards as well as under the Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVSS) Standards for Storm Water Management, and the low impact development measures proposed including the use of pervious walkways and rain-barrel catchment of roof drainage to reduce the amount of storm water generated. The applicant proposes to capture, detain, treat and regenerate all storm drainage on the property through the use of a StormTech system which will detain and treat storm water before releasing it into the existing irrigation ditch adjacent to the parking lot. The applicant asserts that this should result in no added impacts to the Sylvia Street storm drain facilities. Police & Fire Protection An existing fire hydrant is in place directly across Alicia Avenue from the driveway entrance. As is typical, the Fire Marshal will review the final civil drawings and building permit submittals for compliance with fire codes relative to water supply and fire apparatus access, and conditions have been included below to require that the applicants address the requirements of the Fire Department including but not limited to approved addressing, fire apparatus access, fire hydrant distance and fire flow, as part of the Final Plan application submittal. With regard to the current Outline Plan, the Fire Marshal has indicated that he sees no issues which would preclude this development from occurring as they would be required to provide adequate access as well as hydrant placement and potentially sprinkling units that cannot meet fire requirements. The Fire Marshal concludes that in the event of an evacuation order from this area, there are two current means to access Oak Street and at some point, with infill likely, additional access to Carol and/or Clinton could develop. Adequate Transportation Alicia Avenue is a residential neighborhood street, as are nearby Sylvia Street, Oak Lawn Avenue, and Sleepy Hollow Drive which form the street system for the neighborhood off of Oak Street here. The Alicia Avenue right-of-way is 47 feet in width, and is paved to a width of approximately 20 feet. There are no sidewalks, curbs or gutters in place on either side of the PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 10 street, and right-of-way beyond the pavement is largely surfaced in gravel and accommodates pedestrian circulation and intermittent on-street parking. The Planning Commission finds that the driveway proposed to be 20-feet in width with a five-foot- from Alicia Avenue to the internal pedestrian circulation connecting to each unit and continuing through to the proposed open space. The scale of the proposed development does not trigger a Traffic Impact Analysis or other transportation assessment. Planning staff have noted that in recently considering a similarly sized cottage housing development at 476 North Laurel Street recently, a 12-unit cottage housing development was found to generate approximately 88 average daily trips (ADT) with eight p.m. peak hour trips and six a.m. peak hour trips while the trigger point for a Traffic Impact Analysis is 50 peak hour trips. Engineering staff have indicated that while no trip counts are available for Alicia Avenue, they would estimate that the existing daily trips on the street at around 100 ADT. The Commission finds that a residential neighborhood street is assumed to be able to accommodate up to 1,500 ADT, and as such the street has adequate transportation capacity to serve the 12 proposed small homes. The application includes preliminary Grading, Utility and Erosion Control Plans prepared by Registered Professional Engineer Scott D. Pingle of KAS & Associates, Inc. which identify existing facilities available in the adjacent rights-of-way along with proposed connections; meter and transformer placement; and storm water control, detention and treatment systems. The Planning and through the subject property from public utility easements and street right-of-way adjacent to the site, and that based on the conceptual plans and details from the various service providers, adequate key city facilities are available within the adjacent rights-of-way and will be extended by the applicant to serve the proposed development. Conditions have been included below to require that final electric service, utility and civil plans be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor and city departments in conjunction with the Final Plan submittal, and that civil infrastructure be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common ar Trees The Commission notes that six trees are identified on the subject property including: a 20-inch Plum which is proposed to be removed due to its location relative to necessary driveway improvements; a 14-inch unspecified deciduous tree; a 10-inch Walnut; an eight-inch Willow; a ten-inch Willow; and a 36-inch multi-trunked Willow which is proposed to be removed as a hazard tree. There is also a 14-inch Pine on the adjacent property near the west property line. The Commission finds that the application includes an assessment of the trees by Christopher John, a certified arborist with Canopy, LLC. John notes that the large Willow has three trunks PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 11 (21½-inches, 24-inches and 30-inches) in close proximity to one another, and that all three exhibit evidence of previous large limb failure, extensive rot and fungal growth, and multiple structural defects including cracks, and overall poor health. assessment is that this Willow is not suitable for an urban setting and would pose a hazard for people on the property, all the more so with further development, and he accordingly recommends that this Willow be removed and replaced with a more suitable tree. With regard to the 20-inch Plum located near the northern entrance to the property, the arborist explains that the tree is quite large for its species, and as the species is prone to do it has been losing limbs. He goes on to emphasize that Plums require maintenance that this tree has not received and as a result it has a poor form and limb failure. He concludes that this combined with the location relative to the driveway and parking lead him to recommend removal and replacement of the tree. For the remaining trees to be preserved and protected, the arborist recommends installation of 18.4.5), avoiding compaction within the tree protection zones, root protection during work within tree protection zones, and periodic watering during the months of June through September. Potential Wetland The Commission notes that a possible wetland Inventory has been identified on the subject property, and the applicant suggests it was formed property immediately to the east. The potential wetland area has been preliminarily assessed by a wetland biologist with Northwest Biological Consultants who has provided a letter indicating the wetland is a small area affected by irrigation water overflow from an open ditch and disconnected pipe which has since been repaired, and notes that the presence of upland soils and weak indicators of soils, plants, and hydrology suggest the presence of a small, marginal wetland. The letter goes on to note that with the pipe repaired and the artificial water source eliminated, new data will be collected this spring to determine whether removal of the artificial water source has eliminated the source of artificial hydrology for the potential wetland. The wetland biologist indicates that they believe this will be the case and that as such, the area will be determined not to be a jurisdictional wetland upon review by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). The wetland biologist concludes that pending that review by DSL, no ground disturbing activities are to take place within the wetland area or its buffer. The Planning Commission finds that if the possible wetland is found to be jurisdictional by DSL, an area extending 20 foot beyond its upland edge would be required to be protected within a Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) as provided in AMC 18.3.11. While there is not a clear idenfull extent with its protection zone, there is an area identified for protection with silt fencing within the proposed open space on the which correlates to cattails and reeds growing on- site. PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 12 The Planning Commission finds features including a possible wetland and six trees and proposed to preserve and protect all but two of the trees. One, a large Willow, has been found by a certified arborist to pose a hazard due to overall poor health including large limb failures, extensive rot, fungal growth and multiple structural defects. The other, a large Plum, has not been properly cared for resulting in poor form, and limb failure and it is proposed for removal as well. The remaining trees are to be preserved and protected. Similarly, the applicant has enlisted the services of a wetland biologist to assess a possible wetland on the property delineation of the wetland is underway, the site plan incorporates an open space configuration to preserve and protect the possible wetland and buffer, and no further ground disturbance is to occur a formal delineation, the full extent of the wetland and associated buffer zone will need to be clearly detailed in the Final Plan mn space. Conditions have been included below to require that for the wetland, a delineation be prepared, submitted for review and concurrence obtained from DSL, and the results incorporated into the Final Plan drawings including protection of the WRPZ. For the trees, conditions have been recommended to include tree protection fencing installation and verification before site work, and revised Tree Protection Plan for inclusion with the Final Plan submittal. The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, The Planning Commission finds that the development will not prevent adjacent land from being developed with the uses envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. Adjacent properties to the north, south and west are largely developed with single family residences as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The property immediately to the east is separated from the subject property by slopes ranging from 15 percent to more than 35 percent, and as such any future development would need to take access from Clinton Street. The fifth approval criterion is that, and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early The Planning Commission finds that at the time the Final Plan application is submitted, s and surveyor for review and approval by the City. These do provide adequate assurances relative to open space maintenance. The Commission further finds that if the project is to be completed in phases, the open space shall be completed no later than the sixt submittal have been included below. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the proposal complies with the fifth approval criterion. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter Cottage Housing Development Density addresses the permissible number of cottages for a cottage housing development in the R-1-5 zoning district providing PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 13 that one cottage per 2,500 square feet of lot area is allowed, with a maximum number of 12 cottages. The Planning Commission finds that the 54,722 square foot property here will accommodate 12 cottages (54,722/2,500 = 21.89) and 12 are proposed which complies with the allowed Cottage Housing Development Density. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the proposal complies with the sixth approval criterion. The development complies with the Street Standards. The subject property fronts on Alicia Avenue for a width of approximately 35 feet at the intersection with Sylvia Street. Alicia Avenue is a residential neighborhood street, as are nearby Sylvia Street, Oak Street here. The Alicia Avenue right-of-way is 47 feet in width, and is paved to a width of approximately 20 feet. There are no sidewalks, curbs or gutters in place on either side of the street, and right-of-way beyond the pavement is largely surfaced in gravel and used both for pedestrian travel and scattered on- street parking. For residential neighborhood streets, City street standards envision five-foot sidewalks, seven-foot parkrow planting strips, a six-inch curb and seven-foot parking bays on each side, with an 11- to 14-foot queuing travel lane. The city standard cross-section includes a 25- to 28-foot curb-to-curb paved width in a 50- to 55-foot right-of-way. The Planning Commission notesthat the existing street frontage is only 34-feet 4-inches in width, and the proposed driveway is to take up 30-feet of that width. The Commission finds that with the limited frontage taken up virtually in its entirely with required driveway improvements, there is no additional width for sidewalk installation. As such, a condition has been included below to instead require that the applicant instead sign-in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future improvement of Alicia Avenue, and of Oak Lawn Avenue which provides a connection out to Oak Street and its sidewalk system. The Cottage Housing Development Standards (AMC 18.2.3.090.C.3.a) generally provide that except for -1), the Planning Commission may reduce or waive requirement to dedicate and construct a public street according to the Street Design Standards in AMC 18.4.6.040 upon a finding that the Cottage Housing Development meets connectivity and block length standards by providing public access for pedestrians and bicyclists with an alley, shared street, or multi-use path connecting the public street to adjoining properties. The Commission finds that the existing street system within the immediate neighborhood meets the block length standards existing block lengths are 165-175 feet where the block length standards call for a maximum length of 300-400 feet and while not fully improved to City street design standards, functions comparably to a shared street and provides adequate connectivity through the neighborhood and out to Oak Street. City park land is located along the Bear Creek corridor to the property, to the park property would be approximately 450 feet and traverse severely constrained slopes. The park property is less than 500 feet from the driveway entrance traveling due north on Sylvia Street, and as such the Commission finds that additional right-of-way or easement dedication is not merited. PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 14 The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Outline Plan subdivision approval under the Performance Standards Options chapter. 2.4 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 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 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 dwelling units be processed under Chapter 18.3.9., and that the proposal involves a 12-unit cottage housing development and 13-lot subdivision for which the applicant has requested Outline Plan approval under the PSO-Overlay chapter 18.3.9. 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 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. The Commission finds that while no wetlands are identified on the subject property in the Local Wetlands Inventory, the applicant has identified a possible wetland on the property, a wetland biologist has been retained to assess the possible wetland, the possible wetland and a 20-foot buffer has been incorporated into the proposed open space, the applicant has proposed to limit ground disturbance until a delineation has been reviewed by the Oregon Department of State Lands and the applicant has planned all site improvements outside of the possible wetland and its buffer zone. The applicant further proposes to include a conservation area with restrictions stipulates that the uses and activities within the Water Resource Protection Zone shall be consistent with the provisions of AMC 18.3.11. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission finds that this criterion is satisfied. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design and that the various plans have been prepared based on these standards PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 15 and the recently adopted Cottage Housing ordinance. With regard to the parking requirements in AMC 18.4.3, cottage housing units less than 800 square feet require one off-street parking space be provided per unit, while units greater than 800 square feet and less than 1,000 square feet require 1½ spaces. Cottage Housing Developments are exempted from the requirement to provide on-street parking. Here, nine of the 12 units are 800 square feet while three are 999 square feet, and a total of 14 spaces are required \[(9 x 1) + (3 x 1.5) = 13.5\]. The Commission finds that 14 off-street parking spaces are proposed to fully satisfy the requirements for the 12 units proposed units here. Carports are considered by code to be garages, and separate bicycle parking facilities are not required where a garage is available. The Planning Commission finds that all required off-street parking has been provided on site, that on- street and bicycle parking are not required, and concludes that the third criterion has been satisfied. 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 subject propertyThe 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, and that these items are addressed in detail in the Outline Plan discussion in section 2.3 above. The Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied. The Planning Commission finds that the applicant has not requested any Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards, and as such this criterion does not apply. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Site Design Review approval. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies all applicable standards specific to Cottage Housing Development. The Planning Commission finds the proposal complies with the allowed development density, floor area ratio, height and lot coverage standards, with 12 cottages proposed for a 54,722 square foot parcel and a combined floor area ratio of 0.18. 75 percent of the proposed cottages are 800 square feet in gross habitable floor area, all of the cottages are proposed with roof peaks less than 25 feet from grade, exhibits have been provided to demonstrate that cottages within the development will not cast a shadow upon the roof of another cottage, and cottages along the north property line are noted as being designed to comply with Solar Setback Standard A. Lot coverage is proposed at 42 percent and is within the allowed standards for the R-1-5 zoning district. The Commission further finds that building separations are equal or greater than the six-foot minimum for cottages. With the exception of the attached units all cottages are separated by at least nine feet. The Commission finds that any fencing will comply with the limitations of the fence code and will not exceed four feet on interior areas adjacent to open space except as allowed for deer fencing, and a PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 16 the fencing limitations. The Planning Commission finds that the existing driveways separation between the subject property and 732 Sylvia Street to the north is non-conforming. There are curbs on Alicia or Sylvia, but the two driveways are immediately adjacent to one another and there is no additional frontage to create separation. The Commission finds that the existing non-conformity will not be made more non- conforming with the proposed development here. The Commission finds that the driveway and parking area proposed meet the vehicle area design standards in AMC 18.4.3. All spaces are to be standard nine-foot by 18-foot spaces with a 24-foot back- up area provided. The Commission further finds that the proposal meets the off-street parking requirements of AMC 18.4.3.040, providing 14 spaces for the 12 cottages in a single, consolidated parking area. Parking is to be provided in carports on each side of the drive aisle, and the carports will include for the project. The driveway is proposed to be improved to 20-feet in width which complies with the minimum driveway width for access to a parking area for 14-parking spaces. The driveway has been designed to accommodate a fire truck turn-around, and will be designated as such on-site, as required by the Ashland Fire Department. The property has frontage along Alicia Avenue. There are no street connections identified in the vicinity Street Dedication Map, and adjacent development, natural features and topography pose difficulties for future street extension. The applicant has proposed a walkway along the east side of the driveway extending from the street into and around the development for the use of residents and guests of the proposed cottage housing development. The Planning Commission finds that 14,701 square feet, or 26.86 percent of the site, is proposed in open space, where a minimum of 20 percent is required. The proposed common area open spaces consist of turf areas with pathways for easy access to and from the covered parking spaces to the cottage units. To the east of the parking area, a large landscape common area with decomposed granite paths at the edges of the estimated wetland buffer zone is proposed. This common area is connected to the formal walkways and a 20-foot turf strip to a community garden area that is along the west property line. A total area of 14,701 square feet of the lot area is dedicated to open spaces, which include 12,028 square feet of open space plus the possible wetland and its buffer which total 2,673 square feet in area. The Commission finds that the open spaces have no dimensions of less than 20 feet, and are connected with five-foot walkways. The open space is generally centrally located, and all units abut common open spaces that are 20-feet in width or greater. The cottages are arranged around the edges of the property with the primary common open space generally centered on the site. Eight of the units abut this open space. Additionally, along the north and south sides of the parking area, a 20-foot landscaped area with common walkway is proposed, and Lot #6 abuts the community garden open space. Of the 12 units proposed, seven directly abut the larger open spaces and all abut an at least 20-foot wide common open space. PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 17 The Commission further finds that the common open space is separated from the private outdoor areas. Private outdoor areas are proposed adjacent to the units with pathways that connect the entrances of the units to and through the open space with a walkway leading to the parking areas and public street beyond. Each cottage unit has a private, useable outdoor area of at least 200 square feet which includes garden areas, and porches or patios. These private areas do not have any dimensions less than eight feet. Low fencing and landscaping will provide visual boundaries around the perimeter of the common areas and between the private yards. The Commission finds that the development proposes on-site infiltration through an on-site catchment system that is a part of the projects low impact development storm water measures detailed in the civil and landscape drawings. Landscape garden bed filtration systems, permeable walkways and rain barrels are to be provided to allow for natural filtration and on-site filtration, and site drainage has been engineered to be filtered per regional (RVSS) standards with a StormTech system which, based on percolation rate of the soils and the storm water event studies, will retain and regenerate all storm water on-site. Based on the foregoing, The Planning Commission concludes that, as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal is consistent with the Cottage Housing Development Standards. 2.6 The Planning Commission notes that there are six trees on the subject property including: a 20- inch Plum which is proposed to be removed due to its location relative to necessary driveway improvements; a 14-inch unidentified deciduous tree; a 10-inch Walnut; an eight-inch Willow; a ten- inch Willow; and a 36-inch multi-trunked Willow which is proposed to be removed as a hazard tree. The application also notes that there is a 14-inch Pine on the adjacent property near the west property line. The Commission also notes that the application includes an assessment of the trees by Christopher John, a certified arborist with Canopy, LLC. The project arborist notes that the large Willow has three trunks (21½-inches, 24-inches and 30-inches) in close proximity to one another, and that all three exhibit evidence of previous large limb failure, extensive rot and fungal growth, and multiple structural defects including cracks, and overall poor health. His assessment is that this Willow is not suitable for an urban setting and poses a hazard for people on the property, all the more so with further development of the site. He recommends that this Willow be removed as a hazard and replaced with a suitable tree. This tree is located within the buffer zone of the possible wetland identified, however hazard tree removal is exempt from regulation under the Water Resources Protection Zones (WRPZ) Ordinance in AMC 18.3.11. The Commission further notes that with regard to the 20-inch Plum located near the northern entrance to the property, the arborist indicates that the tree is quite large for its species, and as the species is prone to do it has been losing limbs. He goes on to emphasize that Plums require maintenance that this tree has not received and as a result it has a poor form and has experienced limb failure. He concludes that this combined with the location relative to the driveway and parking lead him to recommend removal and replacement of the tree. The applicant notes that removal of this tree allows the site to develop in a manner consistent with applicable Site Design standards, and that the removal will not have any impact PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 18 on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, windbreaks, or tree densities. The Commission finds that 23 new trees are identified in the Landscape Plan provided (Sheet L-101), which more than satisfies the one-for-one mitigation requirement. The Commission further notes that the Ashland Tree Commission was unable to convene its regular 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 (AMC 18.4.5). In addition, the arborist has recommended that the applicant avoid soil compaction within the tree protection zones, provide for root protection during any work within tree protection zones, and periodically water preserved trees from during the warmer months (June through September). Conditions have been included to require tree protection fencing installation and verification before site work, and to incorporate the e Protection Plan for inclusion with the Final Plan submittal. 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 two trees. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review approvals for a 12-unit/13-lot Cottage Housing development, and Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. The project is intended to as a zero net energy development with solar panels installed on the two carport buildings, and will include 12 modestly sized units developed around a generous central open space which includes an area reserved to protect a possible wetland, the type of development envisioned with the adoption of the Cottage Housing ordinance. The Commission believes that the development merits approval with the conditions detailed below. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #PA-T2-2020-00017. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2020-00017 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 19 1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein, including that no ground-disturbing activities are to take place within the potential wetland area or its associated buffer until it has been determined whether the potential wetland is jurisdictional and concurrence has been obtained from the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). 2. That any new addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. Street and subdivision names shall be subject to City of Ashland Engineering Department review for compliance with applicable naming policies. 3. That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in the public right of way, including but not limited to permits for new driveway approaches or any necessary encroachments. 4.That a Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to any site work including excavation, staging or storage of materials, or excavation permit issuance. The Tree Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the two trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for trees to be protected on adjacent properties. Standard tree protection consists of chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with the requirements of AMC 18.4.5.030.B. No construction shall occur within the tree protection zone including dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste, equipment, or parked vehicles. 5.That the applicant shall obtain approval of Demolition/Relocation Review Permits through the City of Ashland Building Division prior to demolition of existing structures on the subject property if found to be necessary by the Building Official. 6.That 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 Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. 7.That the Final Plan submittal shall include: a.That draft CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and responsibility for the maintenance of all common use-improvements including driveways, parking areas, carports, landscaping/open space, and storm water facilities. The cottage housing fencing limitations, floor area limitations and the prohibition on b.The approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be noted in the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. c.A wetland delineation with concurrence from the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). If the delineation identifies a jurisdictional wetland, the wetland and its protection zone shall be clearly identified in the Final Plan drawings. d.A phasing plan for the completion of the development. e.Final site lighting details. f.Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with the applicable coverage allowances of the zoning district. Lot coverage includes all building PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 20 footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping. g.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, irrigation, mutual access and circulation, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the Final Plan submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. h.Final electric service, utility and civil engineering plans including. All civil infrastructure shall be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to the submittal of the final survey plat for review and signature. i.The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, and storm drainage pipes and catch basins, along with any backflow prevention measures required by the Water Department because there is a non-potable water source (irrigation) on the property. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the civil plans. ii.The final electric design and distribution plan shall include load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment with the Final Plan application. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to the signature of the final survey plat. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots within the applicable phase prior to submittal of the final survey plat for review and signature. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for the full amount of underground service installation (with necessary permits and connection fees paid) as an alternative to installation of service prior to signature of the final survey plat. In either case, the electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. iii.The storm drainage plan shall detail the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project, and shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post- development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation has been addressed through the final design. i.A final grading and erosion control plan. j.A final Tree Protection Plan addressing the trees on the property to be preserved and trees on adjacent properties within 15 feet of the property line. The plan shall identify the location and placement of fencing around the drip lines of trees identified for preservation as required in AMC 18.4.5.030.B.1. The amount of fill and grading within the drip line shall be minimized. Cuts within the drip line shall be noted on the tree protection plan, PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 21 and shall be executed by handsaw and kept to a minimum. No fill shall be placed around the trunk/crown root. The recommendations of the project arborist in terms of soil compaction, root protection and periodic water shall be incorporated into this plan. k.A final size- and species-specific landscaping plan including irrigation details satisfying the Water Conserving Landscaping Guideline in AMC 18.4.4.030.I. New landscaping shall comply with the General Fuel Modification Area requirements and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List adopted by Resolution #2018-028. All landscaping shall be installed according to the approved plan, and tied into the existing irrigation system, inspected and approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. l.That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to fire hydrant distance, spacing and clearance; fire flow; fire apparatus access, approach, turn-around, and firefighter access pathway; approved addressing; fire sprinkler and extinguishers as applicable; limits on fencing and gates which would impair access; and wildfire hazard area requirements shall be satisfactorily addressed in the Final Plan submittals. Fire Department requirements shall be included in the civil drawings, and a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements of AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2. shall be included with the Final Plan submittal. 8.A final survey plat shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor within 12 months and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. Prior to submittal of the final subdivision survey plat for review and signature: a.The final survey plat shall include a deed restriction notifying future property owners that the size of a cottage dwelling may not be increased beyond the maximum floor area in subsection 18.2.3.090.C.2.a. This size limitation shall also be addressed in the b.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, mutual access, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. c.The driveway approach shall be installed under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plan, inspected and approved prior to the submittal of the final survey plat for signature. d.Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utility installations shall be completed according to approved plans prior to submittal of the final survey plat for review and signature. e.The driveway shall be paved to 20-foot width, a vertical clearance of 13-feet, 6-inches and be able to withstand 44,000 lbs. The flag drive shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over the private property lines and/or the public way. f.Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected and approved. The electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation. g.Sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots, inspected and approved. PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 22 h.The property owner shall sign in favor of Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) for the future street improvements, including but not limited to paving, sidewalks, parkrow with irrigated street trees, curb, gutter, storm drainage and undergrounding of utilities, for Alicia and Oak Lawn Avenues. This LID agreement shall be signed and recorded concurrently with the final survey plat. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City ordinances and resolutions. 9.That the building permit submittals shall include: a.Final permit drawings addressing all requirements of the Building Division, including but not limited to that the attached units or any units where exterior walls are less than three feet from a property line shall address fire separation requirements, and fire-rated assemblies for attached units shall include a sound transmission class rating of 45 for air- borne sound. b.Identification of all easements, including public and private utility easements, mutual access easements and fire apparatus access easements. c.Solar setback calculations demonstrating that the northern units comply with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula \[(Height 6)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. Other cottage housing units shall provide demonstration of compliance with the Cottage Housing Development Standards requiring that the not cast a shadow on the roof area of another cottage. d.That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system through the curb or gutter at a public street, a public storm pipe, an approved 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. July 14, 2020 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2020-00017 July 14, 2020 Page 23 FINDINGS _________________________________ PA-T2-2020-00019 Vacant Tax Lots #10104 & #10105 on First Street (North of Lithia Way, Across from the Post Office) BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 14, 2020 IN THE MATTER OF PA-T2-2020-00019, A REQUEST FOR SITE DESIGN REVIEW) APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT THE THIRD AND FINAL PHASE OF THE FIRST ) PLACE SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF ) LITHIA WAY AND FIRST STREET. THE PROPOSED PHASE THREE ) REQUESTS SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW THREE-) STORY, MIXED-USE BUILDING - T - ON ) LOTS #4 AND #5, TWO VACANT LOTS AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ) THE SITE ALONG FIRST STREET, ACROSS FROM THE U.S. POST OFFICE. ) THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES CONSOLIDATION OF THE TWO LOTS AND ) FINDINGS, CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,547 SQUARE FOOT, THREE-STORY MIXED USE ) CONCLUSIONS BUILDING INCLUDING GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE AND FOUR ) & ORDERS RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE UPPER FLOORS. THE APPLICATION ) REQUESTS TO MODIFY THE COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING AND PARK- ) ING CONFIGURATION TO PROVIDE MORE EFFICIENT ACCESS FROM THE ) ACCESSIBLE PARKING TO THE ENTRANCES, AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE ) SITE ) STANDARDSTO ALLOW A STAGGERED STREET SETBACK AND THE ) UPPERFLOOR WINDOWS TO BE INSTALLED IN GROUPS OF THREE WHICH ) WHEN VIEWED TOGETHER ARE MORE HORIZONTAL THAN VERTICAL. ) ) APPLICANT/OWNER: Randy Jones forFirst Place Partners, LLC ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lots 10104 and 10105 of Map 39 1E 09 BA are located on First Street across from the U.S. Post Office, and are Lots #4 and #5 within the First Place Subdivision. Both lots are zoned Commercial (C- 1). 2) The applicant is requesting Site Design Review approval to construct the third phase of the First Place Subdivision, which is located at the corner of Lithia Way and First Street. Phase One included the construction of a three-story 18,577 square foot mixed-use building (designated with basement parking, commercial space on the first floor, and ten residential units split between the ground, second and third floors. This building was approved for the by the Planning Commission in 2012, is now addressed as 175 Lithia Way, and is occupied by Pony Espresso Coffeehouse Café and Washington Federal Bank. Phase Two is now under construction and consists of a three-story mixed-use building, the applicants , on Lots #2 and #3 of the subdivision, at the corner of Lithia Way and First Street. The PA-T2-2020-00019 July 14, 2020 Page 1 building is approximately 32,191 square feet, with basement parking, ground floor commercial, and 34 residential units providing artist housing for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival distributed between the ground, second and third floors. Phase Three proposed here involves a t lots (Lots #4 and #5) to construct a new 10,547 square foot, three-story mixed use building as the third and space, while the second floor will include three one-bedroom residential units and the third floor will have one two-bedroom residential unit. The proposal includes modifications to the common area landscaping and parking configuration to provide more efficient access from the accessible parking to the entran Standards to allow for a staggered street setback and to allow vertical windows to be grouped in threes on the upper floor so that they appear to be more horizontal than vertical. Proposed site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.2.050 as follows: A. Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1, 2, or 3, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; PA-T2-2020-00019 July 14, 2020 Page 2 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 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 18.2.3090 (Ord. 3147 § 9, amended, 11/21/2017). 4) On April 15, 2020 Oregon Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order #20-Keep Government Working: Ordering Necessary Measures to Ensure Safe Public Meetings and Continued Operations by Local Government During Coronavirus (COVID-19) OutbreakOrder 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. 5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held an electronic public hearing on June 9, 2020 which was abbreviated due to technical difficulties with Rogue Valley Televisions live broadcast. The hearing was therefor continued to June 23, 2020 and re-noticed accordingly. 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 https://rvtv.sou.edu. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report were made available on-line at ndth http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?SectionID=0&CCBID=198 on June 2, and again on June 16, seven days prior to the hearing dates. The applicant was required to submit any presentation materials rdnd for consideration at the June 23 hearing continuation by 3:30 p.m. on June 22, and these materials were made available on-line and e-mailed to Commissioners. Those wishing to provide testimony were invited to submit written comments via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the subject June 23 10:00 a.m. on Monday, June 22, 2020, for these comments to be made available on-line and e-mailed to Commissioners. The applicant was invited to provide written th rebuttal to these public comments by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, June 23 and as no public comments were received other than from the applicant, no rebuttal was provided. All written testimony received by the deadlines was made available for Commissioners to review before the hearing and has been included in the meeting record-16, no oral public testimony was taken during the hearing. Following the close of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: PA-T2-2020-00019 July 14, 2020 Page 3 SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the following index of exhibits, data and testimony is used: Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, and the public testimony and exhibits received electronically. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to construct the third and final phase of the First Place Subdivision for the property located at the corner of Lithia Way and First Street meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review as described in AMC 18.5.2.050, and that the proposals for Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Downtown Design Standardsmeet all applicable criteria for an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards described in AMC 18.5.2050.E. 2.3 The Planning Commission notes that the current application involves the development of the two remaining vacant lots created with the six- approved by the Planning Commission in October of 2012 as PA #2012-01122. In conjunction with that approval, a Site Review permit to construct a three-story 18,577 square foot mixed-use building with a basement consisting of basement parking, commercial and residential space on the first floor and residential space on the second and third floors was approved as Phase I. This building, now is complete and occupied with a bank and coffee shop on the ground floor, and a total of ten residential units. The Commission further finds that site infrastructure including most utilities, paving of the driveway and parking areas, sidewalks, street trees, and streetlights were installed along both frontages with completion of the subdivision improvements and the subsequent development of Lot #1 as Plaza West. The Commission further notes that the proposed Phase Two of the First Place subdivision is now under construction and consists of a three-story mixed- on Lots #2 and #3 of the subdivision, at the corner of Lithia Way and First Street. The building is approximately 32,191 square feet, with basement parking, ground floor commercial, and 34 units of artist housing for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival distributed between the ground, second and third floors. PA-T2-2020-00019 July 14, 2020 Page 4 The Commission finds that the proposed Phase Three of the First Place subdivision development requires Site Design Review approval to construct a new mixed- both lots fronting on First Street across from the U.S. Post Office parking area. The proposal includes consolidation of the two lots to construct a 10,547 square foot, three-story mixed-use building including ground floor commercial space and four residential units above. The application also includes requests to modify the common area landscaping and parking configuration to provide for more efficient circulation between the accessible parking and the building entrances by moving an accessible parking space nearer to the building and adding a walkway from the space to the First Street entrance Downtown Design Standards to allow for a staggered street setback and to allow vertical windows to be installed in groups of three on the upper floors in a manner that appears more horizontal than vertical. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal involves a mix of permitted commercial uses (retail and office) and residential units. The commercial uses are outright permitted in the Retail Commercial (C-1) district, and residential units are a special permitted use in the district. C-1 zoning regulations require a minimum of 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor of the building be used for permitted or special permitted uses. Here, the proposal designates 81.4 percent of the ground floor area for Plaza North as commercial space, with the remaining 18.6 percent of the ground floor and the full second and third floors dedicated to accommodating the four residential units. With the current application and the first two phases (Plaza West and Plaza East), 41 units of the -unit residential density will be built on site. The applicants propose to allocate parking between the proposed buildings, and have provided calculations demonstrating how the available 55 spaces of surface parking and 27 garage spaces are to be allocated between the buildings, as illustrated in the table below, along with calculations demonstrating that the 82 parking spaces as allocated will accommodate the proposed commercial and residential uses proposed. e commercial uses in addition to the proposed residential units. The proposed allocations are summarized in the table below. FIRST PLACE SUBDIVISION ALLOCATIONS SURFACE PARKING GARAGE PARKING RESIDENTIAL UNITS BUILDING () () 55 Spaces Available(27 Spaces Available) 43-Unit Available Density Plaza West (18,577 s.f.) 15 12 10 Plaza East (32,191 s.f.) 26 14 27* Plaza North (10,547 s.f.) 14 1 4 TOTAL 55 27 41 PA-T2-2020-00019 July 14, 2020 Page 5 The Commission finds that a request for allocation of two on-street parking credits as part of this application is not presently necessary to reduce the required off-street parking spaces as the proposal accommodates needed parking on-site without the additional parking credits. In the event a change of use is proposed, which increases the number of parking spaces required, the allocation of available on street parking credits may be considered at that time. A condition has been recommended below requiring that revised parking allocation information be provided with each building permit as the commercial tenant spaces develop or tenant occupancies change to verify that the parking allocated will accommodate the parking required for all existing and proposed uses. The C-1 zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel abuts a residential zoning district, in which case a ten-foot per story rear yard setback and a ten-foot side yard setback are required. The Commission finds that as proposed, the building lots here do not directly abut the R-2 residential zoning district to the north, however the common area parcel north of Plaza North abuts the R-2 zoning district and there is at least a 38-foot separation between the residential property and the proposed three-story Plaza North building. Section drawings have been Solar Access Ordinance The proposed building height for the Plaza North building is 40 feet, which has been calculated based on an average of the finished grade on all four elevations. 40 feet is the maximum height permitted in the C-1 zone. The landscaping plan provided identifies 16.4 percent of the site as included in landscaped areas, which satisfies both the 15 percent requirement for the C-1 district and the required seven percent landscaping requirement for the parking area. In keeping with the requirements of the Site Review Chapter, the application materials provided identify that both the required 15 percent landscaping and seven percent parking lot landscaping are to be provided with completion of the project. The landscaping plans provided include full irrigation plans. A new trash enclosure is illustrated in the parking lot behind Plaza North, and the application further notes that all lights are to be selected and placed to avoid direct illumination of adjacent residential properties. Conditions to ensure that these items are installed and maintained according to standards have been included below. The bicycle parking requirements in AMC 18.4.3.070 call for at least one bicycle parking space to be provided for every five automobile parking spaces, with fifty percent of these spaces to be covered, and that additional covered bicycle parking spaces be provided for each residential unit. For the 55 surface automobile parking spaces proposed, at least 11 bicycle parking spaces are required to be provided on site and half of these must be covered. Additionally, four covered spaces are required for the three residential units in Plaza North which do not have individual garages. As originally approved, the subdivision proposal identified five racks for ten bicycle parking spaces in the plaza space to the west of Plaza West and three racks for six bicycle parking spaces adjacent to the walkway north of what is to be Plaza North. These eight racks would provide 16 bicycle parking spaces, exceeding the amount required. As currently installed, only three racks for six spaces are in place adjacent to Plaza West and two PA-T2-2020-00019 July 14, 2020 Page 6 racks for four spaces are in place near the proposed Plaza North. A total of at least 15 spaces are required, and a total of ten of these much be covered. A condition has been added below to require that the additional bicycle parking and coverage in keeping with the requirements of AMC 18.4.3.070.I & .J be identified in the building permits and installed prior to occupancy of the building proposed here. The First Place subdivision lies within the Detail Site Review Zone, the Downtown Design Standards Zone, and the Downtown and Railroad historic districts. As a result, the application is subject to the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards, Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects, the Downtown Design Standards and Historic District Design Standards. The Planning Commission finds that because site layout, parking, pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation, and landscaping were largely addressed through the 2012 Subdivision and Site Review applications, the current review is focused largely on the design of the proposed new Plaza North building relative to the applicable design standards. The Commission finds that the proposed building designs meet the Basic Site Review Standards. Plaza North relates well to the First Street frontage. Streetscape and landscape amenities are being provided in conformance with standards. Parking and circulation are placed behind the buildings, and requisite parking lot landscaping and screening are detailed in the plans provided in a manner consistent with the original approvals and minor modifications here. The application recognizes the requirements to address noise and glare, and notes that noise will be within limits typical of the permitted use and will not exceed standards, and that lighting will be appropriately placed and directed to avoid directly illuminating adjacent properties. The Commission also finds that the Detail Site Review Standards are fully addressed with the proposed Plaza North building. The project is subject to meeting at least a 0.50 Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and the application includes calculations demonstrating that with the full build-out proposed, the subdivision FAR will be at approximately 1.26, while the Plaza North property is at an approximately 2.0 FAR. The building entries from the sidewalk emphasized through design elements. Awnings are not proposed along the First Street façade due to the stepped setbacks and use of landscaped areas, but instead relies on two recessed entries to provide protection from the elements. The Plaza North building is subject to Large Scale Design Standards, as its floor area is greater than 10,000 square feet. The application explains that the building complies with the 45,000 square foot floor area limitation as applied within the Downtown Design Standards Zone, noting that the proposed building consists of 10,547 square feet of gross floor area. ulated to relate to First Street divided into six vertical bays in keeping with the historic downtown pattern, with two recessed entrances to provide pedestrians with protection from the elements and relate the building to a more human scale. The Large Scale requirements call for one square foot of plaza or public space to be provided for every 10 square feet PA-T2-2020-00019 July 14, 2020 Page 7 of gross floor area. The application notes that the development as proposed, including the floor area of all buildings, will have a combined floor area of 61,551 square feet which would require 6,155 square feet of plaza or public space and that the project includes 6,211 square feet of public plaza space which is in excess of that required. The application also notes that the plaza space provided incorporates a mix of at least four of the six elements for plazas and public spaces as called for in the standards, with sitting areas, areas that provide sunlight and shade, protection from wind, trees, and potential outdoor eating areas. Trash and recycling facilities are to be provided in an enclosure within the common parking lot behind the building The Commission further finds that other than the Exceptions requested, which are discussed more fully below, the buildingdesign complies with the Downtown Design Standards. The applicant has proposed multi-story, downtown-style buildings which extend from side lot line to side lot line placed generally at the back of the sidewalk, and which incorporate large street-level windows and transparent doors. The building incorporates horizontal and vertical rhythms through divisions on the façade as required by the standards, and provides for some variation in parapet height to provide the traditional streetscape appearance sought by the standards. The building incorporates varied architectural and material treatments to provide a base for a sense of strength, flat roofs with parapets, and creates a varied streetscape with distinct character which is in keeping with the standards seeking to maintain the traditional rhythms of the historic downtown. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed building designs are generally in keeping with the height, scale, massing, setbacks, roof forms, and rhythm of openings typical of the surrounding area and sought in the Historic District and Downtown Design Standards. The Planning Commission finds that public facilities and utilities were installed with the 2012. These included: Some electric infrastructure was extended in association with the 2007 Subdivision approval, and the 2012 subdivision infrastructure work and subsequent development of Plaza West completed the installation of transformers necessary to serve the site and first building. Three- phase electrical service is available to the site, and the Electric Department has previously indicated that there is adequate power available to serve the full development of the property with the extension of the necessary individual services for each of the proposed buildings. Existing four-inch water mains are available in both Lithia Way and First Streets, and a new eight-inch water line was extended to provide a connection to B Street as part of the subdivision improvements in 2007. Four-inch laterals were also extended to each of the individual lots with the 2007 subdivision work. A six-inch sewer line in First Street was upgraded to eight-inches to serve the project as part of the 2007 subdivision improvements. A private 12-inch storm drain line was installed on site, and a new 12-inch public storm drain line was installed in First Street to convey stormwater run-off from the site to the existing storm drain line at B and First Streets as part of subdivision improvements in 2007. With completion of the current request, 16.4 percent of the site is proposed to be landscaped, reducing run-off PA-T2-2020-00019 July 14, 2020 Page 8 from the site, which was until the 2007 subdivision improvements entirely covered with pavement and buildings, and a bio-swale is to be installed in the northeastern portion of the common area lot to allow for on-site detention and filtration of stormwater before it enters the city storm sewer system. Paved access is provided directly from First Street and to Pioneer Street via an easement through the existing City o 2007, two curb cuts were removed from Lithia Way and one from First Street in order to comply with city and state requirements for controlled access. As part of the 2007 subdivision improvements, the existing public sidewalks along the project perimeter on both Lithia Way and First Street were widened. The installation of street trees, tree grates, irrigation and streetlights complying with downtown streetlight spacing requirements were completed in conjunction with Phase One. There is an existing transit stop located along Lithia Way nearby, between First and Second Streets, a short walk from the subject property. The Planning Commission finds that water, sewer, paved access to and through the development site, electricity, urban storm drainage and adequate transportation to and through the subject property can and will be provided, with site utilities completed with the subdivision infrastructure and individual services to the proposed buildings to be completed under the current request; vehicular access provided from existing fully-improved streets; sidewalks which are to be widened to meet current street standards along Lithia Way; and easements which were provided with the subdivision to increase vehicular and pedestrian connectivity to and through the site. Conditions have been added below to require final electrical service and utility plans for the proposed building for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Public Works and Electric Departments in conjunction with building permit review. 2.5 The proposed Plaza North building, as the applicants Phase Three, includes two requests for Exceptions to the Site Development and Design gn Standards. One of these would allow for a staggered street setback of the building relative to the First Street sidewalk, and the other would allow upper floor windows that are more horizontal than vertical. AMC 18.4.2.060.C.2.a Except for arcades, alcoves and other recessed features, buildings shall maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or property line Areas having public utility easements or similar restricting conditions shall be exempt from this standard. proposed Plaza N that this is due to the property, which is otherwise rectangular, having an acute angle with First Street. The applicants go on to explain that this provided the opportunity to create a stepped façade that works better with the lot shape and which creates a more interesting streetscape. The design places the corners of each step at or near the First Street sidewalk, steps back a prescribed distance, and then steps again at the point the front wall intersects with First Street sidewalk. The applicant asserts that this stepping of the façade eases the transition from the commercial zone to the residential zone, and further explains that the alternative, a flat façade angled with the street, would be contrary to the character of the downtown. The applicant emphasizes that the design here is based on a traditional building setting in the downtown rather than the shape of the lot. Entrances are recessed in keeping with the standards (AMC 18.4.2.060.C.2.b) to emphasize their respective PA-T2-2020-00019 July 14, 2020 Page 9 locations, and landscaping will be provided in the stepped back areas. The applicants argue that the standard, and the majority of buildings in the downtown, are based on a 90 degree frontage and that the proposed design is an attempt to create a more traditional frontage treatment in response to what is roughly a 120 degree angled frontage, and which they believe is consistent with the intent of the standard in seeking to create an engaging pedestrian streetscape. The Planning Commission finds that the building design creating the stepping back of the façade as proposed addresses a the unusual triangular configuration of the site in a manner that will not negatively impact adjacent properties, and results in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. The application also requests Exception from AMC 18.4.2.060.C.4.cUpper floor window orientation shall primarily be vertical (height greater than width). The applicant asserts that placing two or three vertical windows grouped in a single bay compliments the , which is divided into vertical bays that step down as the building gets closer to the residential zone to the north, and helps to maintain the rhythm of openings sought in the standards. The applicant further suggests that the intent of the standard was to ensure that individual windows were more vertical. The application includes photos to illustrate similar groupings of vertical windows on historic buildings within the downtown. The Commission concurs, and finds that these windows do not overwhelm the character of the façade. AMC Figure 18.4.2.060.C.1 and C.6, referenced as recommended treatments in the standard, both illustrate similar groupings of vertical windows. The Commission finds that the horizontal groupings of vertical windows as proposed results in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Historic District Design Standards. The Commission further finds that the e vertical mass down as it gets nearer to the adjacent residential neighborhood provide an appropriate and effective transition that will not negatively impact adjacent properties, and results in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. 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 approval to construct the third and final phase Downtown Design Standards are supported by evidence contained within the whole record. The project poses a number of challenges in that it involves developing an entire block of the downtown under the same set of standards while maintaining contextual compatibility with a downtown that has developed and evolved organically over more than 150 years, and doing so while managing the transition between the intensity of the downtown core and an historic residential neighborhood literally just over the fence. PA-T2-2020-00019 July 14, 2020 Page 10 During the 2012 review of the original Subdivision application and request for Site Review approval for Plaza West, it was noted that the project could result in a large, prominent downtown site which had stalled with the economy and languished for years developing to a degree beyond that required by city standards while providing increased vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, aesthetic improvements, and a significant reduction in stormwater run-off. It was further suggested that the first proposed building, with ten residential units including one affordable unit, could inject a new vitality into the Lithia Way corridor while at the same time the subdivision could provide for a smooth transition between the intense commercial uses of the downtown and the less intense, residential character of the adjacent neighborhood. With the Plaza West now occupied, Plaza East under construction with workforce housing for Oregon phase to complete development of the site, the Commission finds that the applicants have effectively met the challenges posed in designing buildings that, while compatible with one another, their surroundings and various design standards, still manage to maintain strong individual characters that contribute positively to the streetscape and the downtown. Plaza North manages to balance this design compatibility with the buildings along Lithia Way while stepping back with the angle of First Street and down with its slope to blend the entire project smoothly into the Railroad District. The site layout, parking, pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation, and landscaping were largely completed with the 2012 Subdivision and Site Review approvals, and the current review focuses on the design of Plaza North relative to the applicable design standards. For the Commission, the proposed Plaza North building can be found to satisfy the relevant approval criteria for Site Review and Exception to the Downtown Design Standards and merits approval. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve PA-T2-2020-00019. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then PA-T2-2020-00019 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.The windows on the ground floor of the proposed building shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building, and the commercial entrances adjacent to First Street shall remain functional and open to the public during all business hours. 3.That prior to site work, storage of materials or building permit issuance, tree protection measures shall be installed, inspected and approved on site by the Staff Advisor through a Tree Verification Permit. 4.That any necessary construction closure or detouring of the sidewalks shall be approved by the Ashland Engineering and Planning Departments prior to issuance of permits or work in the right-of-way. 5.That a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area PA-T2-2020-00019 July 14, 2020 Page 11 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 Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. 6.To obtain priority building permit plan check processing as provided in AMC 15.04.092.2, the applicant shall provide the following documentation with the building permit submittals demonstrating the steps being taken in working towards LEED certification: a) hiring and retaining a LEED Accredited Professional (AP) as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project; and b) providing the LEED checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued. Building permit submittals must clearly specify the materials, systems and strategies to be used in achieving the credits. A final report shall be prepared by the LEED AP and presented to the City upon completion of the project verifying that the project has met the LEED standard. 7.Sign permits shall be obtained prior to installation of any new signage. All signage shall be consistent with the requirements of AMC 18.4.7. 8.That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a)The plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved here. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. b)All easements shall be shown on the building permit submittals. c)That a final drainage plan shall be submitted at the time of a building permit for review and approval by the Engineering, Building, and Planning Divisions. Storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls 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. d)A final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Engineering, and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all 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. e)The applicant shall submit a final electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment for each building. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to building permit submittals. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least PA-T2-2020-00019 July 14, 2020 Page 12 visible from the street, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. f)That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from First Street. The location and screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. g)Exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties. h)That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals. The information shall be consistent with the colors, texture, dimensions and shape of materials and building details proposed and approved as part of this land use application. Exterior building colors shall be muted colors, as described in the application. Bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with AMC 18.4.2.040.C.4.b in the Detail Site Review Standards. i)Building permit submittals shall identify all required bicycle parking installations. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking, and the building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with AMC 18.4.3.070.I & .J. A total of at least 11 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on the common area of the project, and at least six of these must be covered. An additional four spaces of covered bicycle parking shall be identified and provided to serve the three residential units in Plaza North that do not have individual garages. j)Final solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard B in the formula \[(Height 16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade shall be included in building permit submittals. k)Prior to any work within the public rights-of-way, all necessary permits must be obtained from the Public Works/Engineering Department. Prior to the issuance of permits or commencement of any site work in the Oregon Department of -of-way for Lithia Way, the applicant shall provide proof of also having obtained required approvals and permits from ODOT. The applicants shall maintain a vision clearance triangle that complies with ODOT and City of Ashland standards. l)Revised parking allocation information shall be provided with each building permit as the commercial tenant spaces develop and are occupied to verify that the parking allocated is sufficient for the uses proposed. 7) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a)All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed according to the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. Landscaping and hardscaping in the PA-T2-2020-00019 July 14, 2020 Page 13 common area north of Plaza North which has not been maintained or has been damaged shall be replaced according to the approved plans, and the northernmost street tree on First Street shall be replaced prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. b)All bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design, placement, coverage and rack standards in AMC 18.4.3.070.I & .J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. A total of at least 11 bicycle parking spaces are to be provided on the common area of the project, and at least six of these must be covered. An additional four covered bicycle parking spaces shall be provided for the three units in Plaza North which do not have individual garages. c)An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle for each building shall be included in the trash enclosure in accordance with the Recycling Requirements of AMC 18.4.4.040. d)That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. e)The requirements of the Building Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including but not limited to that the mixed-use occupancy is required to be fire sprinkled, that construction may not cross property lines, and that the site and structures are required to meet all accessibility requirements. f)The requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including approved addressing; fire apparatus access including angle of approach, necessary easements, and review of any obstructions such as fences or gates; fire flow; fire hydrant distance, spacing, flow and clearance; fire department e included on the construction documents, and if a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk corridor. July 14, 2020 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2020-00019 July 14, 2020 Page 14 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-T2-2020-00020 705 Helman Street Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2020-00020 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 705 Helman Street (Helman Elementary School) APPLICANT/OWNER: 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 Helman Elementary School property at 705 Helman 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 & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Removal Permit to remove 12 significant trees. Single Family Residential; ZONINGMAP:TAX LOTS: : R-1-5; 39 1E 04 BD; 600, 2700, 2800 & 2900. ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 7:00 PM G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Planning Commission\\Packets\\2020\\2020-07-14\\Helman Elementary Files\\6a-0-Helman_705_PA-T2-2020-00020_NOC.docx Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to rvtv.sou.edu and selecting RVTV Prime. The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning action are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will be accepted by email.Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. A copy of the 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 www.ashland.or.us/PCpackets seven days prior to the hearing. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us. Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the July 14 PC Hearing Testimony July 13, 2020. If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the subject line July 14 PC Hearing TestimonyJuly 14, 2020. :00 a.m. on Tuesday, Written testimony 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 wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic meeting, send an email to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2020. In order to July provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email 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 by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please -488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.- 35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Derek Severson at #541-552-2040 or Derek.Severson@ashland.or.us. SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards: The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Planning Commission\\Packets\\2020\\2020-07-14\\Helman Elementary Files\\6a-0-Helman_705_PA-T2-2020-00020_NOC.docx which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. 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 at the 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-C1. 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-OE 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. l.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 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 trees, or G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Planning Commission\\Packets\\2020\\2020-07-14\\Helman Elementary Files\\6a-0-Helman_705_PA-T2-2020-00020_NOC.docx 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 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 18.4.7.120 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.B. 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. G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Planning Commission\\Packets\\2020\\2020-07-14\\Helman Elementary Files\\6a-0-Helman_705_PA-T2-2020-00020_NOC.docx 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. 2852, added, 01/21/2000) G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Planning Commission\\Packets\\2020\\2020-07-14\\Helman Elementary Files\\6a-0-Helman_705_PA-T2-2020-00020_NOC.docx Helman Elementary School PA-T2-2020-00020–ArequestforSiteReview&ConditionalUsepermitsfor constructionofanew23,755squarefoot,single-storyclassroombuildingforHelman Elementary.TheConditionalUsePermitistoallowexpansionofanexistingnon- conformingdevelopmentpatternwheretheexistingandproposedparkingand circulationarelocatedbetweenbuildingsandthestreet,andfortherelocationofthe dragontilemural.Theproposalincludesdemolitionoftwoexistingclassroombuildings (“AQuad”and“BQuad”)andrequestsTreeRemovalPermitstoremove12significant trees. Proposal Details Proposal The proposal would demolish the A & B quad buildings near the corner of Helman and Randy and remove a total of 12 significant trees to construct a new single-story classroom building more central to the property. A new main entry plaza would be created near the corner, a total of 17 parking spaces added, and circulation configured to better accommodate pick-up and drop-off traffic on site. The previously approved dragon tile mural would be located to a new wall facing Helman Street. Site Description Thesubjectpropertyincludesfourlotstotalingapproximately9½-acres,andiszonedSingleFamily Residential(R-1-5).Campusbuildingsincluding16classroomsinfourquadbuildings;acentral buildinghousingadministrativeoffices,cafeteria,multi-purposeroomandamusicroom;and parkingareclusteredonthenorthernportionofthesite,whileaplayground,tenniscourts,a basketballcourtandlargefieldaretothesouth.Theschoolopenedin1966withadditionsinthe 1970’sandin2008,andcurrentlyhasanenrollmentcapacityof350students. Landscaping & Trees Theapplicationidentifies106treesoncampus.Withtheredevelopmentoftheproperty proposed,12significanttreesaretoberemovedandmorethan50newtreesaretobeplanted. 1 Helman Elementary School PA-T2-2020-00020–ArequestforSiteReview&ConditionalUsepermitsfor constructionofanew23,755squarefoot,single-storyclassroombuildingforHelman Elementary.TheConditionalUsePermitistoallowexpansionoftheexistingnon- conformingdevelopmentpatternwheretheexistingandproposedparkingand circulationarelocatedbetweenbuildingsandthestreet,andfortherelocationofthe dragontilemural.Theproposalincludesdemolitionoftwoexistingclassroom buildings(“AQuad”and“BQuad”)andrequestsTreeRemovalPermitstoremove12 significanttrees. Key Issues Parking & Circulation 17newparkingspacesareproposedtobeconstructedinanewlotonthesoutheasterncornerof thesitealongHelmanStreet.Theapplicantproposestoaccommodateall63requiredparking spacesonsite,andtoreconfiguresitecirculationtobetteraccommodatepick-upanddrop-off queuingonthesitetolimitimpactstothesurroundingstreets.Adrivewayatthecornerof HelmanandRandyisbeingclosed,andnewlandscapebio-swalesinstalledtoaddressstormwater detentionandwaterqualityrequirements.Newcoveredbicycleparkingisalsoproposedtobe added. TheexistingparkingbetweenbuildingsandthestreetisnotconsistentwithSiteDesignstandards, andexpandingthisnon-conformingparkingplacementissubjecttoConditionalUsePermit approval.Staffbelievethattheexistingsitelay-outandschooluseposedifficultiesincomplying withthestandard,andwiththenewentryplazaandremovalofadrivewaynearthecorner,the campusorientationandpedestriansafetyareimprovedwhilealsobenefittingcampussecurityby providingcontrolledaccessintothecampus. Demolition TheAandBquadbuildingsnearthecornerofHelmanandRandyStreetsaretobedemolished, andanewmainentryplazaconstructed. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the application be approved with the conditions detailed in the draft findings included in the Planning Commission’s July 2020 meeting packet. 2 Vicinity Map Proposed Site Plan AVCH ERIALIEWFROMORNEROFELMAN & RS ANDYTREETS NENC ORTHLEVATIONFROMORTHOURTYARD DRAFT - BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION - DRAFT August 11, 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 ) FINDINGS, PATTERN WHERE BOTH EXISTING AND PROPOSED PARKING AND CIRCU- ) CONCLUSIONS & LATION ARE LOCATED BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND THE STREET, AND FOR ) ORDERS THE RELOCATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SIGNS. THE PROPOSAL IN- ) CLUDES THE DEMOLITION OF TWO EXISTING CLASSROOM BUILDINGS THE ) A AND B QUADS - AND REQUESTS A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE 12 ) SIGNIFICANT TREES. ) ) OWNER/APPLICANT: HMK COMPANY/ASHLAND SCHOOLD DIST. #5 ) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lots 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 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 a previously approved signage. The proposal includes a Tree Removal Permit to remove 12 significant trees. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development. AMC 18.5.2.050 3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are detailed in as follows: Underlying Zone: A. 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. Overlay Zones: B. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). Site Development and Design Standards: C. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. City Facilities: D. 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 August 11, 2020 Page 1 Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. E. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. AMC 18.5.4.050.A 4) The approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are detailed in 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 August 11, 2020 Page 2 AMC 18.5.7.040.B 5) The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in 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 18.6. 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 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 trees, 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 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. AMC 15.04.216 6) The Demolition and Relocation Standards are described in detail in 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 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 PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 3 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. PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 4 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 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 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. 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. 2852, added, 01/21/2000) PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 5 7) On April 15, 2020 Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order #20-16 Keep Government Working: Ordering Necessary Measures to Ensure Safe Public Meetings and Continued Operations by Local Government During Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak 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 n 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 -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. EXHIBITS 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 August 11, 2020 Page 6 Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. 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 oThe 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 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 August 11, 2020 Page 7 The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by 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. Staff Discussion Items For staff, the following items in part 18.4 merit Planning Commission consideration. Parking & Circulation (AMC 18.4.3) See the Staff Discussion of Parking in Section 2.4 below. Bicycle Parking (AMC 18.4.3.070) The application materials indicate that 70 covered bicycle parking spaces are required, based on the applicable ratio of one covered space for every five students and an enrollment capacity of 350 students. The application goes on to note that only 12 covered bicycle parking spaces are in place, and indicates that the applicant here would 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. This would yield 61 covered bicycle spaces, or 87 percent of the 70 spaces required. With the approval of the gym and library additions in Planning Action #2007-01756, it was noted that 66 bicycle parking spaces were required for the 330 student enrollment. At the time, there were 68 spaces already in place on campus in non-standard racks (i.e. uncovered, wheel-bender racks) and 12 new covered parking spaces were added adjacent to the new gym for a total of 80 bicycle parking spaces removed in the interim, with the proposal here the applicant should provide the full 70 covered spaces required. Pedestrian Access & Circulation (18.4.3.090) The proposal includes the construction of a new security fence around the perimeter of the campus to limit access. Presently, there is a paved pedestrian access easement from the cul-de-sac on Parkside Drive, near 535 Parkside, to the south of campus which was required of the subdivision to enable students from the subdivision to the south to safely and efficiently access campus. 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 there is already an improved easement in place to provide such a connection, staff believe that eliminating this access is a concern and that, at a minimum, there should be a gated neighborhood access point that can be unlocked and monitored during pick-up and drop-off periods to enable a safe and direct route to school. A condition PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 8 to this effect is included below (#7k). 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 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: ‘ğƷĻƩʹ There is an existing six-inch water main in Helman 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 Helman Street. A fire connection vault is proposed to be located adjacent to Helman Street. The water line sizes are substantial and water pressure is 90 p.s.i. at the Helman Street hydrant, which is adequate to address the water needs for the new structure. {ĻǞĻƩʹ There is an eight-inch sanitary sewer line in Randy Street, and there are 18-inch and 12-inch sanitary sewer lines in Helman Street. The applicant notes that in discussion with the Wastewater Department Supervisor, no capacity issues with the public sanitary sewer lines have been identified. 9ƌĻĭƷƩźĭğƌʹ There are major overhead electrical facilities along Helman 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. ƩĬğƓ {ƷƚƩƒ 5ƩğźƓğŭĻʹ There is an 18-inch storm sewer main in Helman 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 MS4 General Permit, Phase 2, and the storm water system also specific storm water quality design standards. ƩğƓƭƦƚƩƷğƷźƚƓʹ 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. PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 9 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 Helman School neighborhood, and no changes to the Laurel Street frontage are proposed. 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. Helman Street is considered an Avenue. Helman 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 Helman 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. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The application materials recognize that the existing and proposed site development pattern 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 corner of Helman and Randy PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 10 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 general public like 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 he 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 corner 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 createsamore 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 Planning 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. PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 11 The first criterion for Conditional 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.wed 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 request here is limited to considering the expansion of the existing non-conforming development pattern which places parking and circulation between buildings and the street. 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.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. Staff Discussion: Increase in Parking & Circulation Between the Building & the Street 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; f) 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 could accommodate roughly 42.75 dwelling units. In considering the proposed expansion of parking and circulation between the buildings and the street, staff would first note that during the Site Design Review for the gym and library additions constructed in 2008-2009 (PA-2007-01756) it was noted that 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 use of seven on-street parking credits. The school property has a total of approximately 1,998 lineal feet of frontage on the three adjacent streets. The current application looks at the current parking ratio of one parking space per 75 square feet of public assembly area and the 4,725 square feet of assembly space to arrive at a 63 space parking PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 12 requirement. The applicant notes that only 49 spaces are in place on site, and propose 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 increase in parking between the building and the street is based on bringing the site into compliance with a new parking ratio and an effort to reconfigure circulation and parking in such a way that parent pick-up and drop-off circulation impacts can be better absorbed on the campus itself and in so doing reduce or eliminate the impacts of on-street parking and pick-up and drop-off traffic to the neighborhood streetscape. the added parking merits careful consideration first in that the existing parking was previously found to be adequate and there does not appear to have been an underlying parking problem since. There are no changes to student enrollment or staffing associated with the current proposal. For staff, while there are certainly benefits to better accommodating added vehicular queuing on site rather than on surrounding streets, there needs to be some balancing of the impacts to the streetscape of placing more parking between the buildings and the street (pedestrian friendliness, aesthetics) and of increased impervious surface (increased run-off, the heat island effect) and the benefits of making more efficient use of existing, available on-street parking. The Commission may wish to consider whether the additional parking is necessary given the amount of available on-street parking, and in seeking to balance these factors, staff would recommend that the Commission consider requiring that the main entry plaza treatment (light colored, permeable pavers) be extended to include the driveway and seven spaces between the new plaza and the corner to provide an extension of the plaza space, strengthening the plaza while retaining the potential to accommodate overflow parking as needed. In looking at the proposed site circulation, staff believes that the middle driveway on Helman Street could be eliminated, with one-way traffic exiting from the new driveway roughly 130 feet to the south. With the modified parking treatment near the plaza and elimination of the middle Helman Street driveway curb cut, staff believes that the changes to parking and circulation including improved driveway spacing near the Helman can be found to be beneficial to pedestrian safety while lessening impacts to the streetscape from pick-up and drop- the neighborhood streetscape with the new main entry plaza at the corner. Should the Commission concur, a condition (#7k) has been added to reflect the staff recommendation. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 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 sign permit program PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 13 underAMC 18.4.7.120 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 Helman Schooloriginally approved in Planning Action 2009-00322, and were subsequently Planning Action PA-2012-00899which 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 tile 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- 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 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. 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 explains that the areas where trees are to be removed will be redeveloped with structures, hardscaping, or will re-landscaped. The third 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. 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 Streetprovides substantial species diversity, canopy coverage, and tree densities in the vicinity. The applicant concludes PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 14 that the proposed development will ultimately replace the canopy, tree densities, sizes, and species diversity associated with the requested removals. 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 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.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 microclimatic impacts of the pavement. The Commission further notes that the Ashland Tree Commission was unable to convene its regular monthly meeting for July 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 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. 2.5 Commission notes that the demolition and relocation of existing buildings is regulated through AMC Chapter 15 Buildings and Construction 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. PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 15 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 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 Helman and Randy Streets which creates an overall campus orientation to the corner and the neighborhood and places a single, controllable access point for the sake of campus safety and 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 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 #2020-00020 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 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 PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 16 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 lighting 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 replanting; and 4) sight-obscuring screening of 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 Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 17 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 orm torm 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 alternativein 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 project for the review and approval of the Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of any necessary connections to public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. 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 h.A final electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including any transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of excavation or building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located outside the pedestrian corridor in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any necessary service extensions 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. j.Identification or required bicycle parking, which includes 70 covered bicycle parking spaces. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the outdoor bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with the standards in 18.4.3.070.I, 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) to include the driveway and seven parking spaces between the new plaza and the PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 18 corner to provide an extension of the plaza space, strengthen the plaza while retaining the potential to accommodate overflow parking as needed; which removes the middle driveway curb cut on Helman Street; and which provides a monitored/gated access point from the Parkside Drive pedestrian easement. 8.That prior to any site work including staging, storage of materials, demolition or tree removal, the applicant shall mark the 12 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 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 hardscaping 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. e.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. August 11, 2020 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 19 A4.01BUILDING SECTIONSP2.02PLUMBING BELOW GRADE FLOOR PLANS - EASTE1.63CLASSROOM AND MULTIPURPOSE A/V DETAILS AN APPROXIMATELY 23,800 SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY CLASSROOM G0.00COVER SHEETA4.02BUILDING SECTIONSP2.11PLUMBING FLOOR PLANS - WESTE2.10LIGHTING PLAN - SECTOR WEST BUILDING ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HELMAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 005 G0.01STANDARDS SHEETA4.10WALL SECTIONSP2.12PLUMBING FLOOR PLANS - EASTE2.11LIGHTING PLAN - SECTOR EAST LOCATED ON HELMAN AND RANDY STREETS IN ASHLAND, G0.02CODE ANALYSIS PLAN - ADDITIONA4.11WALL SECTIONSP2.21PLUMBING MEZZANINE PLANSE2.20LIGHTING PLAN - MECHANICAL LEVEL 885 Siskiyou Boulevard OREGON.WORK INCLUDES THE DEMOLITION OF TWO (2) EXISTING G0.03CODE ANALYSIS PLAN - ADDITIONA4.12WALL SECTIONSP6.00PLUMBING SCHEDULES AND DETAILSE3.10POWER PLAN - SECTOR WEST Ashland, Oregon 97520 CLASSROOM QUADS AND AN APPROXIMATELY 2,260 SQUARE FOOT G0.04CODE ANALYSIS - RENOVATIONA4.13WALL SECTIONSE3.11POWER PLAN - SECTOR EAST RENOVATION TO THE EXISTING ADMINISTRATION AREA.SITE Phone: 541.482.2811 G0.05ASSEMBLIESA4.14WALL SECTIONSE3.20POWER PLAN - MECHANICAL LEVEL IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE PERIMETER FENCING, NEW ENTRANCE DRIVE Contact: Steve Mitzel A4.15WALL SECTIONSMD2.01MECHANICAL DEMOLITION PLANSE4.01ENLARGED PLAN SERVICE YARD AND PARKING LOTS, NEW ENTRY PLAZA, NEW DRAINAGE STRUCTURES Email: steve.mitzel@ashland.k12.or.us AND THE RELOCATION OF THE EXISTING BASKETBALL COURT AND MD3.01PIPIING DEMOLITION PLAN A5.01ENLARGED PLANSE4.02ENLARGED PLAN ELECTRICAL ROOM 102 PLAYGROUND. C1.2SITE DEMOLITION PLAN A5.02ENLARGED PLANSE4.03ENLARGED PLAN IT ROOM 105 AND ELEVATIONS C2.1EROSION CONTROL PLAN A5.10INTERIOR ELEVATIONSE5.10FIRE ALARM & SECURITY PLAN - SECTOR WEST MR2.01MECHANICAL RENOVATION PLANS HMK COMPANY C2.2EROSION CONTROL DETAILS A5.11INTERIOR ELEVATIONSE5.11FIRE ALARM & SECURITY PLAN - SECTOR EAST C3.0OVERALL CIVIL SITE PLANMR3.01PIPING RENOVATION PLANS A5.12INTERIOR ELEVATIONSE5.20FIRE ALARM & SECURITY PLAN - MECHANICAL LEVEL 60 2nd Street, Unit 602 C3.1CIVIL SITE PLAN - SOUTH A5.13INTERIOR ELEVATIONE6.10COMMUNICATIONS & A/V PLAN - SECTOR WEST Central Point, Oregon 97502 C3.2CIVIL SITE PLAN - NORTH A5.14IINTERIOR ELEVATIONE6.11COMMUNICATIONS & A/V PLAN - SECTOR EAST Phone: 503.453.2836 M0.00MECHANICAL COVER SHEET C4.0OVERALL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN A6.10REFLECTED CEILING PLAN - WESTE6.20COMMUNICATIONS & A/V PLAN - MECHANICAL LEVEL Contact: Mike Freeman M2.11MECHANICAL FLOOR PLANS - WEST C4.1GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN - SOUTH A6.11REFLECTED CEILING PLAN - EAST Email: mike.freeman@hmkco.org M2.12MECHANICAL FLOOR PLANS - EAST C4.2GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN - NORTH A7.01VERTICAL CIRCULATION M2.21MECHANICAL MEZZANINE PLANS C5.0OVERALL UTILITY PLAN A7.02STAIR DETAILSFP2.00FIRE PROTECTION PLANS M2.31MECHANICAL ROOF PLAN - WEST C6.0PROJECT DETAILS A8.01DOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULE M2.32MECHANICAL ROOF PLAN - EAST C6.1STANDARD DETAILS A8.10DETAILS - EXTERIOR BBT ARCHITECTS M3.00PIPING UNDER SLAB PLANS - EAST A8.11DETAILS - EXTERIOR 1140 SW Simpson Ave, Suite 200 M3.11PIPING FLOOR PLANS - WEST A8.12DETAILS - EXTERIOR Bend, Oregon 97702 L1.00LANDSCAPE TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL PLANM3.12PIPING FLOOR PLANS - EAST A8.20DETAILS - CASEWORK Phone: 541.382.5535 M3.20PIPING MEZZANINE PLANS L1.01LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN A8.21DETAILS - INTERIOR Contact: Matthew Guthrie L1.02LANDSCAPE LAYOUT PLANM5.00MECHANICAL CONTROLS A8.22DETAILS - INTERIOR Email: mguthrie@bbtarchitects.com M6.00MECHANICAL SCHEDULES L1.03LAYOUT ENLARGEMENTS A9.01FINISH SCHEDULES L1.04DETAIL SHEETSM6.01MECHANICAL SCHEDULES A9.10FINISH PLAN - WEST M6.10MECHANICAL DETAILS L1.05DETAIL SHEETS A9.11FINISH PLAN - EAST L1.06DETAIL SHEETSM6.11MECHANICAL DETAILS WALKER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LLC L2.00LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION 2863 NW Crossing Dr., Suite 201 L3.00LANDSCAPE PLANTS 705 HELMAN ST. S0.1GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES & DRAWING INDEX Bend, OR 97701 ED1.01ELECTRICAL DEMOLITION PLANS L3.01LANDSCAPE PLANTS S2.1FOUNDATION PLAN -WEST Phone: 541.330.6869 ASHLAND, OR 97520 S2.2FOUNDATION PLAN - EAST Contact: Jonny Walker S2.3ROOF FRAMING PLAN - WEST Email: jwalker@walkerse.com ER2.01RENOVATION PLANS - LIGHTING AD2.01DEMOLITION PLANS S2.4ROOF FRAMING PLAN - EAST ER3.01RENOVATION PLANS - POWER AD6.01DEMOLITION REFLECTED CEILING PLANS S2.5HIGH ROOF FRAMING - WEST ER5.01RENOVATION PLANS - FIRE ALARM & SECURITY S2.6HIGH ROOF FRAMING - EAST ER6.01RENOVATION PLANS - COMMUNICATIONS & A/V S3.1SHEAR WALL PLAN - WEST POWELL ENGINEERING AR2.01RENOVATION PLANS S3.2SHEAR WALL PLAN - EAST 1874 Rossanley Drive AR3.01RENOVATION ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS S3.3SHEAR WALL DETAILS Medford, OR 97501 E0.01ELECTRICAL SYMBOL SCHEDULE AR5.01RENOVATION ENLARGED PLAN & INTERIOR ELEVATIONS S5.1STRUCTURAL DETAILS - FOUNDATION Phone: 541.613.0723 E0.02COMMON DEVICE GROUPING AND MOUNTING HEIGHTS AR6.01RENOVATION REFLECTED CEILING PLANS S6.1STRUCTURAL DETAILS - FRAMING Contact: Todd Powell E0.03SITE DETAILS AR8.01RENOVATION SCHEDULES S6.2STRUCTURAL DETAILS - FRAMING Email: todd@powellengineeringconsulting.com E1.01ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN AR8.10RENOVATION EXTERIOR DETAILS E1.02COMMUNICATIONS SITE PLAN E1.10EXISTING / DEMO - ELECTRICAL ONE LINE DIAGRAM PD2.00PLUMBING DEMO EXISTING BUILDINGS A1.01SITE PLANE1.11REVISED - ELECTRICAL ONE LINE DIAGRAM KENCAIRN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE A1.02ENLARGED SITE - BIKE CANOPYE1.12FEEDER AND ARC FAULT SCHEDULES 545 A Street, Suite 3 A1.03ENLARGED SITE - SERVICE YARDE1.20LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE PR2.00PLUMBING FLOOR PLANS - EXISTING BUILDINGS Ashland, OR 97520 A2.01OVERALL PLAN - LEVEL 1E1.21LIGHTING CONTROL DETAILS Phone: 541.488.3194 A2.02OVERALL PLAN - MECH LEVELE1.40DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULES Contact: Kerry KenCairn A2.03ROOF PLANE1.41PANEL SCHEDULES P0.00PLUMBING COVER SHEET Email: kerry@kencairnlandscape.com A2.10DIMENSION PLAN - WESTE1.42PANEL SCHEDULES P2.01PLUMBING BELOW GRADE FLOOR PLANS - WEST E1.43PANEL SCHEDULES A2.11DIMENSION PLAN - EAST A2.12FLOOR PLAN - WESTE1.51FIRE ALARM AND SECURITY DETAILS E1.61COMMUNICATIONS DETAILS A2.13FLOOR PLAN - EAST MFIA A3.01ELEVATIONSE1.62INTERCOM AND PROGRAM SYSTEMS DETAILS 2007 Ash Street A3.02ELEVATIONS Portland, OR 97214 A3.103D EXTERIOR VIEWS Phone: 503.234.0548 Contact: Scott Miller Email: scott.miller@mfia-eng.com CONLEY CONSULTING 1433 Lakeside Court, Suite 100 Yakima, WA 98902 Phone: 509.965.9872 Contact: Jeff Gray Email: jdg@coneng.com ADROIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY No.DescriptionDate 185 Mistletoe Road Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541.482.4098 Contact: Kyle Lumsden Email: kyle.lumsden@adroitbuilt.com CONSTRUCTION FOCUS INC 740 Almaden Street Eugene, OR 97402 Phone: 541.686.2031 Project Number1907 Contact: Steve Gunn Date06.05.2020 Email: sgunn@constructionfocus.com 6/4/2020 9:12:32 AM COVER SHEET G0.00 ACTACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE MECHMECHANICAL 0 ADAAMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACTMFGMANUFACTURING GRID BUBBLE AFFABOVE FINISH FLOORMFRMANUFACTURER AFPACOUSTICAL FIBERBOARD PANEL MINMINIMUM AL /ALUMALUMINUM MTLMETAL ANSIAMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTEMP METAL PANEL ROOM TAG 103 APPROXAPPROXIMATELYNANOT APPLICABLE ASTMAMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING MATERIALSNICNOT IN CONTRACT ARCHARCHITECTURALNONUMBER 1000100 @AT NTSNOT TO SCALE OCCUPANCY TAG 101 AWC ACOUSTIC WALL COVERINGOCON CENTER BDBOARDOFCIOWNER FURNISHED CONTRACTOR INSTALLED BLDGBUILDING OFOIOWNER FURNISHED OWNER INSTALLED A1WALL ASSEMBLY TAG CBCATCH BASINOHOVERHEAD CJCONTROL JOINTOPPOPPOSITE WALL ASSEMBLY TYPE CMUCONCRETE MASONRY UNITOSSCOREGON STRUCTURAL SPECIALTY CODE STUD WIDTH COLCOLUMNPPAINT CONCCONCRETEPBPUSH BUTTON A26" CONTCONTINUOUSPLPLASTIC LAMINATE COORDCOORDINATEPLAM PLASTIC LAMINATE CPTCARPET TILEPLYWDPLYWOOD CTCERAMIC TILEPSPROJECTION SCREEN EXTERIOR/INTERIOR CENTER LINEPRPAIR ELEVATION TAG DEGDEGREEPTPRESSURE TREATED DIA OR ØDIAMETERPVCPOLYVINYL CHLORIDE DIMDIMENSIONRAFRUBBER ATHLETIC FLOORING DNDOWNRBRUBBER BASE DRDOORRDROOF DRAIN SECTION TAG DSDOWNSPOUTREFREFERENCE DTLDETAILREQDREQUIRED (E)EXISTINGRFRUBBER FLOORING EL / ELEVELEVATIONRMROOM KEYNOTE TAG EMTELECTRICAL METAL TUBINGROROUGH OPENING EFP EPOXY FLOOR PAINTRRRESTROOM 1tWINDOW TAG EQEQUALSAMFSELF-ADHERING MEMBRANE FLASHING EXP JTEXPANSION JOINTSCSEALED CONCRETE 101 DOOR TAG EXTEXTERIOR SDTSTATIC DISSIPATIVE TILE FCFIBER CEMENTSECTSECTION FDFLOOR DRAINSFSQUARE FEET 1iCASEWORK TAG FEFIRE EXTINGUISHERSHTSHEET FECFIRE EXTINGUISHER IN CABINETSIMSIMILAR A TOILET ACCESSORY TAG FFFINISH FLOORSMSHEET METAL FFHBFROST FREE HOSE BIBSSSTAINLESS STEEL ELEVATION HEIGHT TAG FOMFACE OF MASONRYSTDSTANDARD FOSFACE OF STUDSTFSEAMLESS TROWELED FLOORING FRPFIBERGLASS-REINFORCED PLASTICSTL STEEL 10 FTFOOT, FEETSTRUCTSTRUCTURAL DETAIL TAG A8.10 GAGAUGESTVSMART TV GALVGALVANIZEDTBTACK BOARD GYPGYPSUMTBDTO BE DETERMINED EXIT SIGN TAG GWBGYPSUM WALL BOARDTEMPTEMPERED GWSGLASS WRITING SURFACETOTOP OF FLOOR MATERIAL TAG HBHOSE BIBBTPTOILET PARTITION HDWRHARDWARETS TUBE STEEL PATTERN DIRECTION TAG HMHOLLOW METALTWSVINYL-WRAPPED TACKABLE WALL SURFACE HSHOLLOW STEELTYPTYPICAL HORIZHORIZONTALULUNDERWRITERS LABORATORY BID ALTERNATE TAG HTHEIGHTUNOUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ININCH, INCHESVCTVINYL COMPOSITION TILE 1 REVISION TAG INSULINSULATIONVERTVERTICAL INTINTERIORVIFVERIFY IN FIELD 9'-0" CEILING HEIGHT TAG JTJOINTW/WITH LAMLAMINATEDWDWOOD LVTLUXURY VINYL TILEWOMWALK OFF MAT MAXMAXIMUMWRBWEATHER RESISTIVE BARRIER ADA STANDARDS: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTROOM FIXTURES AND ACCESSORIES 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER & DRYERSPAPER TOWEL DISPENSER & DRYERS E A C MAX REACH DEPTHMAX REACH DEPTH1/2"1/2"2"2"5"5"6"6"9"9"11"11" D 54" MINA 15" MAX F A 42" MAX R N T I " "U 3' - 0" MIN39"-41" 6A S MAX REACH HEIGHTMAX REACH HEIGHT48"48"46"46"42"42"40"40"36"36"34"34" N2 M IN " -/CONTROL CONTROL I XM" '0I 1 M1' - 6" 8 "" MA 1 -R AREAAREA 1' - 0" 1" 1 1' - 0"00 'X N MF I"9 -- 5 " A 3' - 6" MIN"0XXX1X N24" MIN '' MAXN IO 9M I MINX"TOP OF 8X -XX- "64AAAA M"X 1N "" 4'3 XPX MAI" -"1A M"AA6 N" 64A "IN5MM4MM GRAB BAR 7 64"A I0A3 N8N O 37MM3 -IMI MM""-"" 1 38 "T-M M4- 1" --M""88-88 M""M " 1 "9'" M-" "M 0 ""8844"44 "88" 8 3338 "3 9"" 44 3448 94436 FLUSH HANDLE 33 3 747 332 23 23 2 36" MAX - WITHIN THE WITHIN THE " MOUNTED ON " X 0 X 0 HATCHED AREA HATCHED AREA A - TOP OF OPEN SIDE OF -A ' ' M 1 M FLOOR 1 16"-18"WATER CLOSET CONTROL WALLCONTROL WALLBACK WALLBACK WALL 8" MIN KNEE6" MAX TOE FINISH AREA 17" - 25" FACE OF FACE OF CLEARANCECLEARANCE TOILET PAPER & SANITARY NAPKIN SANITARY NAPKIN WALL FINISHWALL FINISH DEPTH FACE OF SANITARY NAPKIN DISPENSERS DISPENSERS WALL FINISH TOILET URINALURINAL SEAT COVER SOAP PAPER TOWEL ELECTRONIC ELECTRONIC HOOKS & DIAPER CHANGING DRINKING 36"X36" SHOWER STALL36"X36" SHOWER STALLFIRE EXTINGUISHER DISPOSAL ADA & AMBULATORY WATER LAVATORY/ MIRRORDISTANCE TO DISTANCE TO PARTITIONPARTITIONDISPENSERDISPENSERDISPENSERHAND DRYERHAND DRYERSHELVESSTATIONFOUNTAIN (PROTRUDING CLOSET & GRAB BARSHIGHEST OPERABLE HIGHEST OPERABLE BELOW GRAB BAR) PARTSPARTS 1 G0.01 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" No.DescriptionDate Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 6/4/2020 9:12:34 AM STANDARDS SHEET G0.01 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 R O F T N O O N I T C U R T S N O C Consultant ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Helman Elementary School Addition & Renovations 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 LAND USE 2020 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 R O F T N O O N I T C U R T S N O C Consultant ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Helman Elementary School Addition & N Renovations " MAIDISTRIBUTION SWITCHBOARDMDS " C.T. / METERING GENERATOR INCOMING CND U ITY OF ASHLA TILITY TRANSFORMER 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 LAND USE 2020 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 R O F T N O O N I T C U R T S N O C Consultant ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Helman Elementary School Addition & Renovations 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 LAND USE 2020 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 R O F T N O O N I T C U R T S N O C Consultant ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Helman Elementary School Addition & Renovations 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 LAND USE 2020 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 R O F T N O O N I T C U R T S N O C Consultant ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Helman Elementary School Addition & Renovations 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 LAND USE 2020 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 R O F T N O O N I T C U R T S N O C Consultant ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Helman Elementary School Addition & Renovations 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 LAND USE 2020 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 R O F T N O O N I T C U R T S N O C Consultant ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Helman Elementary School Addition & Renovations 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 LAND USE 2020 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 R O F T N O O N I T C U R T S N O C Consultant ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Helman Elementary School Addition & Renovations 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 LAND USE 2020 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 R O F T N O O N I T C U R T S N O C Consultant ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Helman Elementary School Addition & Renovations 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 LAND USE 2020 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 R O F T N O O N I T C U R T S N O C Consultant ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Helman Elementary School Addition & Renovations 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 LAND USE 2020 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 R O F T N O O N I T C U R T S N O C Consultant ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Helman Elementary School Addition & Renovations 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 LAND USE 2020 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 R O F T N O O N I T C U R T S N O C Consultant ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Helman Elementary School Addition & Renovations 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 LAND USE 2020 A. SEE SHEET G0.01 FOR ARCHITECTURAL ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS B. SEE SHEET G0.05 FOR WALL TYPES C. SEE SHEET AR8.01 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE D.PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED FROM XXX. E. ALL EXTERIOR WALLS ARE TYPE xx U.N.O. F.ALL INTERIOR WALLS ARE TYPE W6 U.N.O. 1BUILT-IN CASEWORK TO REMAIN 2SHELVING TO REMAIN 3EXISTING COPIER, OFOI 4INFILL INTERIOR WALL TO ALIGN WITH EXISTING 5' - 4 3/4"14' - 2"25' - 8" FOW 6' - 4" S1 S2 E1 8' - 2" FOW A 102A 14D A100 A111 7C 14C A111A E143E144 8' - 2" E3 A 110A 8B 705 HELMAN ST. A102 W1 A101 1' - 0" 8C ASHLAND, OR 97520 A11213C 9D 9C 3 E142E145 A110 5' - 4"4' - 8" " AR5.01 A108 A102B 3 7' - 9"6' - 5" - ' 12A 3 " " A103A 1 0 12B - 1 'A103 - 2 ' E2 1 5 10A E140A104 E141E126 " 0 W E2 - 10D 11D A109 E139 O ' E135E146 F 3 "" 44 -- W1W1 '' A107AA105A 77 A107A106A105 E136 E127 5 8' - 9"12' - 4" AR5.01 E158 E112 E113 E159 1 AR5.01 10" E162 C117C118 No.DescriptionDate W3 E116 E160 C119 E165 E161 Project Number1907 E114 Date06.05.2020 E115 E164E163 6/4/2020 9:12:27 AM RENOVATION PLANS NORTH AR2.01 42 AR2.01AR2.01 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" A. SEE SHEET G0.01 FOR ARCHITECTURAL ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS B. SEE SHEET G0.05 FOR WALL TYPES C. SEE SHEET AR8.01 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE D.PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED FROM XXX. E. ALL EXTERIOR WALLS ARE TYPE xx U.N.O. F.ALL INTERIOR WALLS ARE TYPE W6 U.N.O. 1INFILL SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING 2MATCH EXISTING FINISHES 4 AR3.01 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" 5 AR3.01 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" E201 C118C117E116 A100A101A109 705 HELMAN ST. 2 AR3.01 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" ASHLAND, OR 97520 1 AR3.01 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" A103A104A109 3 AR3.01 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" No.DescriptionDate Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 6/4/2020 9:12:32 AM RENOVATION ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS AR3.01 NEW BUILDING ADDITION ALTERATIONS WITHIN EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDINGS PROPERTY LINE SET BACK 20' - 0"210' - 0" " 0 - 31' - 0" ' 0 1 20'-0" 1 0 ' 1 - 0 " A1.02 MARKHARDWARE GROUPCOMMENTS G100WEST SWING GATE G101BUS LOOP SWING GATE G102BUS LOOP ROLLING GATE G103'D' QUAD SWING GATE G104PLAZA SWING GATE G105ADMIN SWING GATE G106EAST SERVICE YARD SWING GATE G107SERVICE YARD ROLLING GATE G108BASKETBALL COURT SWING GATE G109SPED OUTDOOR SPACE SWING GATE 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 20' - 0" 20'-0" " 0 - ' 0 1 10'-0" 134' - 6" No.DescriptionDate 9' - 0" 30' - 2" " 20'-0 20' - 0" Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 " 0 - ' 0 2 6/4/2020 2:47:52 PM " 0 - ' 0 1 SITE PLAN NORTH A1.01 1 A1.01 SCALE:1" = 30'-0" 8' - 0" 1BIKE RACK, TYP 2ROOF OVERHANG, SHOWN DASHED 3FENCING 48" CONCRETE WALL 5EXISTING MURAL RELOCATED 29' - 0" 8' - 0" 1/4" / 1'-0" 8' - 0" 7' - 6"7' - 6" 17' - 8" 14 A1.02A1.02 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 2356 A1.02A1.02A1.02A1.02 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" No.DescriptionDate Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 6/4/2020 9:11:30 AM ENLARGED SITE -BIKE CANOPY A1.02 1BIKE RACK, TYP 2ROOF OVERHANG, SHOWN DASHED 3FENCING 48" CONCRETE WALL 5EXISTING MURAL RELOCATED 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 123 A1.03A1.03A1.03 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" No.DescriptionDate Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 6/4/2020 9:11:32 AM ENLARGED SITE - SERVICE YARD A1.03 5 A 6 " 6 K - ' 6 3 2 3 ' 7 - 1 4 0 " 8 " 3 0 - ' 2 1 1 2 ' - 8 B " 9 L 1 2 ' " - 0 0 1 " 1 - '0 03 ' 3 - 1 2 "" 6 - ' 6 BTIMBOETDIPPM 3 BDUJWJUZ TQBDF EJTUSJDU OPSUIXFTU 2 126 WFTUJCVMF 3 127 7 IFMNBOFMFNFOUBSZ ' - 4 " 10 TDIPPMBEEJUJPO TNBMM HSPVQ BDUJWJUZ SFOPWBUJPO OPSUIXFTU TQBDF 125 OPSUIFBTU 131 11 C M " 0 1 - 1 ' 7 5 '705 HELMAN ST. 4 - 4 " ASHLAND, OR 97520 1 DMBTTSPPN 128 GG LJOEFS 13' - 1" LJOEFS SFTUSPPN 124 123 D DMBTTSPPN N 130 DMBTTSPPN 133 IBMMXBZ IBMMXBZ 100 120 NFDI NFDI HH BDDFTT BDDFTT 141 110 IBMMXBZ 132 PGGJDF LJOEFS PGGJDF K 147 101 SFTUSPPN " 6 SFTUSPPN 28' - 1"122 - ' 146 IBMMXBZ 2 SFDZDMF NVMUJQVSQPTF 2 109 140 148 SFTUSPPN SFDZDMF 103 111 DMBTTSPPN LJOEFS HJSMTDMPTFU FMFDUSJDBM 134 IBMMXBZ 121 A SFTUSPPN 145142 TUPSBHF 137 SPPN 104 149 102 TFOTPSZ E O JU 2 TUPSBHF 6 105 108 ' - L 1 0 " JJ CPZT GJSFSJTFS 144 106 P F" 2 - ' TFOTPSZ 3 3 107 DMBTTSPPN B 139 " 0 1 - ' 5 0 1 BDUJWJUZ DMBTTSPPN TNBMM 112 TQBDF 3 3 HSPVQ TPVUIXFTU ' - " 119 5 TPVUIFBTU 2 1 " 135- ' DMBTTSPPN 3 138 1 M DVTUPEJBM 114 DMBTTSPPN 113 1 1 6 0 'BDUJWJUZ - 2 TQFE TQBDF " SFTUSPPNTPVUIFBTU 115136 No.DescriptionDate N C " 1 1 3 - ' ' - 7 1 2 " DBMNJOH 7 SPPN 4 116 TQFE TQFE 8 D 118 PGGJDF 3 117 " 9 0 - 2 ' 7 0 ' 1 - 1 " Project Number1907 O Date06.05.2020 2 P 11 1 MBOEVTF E 0 '10 - 0 " 6/4/2020 2:29:06 PM F OVERALL PLAN -LEVEL 1 QSPFDU NORTH 1 O A2.01 PWFSBMMGMPPSQMBO 1 A2.01 SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0" HFOFSBMOPUFT A. SEE SHEET G0.01 FOR ARCHITECTURAL ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS B. SEE SHEET G0.05 FOR WALL TYPES C. PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED FROM THE OUTSIDE FACE OF STUDS / FACE OF CONCRETE ON EXTERIOR WALLS TO THE CENTER LINES OF INTERIOR WALLS AND OPENINGS U.N.O. D.GRID LINES ALIGN WITH FACE OF STUD U.N.O. E. MECHANICAL ROOM FLOORING TO BE CON-2, UNO F.MECHANICAL ROOMS ARE OPEN TO STRUCTURE, UNO 5 A 6 " 6 - ' 6 3 K 2 3 7 ' - 4 1 0 " " 0 8 - 3' 2 1 1 2 ' - B 8 " 9 L " 0 1 12 -' '- 00 3" 1 1 0 3 " ' 6 - - 2 ' " 6 3 BTIMBOETDIPPM EJTUSJDU 2 3 IFMNBOFMFNFOUBSZ 7 ' - 4 " TDIPPMBEEJUJPO 10 SFOPWBUJPO " 0 C M 1 - 11 ' 5 4 1 7 705 HELMAN ST. ' - 4 " ASHLAND, OR 97520 1" 9 - GG ' 4 13' - 1"4 ' - D 9 W22 " N 3 A7.01 W22 4 W22W22 A7.01 H"H 3 - ' 3 8 ' K - NFDIBOJDBM " 5 6 201 " DN DN - 28' - 1" NFDIBOJDBM ' 2 202 DS 2 W4 DS A W4 W22 E O 2 6 ' - 1 0 DS JJ " L W22 W22 W22 P " F 2 DS W22- ' 3 W22 3 B " 0 1 W22 - W22 ' 5 0 1 3 3 5 ' " ' -- 5 1 7 2" - " ' 3 1 M " W22 0 1 W22 - ' 8 2 1 6 1 0 ' - 2 " No.DescriptionDate " N C 1 1 - 3 ' ' 7 - 2 1 " 7 4 8 D 3 " 0 9 - ' 2 0 7 1 ' - 1 " Project Number1907 O Date06.05.2020 2 P 1 MBOEVTF E 0 10 ' - 0 " 6/4/2020 9:11:40 AM F 11 OVERALL PLAN - MECH LEVEL QSPFDU NORTH 1 O A2.02 PWFSBMMNFDIBOJDBMQMBO 1 A2.02 SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0" HFOFSBMOPUFT SPPGLFZOPUFT 1TUBULAR SKYLIGHTS A. SEE SHEET G0.01 FOR ARCHITECTURAL ABBREVIATIONS AND 2PHOTOVOLATIC (PV) ARRAY - FINAL SIZE AND LOCATION TO SYMBOLS BE DETERMINED B. SEE SHEET G0.05 FOR ASSEMBLY TYPES C. PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED FROM THE OUTSIDE FACE OF STUDS / FACE OF CONCRETE ON EXTERIOR WALLS TO THE CENTER LINES OF INTERIOR WALLS AND OPENINGS U.N.O. D.GRID LINES ALIGN WITH FACE OF STUD U.N.O. 5 6 A K " 6 - ' 6 3 2 3 ' 7 - 1 4 0 " 8 " 3 0 - ' 2 1 1 2 ' - 8 B " 9 L 1 2 " ' 0- 10 " - 1 ' 0 0 3 3 ' 1 - 2 " " 6 - ' 6 3 BTIMBOETDIPPM EJTUSJDU 2 R1 3 7 R1 ' IFMNBOFMFNFOUBSZ - 4 " 10 TDIPPMBEEJUJPO SFOPWBUJPO C M " 0 11 1 - '1 57 4' - 705 HELMAN ST. 4 " ASHLAND, OR 97520 1 / 2 " 1 1/4" / 1'-0" 1 / 1 GG ' - 0 " 13' - 1" D 1 N 1 /" 40 - " ' /1 R1 1/ ' " - R2 0 2 / " 1 " R2 0 - ' HH 1 / " 2 / 1 28' - 1" K 1/2" / 1'-0" " 6 - R1 ' 2 2 A R2 E O 2 6 ' - 1 0 JJ " L P F " 2 - ' 3 3 B " 0 - ' 1 / " 2 / 1 " 0 R2 1 3' 35 R2 0 ' -1 5 2 " 1 / "- 2 1 " - / ' 1 3 M ' 1 1 - 0 / 2 " " / 1 1 6 1 ' - 0 R1 0 ' " - 2 " No.DescriptionDate N C 1 3 ' - " 1 1 " - 7 ' 7 R1 4 2 8 D 3 9 2 7" '0 - - 1' " 0 1 O Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 2 P 1 E MBOEVTF 0 10 ' - 0 " 6/4/2020 9:11:46 AM F 11 ROOF PLAN QSPFDU NORTH 1 O A2.03 PWFSBMMSPPGQMBO 1 A2.03 3/32" = 1'-0" SCALE: 5 6 HFOFSBM!OPUFT A. SEE SHEET G0.01 FOR ARCHITECTURAL ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS B. SEE SHEET G0.05 FOR WALL TYPES C. SEE SHEET A8.01 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE D.PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED FROM THE OUTSIDE FACE OF STUDS / FACE OF CONCRETE ON EXTERIOR WALLS TO THE CENTER LINES OF INTERIOR WALLS AND OPENINGS U.N.O. E. GRID LINES ALIGN WITH FACE OF STUD U.N.O. FUFSJPS!NBUFSJBMT!MFHFOE FIBER CEMENT HORIZONTAL METAL PANEL DS DSDS DS FUFSJPS!LFZOPUFT OPSUI!FMFWBUJPO!TFDUPS!FBTUOPSUI!FMFWBUJPOOPSUI!FMFWBUJPO!TFDUPS!XFTU 123 1LIGHT TUBE A3.01A3.01A3.01 1/8" = 1'-0"1/8" = 1'-0"1/8" = 1'-0" SCALE:SCALE:SCALE: DCBA 5432 23 BUILDING HEIGHT A8.10A8.12 24' - 0" 57 A8.12A8.12 DS BTIMBOE!TDIPPM DSDS 910 A8.12A8.12 EJTUSJDU IFMNBO!FMFNFOUBSZ TDIPPM!BEEJUJPO! SFOPWBUJPO OPSUIFBTU!FMFWBUJPO!TFDUPS!XFTUOPSUIXFTU!FMFWBUJPO!TFDUPS!XFTU 45 A3.01A3.01 1/8" = 1'-0"1/8" = 1'-0" SCALE:SCALE: 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 21 ABCDEF 2 A8.12 6 A8.12 DS DSDS 6 A8.10 OPSUIXFTU!FMFWBUJPO!TFDUPS!XFTUTPVUIXFTU!FMFWBUJPO!TFDUPS!XFTU 67 A3.01A3.01 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" No.DescriptionDate 12345 Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 DS DSDSDS MBOE!VTF 4 6/4/2020 2:28:42 PM A8.12 8 A8.12 ELEVATIONS DSDSDS DSDS A3.01 TPVUIFBTU!FMFWBUJPO!TFDUPS!XFTU 8 A3.01 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" 67891011 HFOFSBM!OPUFT A. SEE SHEET G0.01 FOR ARCHITECTURAL ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS B. SEE SHEET G0.05 FOR WALL TYPES C. SEE SHEET A8.01 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE D.PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED FROM THE OUTSIDE FACE OF STUDS / FACE OF CONCRETE ON EXTERIOR WALLS TO THE CENTER LINES OF INTERIOR WALLS AND OPENINGS U.N.O. E. GRID LINES ALIGN WITH FACE OF STUD U.N.O. FUFSJPS!NBUFSJBMT!MFHFOE FIBER CEMENT DSDS DSDS HORIZONTAL METAL PANEL FUFSJPS!LFZOPUFT DSDS DSDS DSDS 1LIGHT TUBE TPVUI!FMFWBUJPOTPVUIXFTU!FMFWBUJPO!TFDUPS!FBTU 12 A3.02A3.02 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" PONMLK BUILDING HEIGHT 24' - 0" BTIMBOE!TDIPPM EJTUSJDU IFMNBO!FMFNFOUBSZ DSDS TDIPPM!BEEJUJPO! SFOPWBUJPO TPVUIFBTU!FMFWBUJPO!TFDUPS!FBTU 3 705 HELMAN ST. A3.02 1/8" = 1'-0" SCALE: ASHLAND, OR 97520 109876 1110 DSDS OPSUIFBTU!FMFWBUJPO!TFDUPS!FBTUOPSUIFBTU!FMFWBUJPO!TFDUPS!FBTU 45 A3.02A3.02 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" No.DescriptionDate KLMN Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 MBOE!VTF 6/4/2020 2:28:23 PM ELEVATIONS A3.02 OPSUIXFTU!FMFWBUJPO!TFDUPS!FBTU 6 A3.02 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" ABCDEFABCDEF 2 1 A4.10 A4.10 5 A4.10 3 A4.10 4 A4.10 BUILDING HEIGHT 24' - 0" TNBMM BDUJWJUZ HSPVQ TQBDFTQFE OPSUIXFTUIBMMXBZIBMMXBZDMBTTSPPN 118 125120109112 TPVUIXFTU 119 CVJMEJOH!TFDUJPOCVJMEJOH!TFDUJPO 12 A4.01A4.01 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" EF ABCD GJ H 2 3 A4.11 A4.11 4 1 1 A4.11 A4.12 A4.11 2 A4.12 NFDIBOJDBM 201 TOP OF RIDGE 15' - 5" BTIMBOE!TDIPPM EJTUSJDU BDUJWJUZ TQBDF IFMNBO!FMFNFOUBSZ OPSUIXFTUDMBTTSPPNIBMMXBZTFOTPSZ TFOTPSZ IBMMXBZNVMUJQVSQPTF 126128109107 100148 TUPSBHF 108 TDIPPM!BEEJUJPO! SFOPWBUJPO 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 CVJMEJOH!TFDUJPO CVJMEJOH!TFDUJPO 3 4 A4.01 A4.01 1/8" = 1'-0" SCALE:SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" KLMNOP KLMNOP 21 4' - 9"3' - 3" A4.13 A4.13 3 3 4 A4.13 A4.12 A4.124 A4.13 NFDIBOJDBM 202 1' - 2 1/4" DMBTTSPPNIBMMXBZHJSMT 130137145 IBMMXBZIBMMXBZDMBTTSPPN 132137139 CVJMEJOH!TFDUJPO 5 A4.01 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" CVJMEJOH!TFDUJPO 6 A4.01 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" No.DescriptionDate KLMNOP 1 A4.14 2 Project Number1907 A4.14 Date06.05.2020 MBOE!VTF 6/4/2020 2:27:34 PM DMBTTSPPNDMBTTSPPNIBMMXBZ 9 133134137 A8.11 BUILDING SECTIONS A4.01 CVJMEJOH!TFDUJPO 7 A4.01 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" 23452345 1 A4.15 2 3 A4.15 A4.15 BDUJWJUZ BDUJWJUZ NFDI LJOEFSTQBDF TQBDFLJOEFS LJOEFS BDDFTT SFTUSPPNOPSUIXFTUWFTUJCVMF 121 124 TPVUIXFTU 110 123126127 119 CVJMEJOH!TFDUJPOCVJMEJOH!TFDUJPO 12 A4.02A4.02 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" 12345 678910 BTIMBOE!TDIPPM EJTUSJDU IFMNBO!FMFNFOUBSZ TDIPPM!BEEJUJPO! SFOPWBUJPO 4 A4.15 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 5 6 A8.11 A8.11 BDUJWJUZ 4 TQBDF A8.11 DBMNJOH OPSUIFBTU IBMMXBZDMBTTSPPN TQFEFMFDUSJDBM SPPNDMBTTSPPNDMBTTSPPNTFOTPSZGJSF!SJTFSNVMUJQVSQPTF 131132133 118 SPPN 116113112107106148 102 7 A8.11 CVJMEJOH!TFDUJPOCVJMEJOH!TFDUJPO 34 A4.02A4.02 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" No.DescriptionDate 6789101167891011 Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 NFDIBOJDBM 202 MBOE!VTF 6/4/2020 9:12:21 AM TNBMM BDUJWJUZ HSPVQ TQBDF IBMMXBZ TPVUIFBTU NVMUJQVSQPTFTUPSBHFHJSMTCPZTDMBTTSPPNDMBTTSPPNTPVUIFBTU 100 135 148149145144139138136 BUILDING SECTIONS A4.02 CVJMEJOH!TFDUJPOCVJMEJOH!TFDUJPO 56 A4.02A4.02 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" SPPN!GJOJTI!TDIFEVMF!!BEEJUJPO JOUFSJPS!GJOJTI!MFHFOE HFOFSBM!OPUFT WALL FINISH SPEC SECTIONMATERIALABBREVIATIONMANUFACTURERMODEL NAME/ #FINISH/COLORCOMMENTS NUMBERNAMECEILING FINISHNORTH (A)EAST (B)SOUTH (C)WEST (D)COMMENTS A. SEE SHEET G0.01 FOR ARCHITECTURAL ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS 100HALLWAYP-1, WP-1P-1P-1, WP-1P-1 B. SEE G0.05 FOR ASSEMBLY TYPES !DPODSFUF!GMPPS!GJOJTIFT C. SEE A6.10 & A6.11 FOR CEILING TYPES 101OFFICEP-1P-1P-1P-1 POLISHED CONCRETE FLOORCON-1 D.SEE A9.10 & A9.11 FOR FLOORING TYPES 102ELECTRICAL ROOMP-1P-1P-1P-1 E. ALL ROOMS TO HAVE RUBBER BASE, RB-1, UNO 103RESTROOMP-1WP-5WP-5CT-1WP-5 SEALED CONCRETECON-2 F.ALL GWB SOFFITS TO BE PAINTED P-1, UNO 104RESTROOMP-1WP-5WP-5CT-1WP-5 !GJOJTI!DBSQFOUSZ 105ITP-1P-1P-1P-1 106FIRE RISERP-1P-1P-1P-1 MEDIUM DENSTIY FIBERBOARDWP-1CLEAR FINISHWAINSCOT 107SENSORYP-1P-1P-1P-1 MEDIUM DENSITY FIBERBOARDWP-2PAINTED 108SENSORY STORAGEP-1P-1P-1P-1P-1 109HALLWAYP-1, WP-1,P-1P-1, WP-1P-1 WOOD PLANK CEILINGSWD-1CLEAR FINISH WP-2 110MECH ACCESSP-1P-1P-1P-1 WOOD HOOKSWD-2MATCH DOORS 111RECYCLEP-1P-1P-1-- !BSDIJUFDUVSBM!XPPE!DBTFXPSL 112CLASSROOMP-1P-1P-2P-1, P-3 113CLASSROOMP-1P-1, P-6P-1P-1 PLASTIC LAMINATEPL-1FORMICACOUNTER TOPS: 8830 ELEMENTAL CONCRETE 114CUSTODIALP-1P-1P-1, FRP-1P-1, FRP-1P-1 PL-2FORMICACASEWORK: 765-58 NATURAL MAPLE 115SPED RESTROOMP-1WP-4CT-1WP-4WP-4 116CALMING ROOMP-1P-1P-1P-1P-1 !GJCFSHMBTT!SFJOGPSDFE!QBOFMJOH 117SPED OFFICEP-1P-1P-1P-1 WALL PROTECTIONFRP-1MARLITEWHITE S100G 118SPEDP-1P-1P-1P-1 119ACTIVITY SPACE SOUTHWESTP-2P-1P-1, P-2, WP-2P-1, WP-1P-1GWB SOFFIT TO BE PAINTED !GMVTI!XPPE!EPPST 120HALLWAYP-4, WP-2P-1, WP-1P-1P-1, WP-1 WOOD DOORDR-1VT INDUSTRIESWHITE MAPLE VENEER, CLEAR FINISH 121KINDERP-1, P-6P-1P-1P-1 122KINDER RESTROOMP-1CT-1CT-1WP-5WP-5 !UJMJOH 123KINDER RESTROOMP-1CT-1CT-1WP-5WP-5 CERAMIC TILECT-1DALTILELINEAR 8" X 24"SEMIGLOSS, COLOR: ARCTIC WHITE 0190 124KINDERP-1P-1P-1, P-5P-1 125SMALL GROUP NORTHWESTP-1P-1P-1P-1 !BDPVTUJDBM!DFJMJOHT 126ACTIVITY SPACE NORTHWESTP-4P-1P-1, WP-1P-1, WP-1P-1, P-4GWB SOFFIT TO BE PAINTED ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILEACT-1ARMSTRONG CORTEGA SECOND LOOK II 127VESTIBULEP-1P-1P-1P-1P-1 128CLASSROOMP-1, P-2P-1P-1P-1 ACT-2ARMSTRONGCERAMAGUARD FINE FISSURED 608 130CLASSROOMP-1P-1, P-2P-1P-1 131ACTIVITY SPACE NORTHEASTP-3P-1P-1, WP-1-P-1, P-3GWB SOFFIT TO BE PAINTED !SFTJMJFOU!GMPPSJOH 132HALLWAYP-1, WP-1P-1, WP-1P-1, WP-1P-1 RESILIENT TILESMRT-1FORBOMARMOLEUM MCT MCT-629 EIGER 133CLASSROOMP-1P-1P-1P-1, P-6 MRT-2FORBOMARMOLEUM MCT MCT-3888 STONE 134CLASSROOMP-1P-1, P-5P-1P-1 135SMALL GROUP SOUTHEASTP-1P-1P-1P-1 RUBBER BASERB-1TARKETTTBURNT UMBER 4" 136ACTIVITY SPACE SOUTHEASTP-3P-1, WP-1P-1, P-3P-1P-1GWB SOFFIT TO BE PAINTED 137HALLWAYP-1P-1, WP-1, WP-2P-3, WP-2P-1, WP-1!SFTJOPVT!GMPPSJOH 138CLASSROOMP-1, P-4P-1P-1P-1 EPOXY FLOORINGEP-1DURAFLEXPOLYCRETE MD 139CLASSROOMP-1P-1P-1, P-6P-1 140RECYCLEP-1P-1P-1--!UJMF!DBSQFUJOH 141MECH ACCESSP-1P-1P-1P-1 CARPET TILECPT-1TARKETTMODULAR 24" X 24"PATTERN: FORMATION 11251, COLOR: PALE UMBER 58202 142CLOSETP-1P-1P-1P-1P-1 CPT-2TARKETTMODULAR 24" X 24"PATTERN: FORMATION 11251, COLOR: CAERULEUS 58210 143ENTRYP-1WP-1-WP-1CT-1 144BOYSP-1CT-1CT-1, WP-3WP-3WP-3 CPT-3TARKETTMODULAR 24" X 24"PATTERN: FORMATION 11251, COLOR: VERTE 58211 145GIRLSP-1WP-6CT-1, WP-6CT-1WP-6 WALK OFF MATWOM-1SHAWSTEPPIN' OUT, 24" X 24"PATTERN: WELCOME II 5T031, COLOR: STERLING 31557 146RESTROOMP-1WP-4WP-4WP-4CT-1 147OFFICEP-1P-1P-1P-1 !BDPVTUJD!GBCSJD!XBMM!TZTUFTNT 148MULTIPURPOSEP-1P-1P-1P-1 ACOUSTICAL WALL PANELSAWP-1GUILFORD OF MAINE; FR701 2100, COLOR: CEMENT MIX 750 149STORAGEP-1P-1P-1P-1 AWP-2GUILFORD OF MAINE; FR701 2100, COLOR: FIR 743 201MECHANICALP-1P-1P-1P-1 202MECHANICALP-1P-1P-1P-1 AWP-3GUILFORD OF MAINE; FR701 2100, COLOR: COBALT 420 BTIMBOE!TDIPPM !QBJOUJOH EJTUSJDU PAINTP-1MILLERFIELD IFMNBO!FMFNFOUBSZ P-2MILLERGRAY P-3MILLERACCENT 1 - BLUE TDIPPM!BEEJUJPO! P-4MILLERACCENT 2 - GREEN SFOPWBUJPO P-5MILLERACCENT 3 - DARK GREEN P-6MILLERACCENT 4 - YELLOW 705 HELMAN ST. !WJTVBM!EJTQMBZ!CPBSET MARKER BOARDMBCLARIDGE ASHLAND, OR 97520 TACKABLE WALL SURFACETWS-1FORBOHELM 8321-50 TWS-2--TEACHING WALL GLASS WRITING SURACEGWSCLARUS !NFUBM!UPJMFU!DPNQBSUNFOUT TOILET PARTITIONSTPHADRIAN !XBMM!DPWFSJOHT WALL PROTECTIONWP-3CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIESACROVYNBLUESTONE WP-4CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIESACROVYNASPEN WP-5CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIESACROVYNSERENE GREEN WP-6CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIESACROVYNBUTTERCREAM !XBMM!BOE!DPSOFS!HVBSET CORNER GUARDSCG-11" STAINLESS STEEL !XJOEPX!TIBEFT ROLLER SHADESRS-1MECHOECOVEIL FABRIC1563 GREY FUFSJPS!GJOJTI!MFHFOE SPEC SECTIONMATERIALABBREVIATIONMANUFACTURERMODEL NAME/ #FINISH/COLORCOMMENTS !VOJU!NBTPOSZ CONCRETE MASONRY UNITCMU-1SERVICE WALL !TUSVDUVSBM!TUFFM!GSBNJOH STRUCTURAL STEEL EXPOSED--PAINTED - DARK BRONZECANOPIES !NFUBM!GBCSJDBUJPOT DECORATIVE STEEL PLATES--PAINTED - DARK BRONZECANOPIES !QJQF!BOE!UVCF!SBJMJOHT RAILINGS--PAINTED - DARK BRONZEALL RAILINGS !HMVFEMBNJOBUFE!DPOTUSVDUJPO GLU-LAM BEAMS-- !GJOJTI!DBSQFOUSZ No.DescriptionDate WOOD SOFFITSWD-3 !NFUBM!XBMM!BOE!TPGGJU!QBOFMT METAL WALL PANELSMP-1TAYLOR METALSBOX-RIBBEDDARK BRONZE !GJCFS!DFNFOU!TJEJOH FIBER CEMENT PANELSFC-1AMERICAN FIBER CEMENTCEMBRIT PATINAP545 (911 SAND) FC-2AMERICAN FIBER CEMENTCEMBRIT PATINAP313 (915 TURFA) !TIFFU!NFUBM!GMBTIJOH!!USJN SHEET METAL--PAINTED - DARK BRONZEMAIN BLDG Project Number1907 --PAINTED - COPPERCANOPIES Date06.05.2020 !IPMMPX!NFUBM!EPPST!BOE!GSBNFT HOLLOW METAL DOOR--PAINTED - COPPERTO MATCH FC-1 --PAINTED - BIEGETO MATCHFC-2 MBOE!VTF --PAINTED - DARK BRONZETYPICAL HOLLOW METAL FRAME--PAINTED - COPPERTO MATCH FC-1 6/4/2020 9:12:24 AM --PAINTED - BIEGETO MATCHFC-2 --PAINTED - DARK BRONZETYPICAL FINISH SCHEDULES A9.01 Received 7.1.2020 Received 7.1.2020 Received 7.1.2020 Received 7.1.2020 Received 7.1.2020