Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-09 Planning PACKET ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES- Draft February 9, 2021 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 Derek Severson, Senior Planner Haywood Norton April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator Kerry KenCairn Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Lisa Verner II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar issued the following announcements: The February 23 Study Session will be a discussion on the draft code amendments to allow duplexes on residential lots that are currently suited for single family homes. Public Hearings are scheduled for both the March 9 and April 13 meetings. Current land use applications include a subdivision at Mountain Meadows, Walker Elementary, the church at East Main and Fifth St., a mixed-use project at Water St. and Van Ness, and a small subdivision on Oak St. Staff and the consultant were pleased with the input received at the Joint Meeting with the Housing & Human Services Commission. An action list has been compiled and staff will be breaking it down by resources and time. III. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. January 12, 2021 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Pearce/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes. Voice Vote: all AYES. Commissioner Verner abstained. Motion passed 6-0. IV. PUBLIC FORUM – None V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2020-00023, 196 & 200 Clear Creek Drive. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners KenCairn/Thompson m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T2-2020-00023. Voice Vote: all AYES. Commissioner Verner abstained. Motion passed 6-0. VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2020-00025 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax Lot #600 on the newly constructed Independent Way APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services/IPCO Development Corporation. Ashland Planning Commission February 9, 2021 Page 1 of 4 DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval for the construction of two new commercial/industrial buildings on Tax Lot #600 adjacent to Independent Way, the newly installed public street between Washington Street and Tolman Creek Road. Both buildings would be part of the IPCO Development Corporation service building complex, and would share driveway accesses, parking areas and landscaped areas. The first building is proposed to be 10,919 square feet and would be constructed adjacent to Independent Way. The second proposed building would be 17,859 square feet and would be near the south property line. The application includes a request for an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards (AMC 18.4.2.040.B.3.a) which call for a ten-foot wide landscape buffer between the building and the street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 391E14BA; TAX LOT: 600. Chair Norton read aloud the rules for electronic public hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Verner, Pearce, Dawkins, and Norton conducted site visits. Norton stated that during his visit he observed the landscaping buffers at the other buildings along Washington and Jefferson. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report and explained the request is for site design review to construct two new commercial/industrial buildings along the newly constructed Independent Way for IPCO Development. Staff’s presentation outlined the details of the request: Both buildings will be part of the IPCO Development Corporation service building complex and will share driveway accesses, parking areas, and landscaped areas. Building 6 is proposed at 10,919 sq.ft. adjacent to Independent Way; Building 5 is proposed at 17,859 sq.ft. and will be located behind Building 6 near the south property line. The application includes a request for an exception to the Site Development and Design Standards which call for a 10 ft. wide landscape buffer between the building and the street. Mr. Severson reviewed the site layout, elevations, grading plan, landscaping plan, and tree protection plan. He also spoke to the purchase agreement, letter of intent, and deed of dedication. Mr. Severson explained the land use code requires that landscape buffers be at least 10 ft. in width. The applicants are requesting to have the 7 ft. parkrow credited towards this requirement and will install a 3 ft. buffer area. The application asserts that: 1)Crediting the parkrow toward the landscaping was a stipulation of the purchase agreement letter of intent. 2)Not providing the buffer accommodates a more direct sidewalk connection entry. 3)More landscaping may encourage loitering. 4)The property has abundant landscaping with the riparian corridor and parking lot landscaping. 5)The exception will not harm livability as the property is outside the residential overlay. 6)The building will make a positive contribution to the streetscape. 7)The exception allows site planning to accommodate parking and circulation for large trucks, accommodates future intensification of use, and provides for a single floor-level design while addressing grade changes behind the sidewalk and seeking consistent site grades for E-1 uses. Mr. Severson stated staff does not believe the application has successfully demonstrated that the 10 ft. buffer can be eliminated. He explained the purchase agreement and letter of intent recognized that the proposal would be subject to planning approval and that the city “may be required to make land use and or building code decisions affecting development of the subject right-of-way and related property according to local and state laws” and that “the Parties therefore acknowledge that the Buyer cannot and does not promise or guarantee any particular planning or building code decision or result as part of or as a condition of achieving the purposes of this letter of intent.” Mr. Severson stated neither the site grades or intended use demonstrate that the full buffer width cannot be accommodated across the two acre site, and there is not a clear demonstration that the exception would be consistent with the stated purpose to “enhance the environment to Ashland Planning Commission February 9, 2021 Page 2 of 4 encourage alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, bicycling, and transit” and to “require high quality development that makes a positive contribution to the streetscape and maintains a sense of place that is distinctly Ashland.” Mr. Severson stated staff is supportive of the proposal minus the exception request. Questions of Staff Is the applicant proposing to place the building right at the back of the sidewalk? Staff clarified the applicants are proposing a 3 ft. landscape buffer which would be located on the private property. It was noted that the applicants believed that the parkrow would be credited towards their buffer requirement. Applicant’s Presentation Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning & Development Services/Stated the subject property is zoned employment and is surrounded by commercial and industrial zoned property. Ms. Gunter explained the installation of Independent Way was not done at the request of the property owners and was sought by the City of Ashland. The City held negotiations with the property owner to purchase the land and install the road and it was their understanding that the building area was intended to be right behind the sidewalk. Ms. Gunter shared photos depicting the grade change behind the sidewalk. Ms. Gunter explained the IPCO service buildings are interconnected and stated the site accommodates heavy vehicular traffic through the property. She shared the building elevations and reviewed the proposed building design. Ms. Gunter stated the property owners reject the Planning Division’s assessment of the 2012 negotiations and stated the owners wanted a narrow driveway rather than a public street through the property. She stated they understand the benefit of having a roadway installed and are grateful for the improvements but have concerns about the landscape buffer and it was their understanding that this was incorporated into the right of way improvements. She stated the proposed 3 ft. buffer results in a 10 ft. landscape area and greatly softens the building. Ms. Gunter noted the importance of functional buildings in this employment zone and explained the building was pushed forward in order for the site to be functional for large trucks. She noted there is no parking permitted along the building frontage and stated the 3 ft. buffer adequately addresses the pedestrian environment requirement. Ms. Gunter requested the Commission apply the discretion permitted under the land use code and consider the negotiation agreements reached between the property owners and the former Public Works director. Russ Batzer/Batzer Construction/Explained they have followed the guidelines of their customer who believed they had negotiated in good faith with the City and had reached an agreement. Mr. Batzer stated they have designed the site for the highest and best use of the property and stated altering the proposal to incorporate a wider landscape buffer would reduce the value of the development significantly. He stated the proposed warehouses are much needed in the city and the property owners are providing the financial backing. He added it is painful they are in this situation when they negotiated in good faith with the city but nobody who made the deal on the city’s behalf is still there. Gary Caperna/Project Architect/Stated this area does not connect to any residential areas and with careful plant selections they believe the proposed 3 ft. strip will result in a very pleasant pedestrian experience. Questions of the Applicant Comment was made that it is difficult to see a basis for granting the exception but acknowledged the applicants concerns about the cost to the project. The applicants were asked if it is possible to shift the parking area back. Ms. Gunter and Mr. Caperna explained that the parking area has already been constricted as much as possible. They may be able to get another 18 inches but anymore than that and they will lose an entire row of parking and they would no longer meet the parking requirements and needed drive aisle width. They also noted conflicts with loading bays and truck maneuvering. The applicants were asked whether it is possible to shift Building 5 to the south to meet the landscape buffer requirement. Ms. Gunter explained that Building 5 is already nearly abutting the property line; and Mr. Caperna stated there are utility easements and a substantial amount of underground power that the city recently installed. He stated there is also a property line that runs between the two buildings and stated they have pushed it as tight as they possibly can. Ashland Planning Commission February 9, 2021 Page 3 of 4 Comment was made that the proposed findings indicate 29 parking spaces are needed, but the applicants are proposing 40 to service the building on the adjacent property. The applicants were asked why they are proposing more spaces than the code requires. Ms. Gunter cited the recent Clear Creek proposal where the Commission expressed concern with not providing enough parking, so they have proposed more than the requirement. She added the extra parking is needed to keep the existing IPCO buildings functional. Mr. Caperna added that this area is becoming more desirable and they did not want to under-park the future tenants. Mr. Batzer added that the existing buildings are already under-parked and reducing the parking to be right at the minimum standards would stress these new buildings. Ms. Gunter clarified that the site plan includes the existing parking and they are being counted because they are on this property. Comment was made questioning if the applicants have an easement for the parking as this could create issues in the future. Ms. Gunter stated the property owner owns both lots and they cannot grant themselves an easement. Mr. Severson concurred and stated the land use code allows this to be treated as a single property for the purpose of land use decisions. Mr. Caperna stated the tenants and uses for the proposed building have not yet been determined. He stated they have used conservative and reasonable numbers to determine what the needed parking will be. Public Testimony – None Chair Norton closed the public hearing and the record at 8:12 p.m. Mr. Molnar noted that the applicants just submitted a request for the record to remain open. Commissioners Harper/Pearce m/s to reopen the public hearing. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. Ms. Gunter addressed the Commission and formally requested that the record be left open. Chair Norton closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. and announced the record will be left open until February 16, 2021. Deliberation and Decision Deliberations and Decision will be held at the February 23, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. The commissioners shared their initial comments regarding the proposal. Comment was made that it is unfortunate the property owner did not understand they would be subject to current land use requirements, but it is difficult to find that the exception is merited. Support was voiced for this assessment however it was clarified that the Commission will withhold judgement pending review of new materials submitted into the record. VII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator Ashland Planning Commission February 9, 2021 Page 4 of 4 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-T2-2020-00026 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Mountain Meadows Drive & Skylark Place APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for Hunter & Madeline Hill (owners, TL #234) Mountain Meadows Owners Association (owners, TL.#88000) DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan approvals for a ten lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.3.9), and Site Design Review approval for an eight-unit multi-family senior housing development for the vacant parcel (Tax Lot #234) at the southeast corner of Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place. The application also includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards to allow the applicant to provide curbside sidewalks on their property, adjacent to the right- of-way, and to provide head-in on-street parking that is partly within the right-of-way and partly on the adjacent private property along Skylark Place; and a request for Solar Access Exceptions to allow the proposed Units #3 & #7 to shade the south walls of Units #2 & #6 greater than the shadow that would be cast by a six-foot fence on the property line. (An associated request for a Property Line Adjustment between the subject property and the Mountain Meadows Parkside Condominiums property (Tax Lot #88000) on Golden COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Aspen Place immediately to the south has been approved ministerially.) DESIGNATION: ZONING: MAP: TAX LOT #: Healthcare; HC; 39 1E 04AD;234and 88000 ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday March 9, 2021 G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Planning Commission\\Packets\\2021\\2021-03-09\\Mountain Meadows at Skylark\\MountainMeadows_Skylark_PA-T2-2020-00026_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 March 9 th PC Hearing Testimony Monday March 8, 2021. 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 March 9 th PC Hearing Testimony, March 8, 2021. 10:00 a.m. on Monday 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 Monday March 8, 2021. In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email March 9th 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 541-488-5305 or Derek.Severson@ashland.or.us G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Planning Commission\\Packets\\2021\\2021-03-09\\Mountain Meadows at Skylark\\MountainMeadows_Skylark_PA-T2-2020-00026_NOC.docx OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL 18.3.9.040.A.3 Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR FINAL PLAN 18.3.9.040.B.5 Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria. a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. 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 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. G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Planning Commission\\Packets\\2021\\2021-03-09\\Mountain Meadows at Skylark\\MountainMeadows_Skylark_PA-T2-2020-00026_NOC.docx EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020.B.1 Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENTS 18.5.3.120.B The Staff Advisor shall approve or deny a request for a property line adjustment in writing based on all of the following criteria. 1. Parcel Creation. No additional parcel or lot is created by the lot line adjustment. 2. Lot Standards. Except as allowed for nonconforming lots, pursuant to chapter 18.1.4, or as required by an overlay zone in part 18.3, all lots and parcels conform to the lot standards of the applicable zoning district, including lot area, dimensions, setbacks, and coverage, per part 18.2. If a lot does not conform to the lots standards of the applicable zoning district, it shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. As applicable, all lots and parcels shall identify a buildable area free of building restrictions for physical constraints (i.e., flood plain, greater than 35 percent slope, water resource protection zones). 3. Access Standards. All lots and parcels conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. Lots and parcels that do not conform to the access standards shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. EXCEPTION TO SOLAR SETBACKS 18.4.8.020.C C. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from section 18.4.8.030 Solar Setbacks are subject to 18.4.8.020.C.1 Exception to the Solar Setback, below. Deviations from the standards in section 18.4.8.050 Solar Orientation Standards are subject to subsection 18.5.2.050.E Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. 1. Solar Setback Exception. The approval authority through a Type I review pursuant to section 18.5.1.050 may approve exceptions to the standards in 18.4.8.030 Solar Setbacks if the requirements in subsection a, below, are met and the circumstances in subsection b, below, are found to exist. a. That the owner or owners of all property to be shaded sign, and record with the County Clerk on the affected properties' deed, a release form supplied by the City containing all of the following information. i. The signatures of all owners or registered leaseholders holding an interest in the property in question. ii. A statement that the waiver applies only to the specific building or buildings to which the waiver is granted. iii. A statement that the solar access guaranteed by this section is waived for that particular structure and the City is held harmless for any damages resulting from the waiver. iv. A description and drawing of the shading which would occur. b. The approval authority finds all of the following criteria are met. i. The exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy (i.e., passive and active solar energy systems) on the site by future habitable buildings. ii. The exception does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a passive or active solar energy system used by a habitable structure on an adjacent lot. iii. There are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Planning Commission\\Packets\\2021\\2021-03-09\\Mountain Meadows at Skylark\\MountainMeadows_Skylark_PA-T2-2020-00026_NOC.docx DRAFT FINDINGS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2021 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2020-00026, A REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVALS FOR A TEN-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER) THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS CHAPTER (AMC 18.3.9), AND SITE ) DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR AN EIGHT-UNIT SENIOR HOUSING DEVEL- ) OPMENT FOR THE VACANT PARCEL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MOUN- ) TAIN MEADOWS DRIVE AND SKYLARK PLACE. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES ) A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE STREET STANDARDS TO ALLOW THE ) DRAFT ENT TO THE ) FINDINGS, RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND TO PROVIDE HEAD-IN ON-STREET PARKING THAT IS ) CONCLUSIONS & PARTLY WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PARTLY ON THE ADJACENT PRIV- ) ORDERS ATE PROPERTY ALONG SKYLARK PLACE; AND A REQUEST FOR A SOLAR ) ACCESS EXCEPTION TO ALLOW PROPOSED UNITS #3 AND #7 TO SHADE THE ) SOUTH WALLS OF UNITS #2 AND #6 GREATER THAN THE SHADOW CAST BY ) A SIX-FOOT FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE. ) ) APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for ) Hunter & Madeline Hill, owners ) ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #234 of Map 39 1E 04AD is a vacant parcel located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place, and is located within the HC (Healthcare Services) zoning district. 2) The applicants are requesting Outline and Final Plan approvals for a ten lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.3.9), and Site Design Review approval for an eight- unit multi-family senior housing development for the vacant parcel (Tax Lot #234) at the southeast corner of Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place. The application also includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards to allow the applicant to provide curbside sidewalks on their property, adjacent to the right-of-way, and to provide head-in on-street parking that is partly within the right-of-way and partly on the adjacent private property along Skylark Place; and a request for Solar Access Exceptions to allow the proposed Units #3 & #7 to shade the south walls of Units #2 & #6 greater than the shadow that would be cast by a six-foot fence on the property line. An associated request for a Property Line Adjustment between the subject property and the Mountain Meadows Parkside Condominiums property (Tax Lot #88000) on Golden Aspen Place immediately to the south has been approved ministerially. 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: PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 1 a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 4) The approval criteria for Final Plan approval are described in as follows: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. AMC 18.5.2.050 5) The approval criteria for Site Design Review are described 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 PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 2 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. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards: The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. AMC 18.4.8.020.C.1.b 6) The approval criteria for a Solar Access Exception are described in as follows: Solar Setback Exception. 1. The approval authority through a Type I review pursuant to section 18.5.1.050 may approve exceptions to the standards in 18.4.8.030 Solar Setbacks if the requirements in subsection a, below, are met and the circumstances in subsection b, below, are found to exist. b. The approval authority finds all of the following criteria are met. i. The exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy (i.e., passive and active solar energy systems) on the site by future habitable buildings. ii. The exception does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a passive or active solar energy system used by a habitable structure on an adjacent lot. iii. There are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 3 AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1 7) The approval criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in as follows: a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. AMC 18.5.3.120.B 8) The approval criteria for a Property Line Adjustment are described in as follows: 1. Parcel Creation. No additional parcel or lot is created by the lot line adjustment. 2. Lot Standards. Except as allowed for nonconforming lots, pursuant to chapter 18.1.4, or as required by an overlay zone in part 18.3, all lots and parcels conform to the lot standards of the applicable zoning district, including lot area, dimensions, setbacks, and coverage, per part 18.2. If a lot does not conform to the lots standards of the applicable zoning district, it shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. As applicable, all lots and parcels shall identify a buildable area free of building restrictions for physical constraints (i.e., flood plain, greater than 35 percent slope, water resource protection zones). 3. Access Standards. All lots and parcels conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. Lots and parcels that do not conform to the access standards shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. 9) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on March 9, 2021 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 4 SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Outline Plan, Final Plan, Site Design Review, Solar Access Exception and Exception to the Street Standards approvals meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3; for Final Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5; for Site Design Review approval described in AMC 18.5.2.050; for a Solar Access Exception described in AMC 18.4.8.020.C.1.b;and for an Exception to the Street Standards as described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1. 2.3 The Planning Commission concludesthat 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, 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 will not cause a City facility to The Planning Commission finds that adequate key city facilities are available and can and will be extended to serve the development, including: Water: There are eight-inch water mains in place within the adjacent rights-of-way for both Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place. As proposed, eight new water services will be installed to serve each unit with its own meter. Additionally, the applicant will install two PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 5 additional meters to provide water for landscaped areas around the parent parcel, association will pay for the cost of irrigation. Sewer: An existing eight-inch sanitary sewer main is in place within the adjacent Skylark Place right-of-way. Electricity: An existing electrical transformer is in place along the north property line, and electric services with individual meters will be extended to serve each unit. Urban storm drainage : There are existing 12-inch stormwater mains in place in the adjacent public rights-of-way for both Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place. As proposed, stormwater run-off is to be captured on site, detained in underground pipes and conveyed to a storm drain manhole with a restricted orifice that will limit stormwater discharge into the adjacent mains to pre-development levels. Paved Access & Adequate Transportation: Both Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place the typical cross-section for a neighborhood street, and an Exception is discussed in detail in 2.7 below. In reviewing the proposal, Public Works/Engineering staff noted that a handicapped accessible ramp will be required at the intersection of Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place, and for any on-street handicapped accessible parking spaces, and conditions to that effect are included below. The scale of the proposed development does not trigger a Traffic Impact Analysis or other transportation assessment; however, the Commission finds that a neighborhood street is assumed to be able to accommodate up to 1,500 average daily trips (ADT), and given that the neighborhood here is largely isolated from outside vehicle trips, the street with the improvements proposed has adequate transportation capacity to serve the eight additional homes. Trash & Recycling: While not identified as a key city facility, the application materials do note that individual cans are to be provided for each residence. On collection day, cans are to be placed on the curb line of the Skylark Place extension where the curb continues to the service driveway across proposed Lot #8. The application indicates that this placement will not be in conflict with parking, access, vision clearance or other on-street improvements. The Planning Commission finds that adequate key city facilities are available within the adjacent rights- of-way or will be in place with completion of the proposed subdivision infrastructure 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 and that civil infrastructure be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. The Planning Commission concludes that key city facilities can and will be provided to serve the proposal. The third criterion for approval of an OuThe 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, The Planning Commission finds that natural features within the broader PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 6 Mountain Meadows community including the Kitchen Creek corridor have been preserved and protected within the open space areas which are available to all residents, including those of the subject property here, however there are no significant natural features on the subject property itself. The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, The Planning Commission finds that the development of the subject property will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. As the application materials explain, the proposal is for the final phase of a 21½-acre master-planned community. Adjacent lands are developed in keeping with the community plan: An Assisted Living Facility is across Skylark Place to the north of the subject property, and there are large scale condominium developments to the south and west. Lands to the east are outside the city limits and urban growth boundary. Skylark Place terminates at the subdivision boundary, and the property to the east in Jackson County is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and contains one residence. The fifth approval criterion is that, 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 projectThe Planning Commission finds that the proposed Mountain Hill Estates on the subject property is the final phase of the Mountain Meadows Planned Community, and is already considered within the recorded declarations (Jackson County Document #2016-01848) as part of the planned community. The Commission further finds that adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas are in place for the Mountain Meadows Planned Community. The sixth criterion is that, The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapterThe Planning Commission finds that as provided in AMC 18.3.3.030.A., within the Healthcare (HC) Services District, when residential development is proposed it is considered in light of the zoning regulations for the R-2 zoning district which allows a base density of 13½ dwelling units per acre and requires that development meet a minimum density of at least 80 percent of the base density. (34,288 s.f./43,560 The 34,288-square foot subject property has a base density of 10.625 dwelling units s.f. per acre = 0.787 acres; 0.787 acres x 13.5 d.u./acre = 10.625 dwelling units) and a minimum density (10.625 d.u. x 0.80 = 8.5 d.u.) of 8.5 dwelling units . The application materials further note that the proposal is also in keeping with the original Mountain Meadows Planned Community Outline Plan as envisioned in 1995 with PA #95-074, explaining that the (21.5 acres x 13.5 base density of the total development area was determined to be 290.25 dwelling units d.u./acre = 290.25)(290.25 d.u. x 0.80 = 232.2 d.u.) and the minimum density was 232.2 dwelling units . The application materials indicate that there are presently 239¼ residential units within Mountain Meadows, and with the addition of the eight proposed units here, the total development will have 247¼ dwelling units which is in keeping with both the base density and minimum density for the broader planned community. PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 7 Mountain Meadows Planned Community Dwelling Units (d.u.) by Phase Phase I ЋЍ ķ͵ǒ͵ Phase II ВЋ͵ЋЎ ķ͵ǒ͵ Phase III ББ ķ͵ǒ͵ Phase IV ЌЎ ķ͵ǒ͵ Phase V (CźƓğƌ) Б ķ͵ǒ͵ Combined Total 247.25 d.u. Dwelling Units The Planning Commission finds that the proposed eight units meet the applicable density standards. The development complies with the Street Standards. The Planning Commission here finds that the application requests an Exception to the Street Standards to allow curbside sidewalks on the property, adjacent to the right-of-way, and to allow head-in on-street parking that is partly within the public right-of-way and partly on the adjacent private property along Skylark Place. The applicant asserts that this street development pattern is consistent with the street development pattern in place throughout the Mountain Meadows Community, and has provided written findings in support of the Exception request. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above, the applicant has requested an Exception to the Street Design Standards and provided written findings to support this request. The Exception request is discussed in Section 2.7below. 2.4 The Planning Commission notes that Final Plan approval seeks to review minor modifications between the Outline and Final Plan procedural steps to verify that the two are in substantial conformance. The Planning Commission finds that in this instance, Outline and Final Plan are being filed concurrently as allowed for projects of fewer than ten units and are thus identical. The Commission concludesthat the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Final Plan approval. 2.5 The Planning Commission concludesthat the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. The Planning Commission notes that within the Health Care Services District, residential uses are considered a permitted use, and when residential uses are proposed they are subject to the requirements of the R-2 zone. The Planning Commission further notes that the Performance Standards Options chapter provides an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. As PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 8 such, Performance Standards Options developments are not required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth and setbacks detailed in AMC 18.2, and other standards as provided in the Performance Standards Options chapter. Historically, the flexibility of the Performance Standards Options chapter has been applied to allow smaller-than-standard lots to be clustered on a site so that natural features may be preserved in large common open spaces which serve the subdivision as a whole rather than individual lots or phases, and lot coverage has been considered in terms of the broader subdivision rather than on an individual lot-by-lot basis. The original Outline Plan approval for the Mountain Meadows planned community noted: ŷĻ tĻƩŅƚƩƒğƓĭĻ {ƷğƓķğƩķƭ /ƚƓĭĻƦƷ ğƌƌƚǞƭ ŅƚƩ ŅƌĻǣźĬƌĻ ķĻƭźŭƓ ƭƷğƓķğƩķƭ Ʒƚ ƦƩƚƷĻĭƷ ğƓķ ĻƓŷğƓĭĻ ƓğƷǒƩğƌ ŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭ ğƓķ Ʒƚ ƦƩƚǝźķĻ ƚƦĻƓ ƭƦğĭĻƭ͵ \[ƚƷ ƭźǩĻƭ źƓ aƚǒƓƷğźƓ aĻğķƚǞƭ ğƩĻ ƉĻƦƷ Ʒƚ ğ ƒźƓźƒǒƒ ƭƚ ƷŷğƷ ğ ƌğƩŭĻ ƷƩğĭƷ ƚŅ ƌğƓķ ĭğƓ ĬĻ ŭźǝĻƓ ƚǝĻƩ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƓğƷǒƩğƌ ƚƦĻƓ ƭƦğĭĻ ğƓķ ƩźƦğƩźğƓ ğƩĻğ ĭĻƓƷĻƩĻķ ƚƓ ƷŷĻ ĻǣźƭƷźƓŭ ƭƷƩĻğƒƭ͵ ĭŷğƩğĭƷĻƩ ƚŅ Ʒŷźƭ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ƒğǤ ĬĻ ķĻŅźƓĻķ ğƭ ğ ĭğƒƦǒƭ ƭƷǤƌĻ ğƦƦƩƚğĭŷ Ʒƚ ƦƩƚǝźķźƓŭ ƷŷĻ ƒğƓǤ ķźŅŅĻƩĻƓƷ ƌźǝźƓŭ ĻƓǝźƩƚƓƒĻƓƷƭ ƓĻĻķĻķ ğƓķ ķĻƭźƩĻķ ĬǤ ƦĻƩƭƚƓƭ Ǟŷƚ ğƩĻ ĻǣƦĻƩźĻƓĭźƓŭ ğ ƩĻƌğƷźǝĻƌǤ ƩğƦźķ ĭŷğƓŭĻ źƓ ƷŷĻźƩ ĭğƦğĬźƌźƷźĻƭ ğƓķ ƓĻĻķƭ͵ ŷĻ ĭğƒƦǒƭ ğƦƦƩƚğĭŷ ĭğƓ ƦƩƚǝźķĻ ŅƚƩ ƷŷƚƭĻ ƓĻĻķƭ ǞźƷŷ ƌĻǝĻƌƭ ƚŅ ƭǒƦƦƚƩƷ ğǝğźƌğĬƌĻ źƓ ğ ƒƚƩĻ źƓƭƷźƷǒƷźƚƓğƌ ğƓķ ƓğƷǒƩğƌ ŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭ źƭ ĻƭƭĻƓƷźğƌ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ ĭƩĻğƷźƚƓ ğƓķ ΏΏ Pages 7-8 of the -074 The Planning Commission notes that lot coverage within the Health Care Services District and the R-2 zone are both limited to 65 percent. The application materials explain that the proposed impervious areas on the 34,288 square foot subject property, including building footprints, patios and decks, pathways, and driveways total 26,558 square feet for a lot coverage of 77.5 percent, however when considered in terms of the broader Mountain Meadows Planned Community master plan as originally approved, the Planning Commission finds that the total coverage for Mountain Meadows is substantially less than the 65 percent maximum coverage, as detailed in the table below: Mountain Meadows Planned Community Existing & Proposed Lot Coverage Total Land Area (Square Feet) ВЌЏͲЉЉЍ % Coverage Structures & Driveways (Square Feet) ЋАЌͲБЎЌ ЋВ͵ЋЏі Streets & Sidewalks (Square Feet) ЊВАͲААЊ ЋЊ͵ЊЌі Total Existing Lot Coverage (Square Feet) ЍАЊͲЏЋЍ ЎЉ͵ЌВі Landscaped Areas ЍЏЍͲЋЏЌ ЍВ͵ЏЉі Add'l Phase 5 Coverage Proposed Here (Square Feet) ЋЏͲЎЎБ Total Mountain Meadows Planned Community Coverage with addition of Phase 5 53.22% PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 9 The Planning Commission further finds that when considered through the lens of the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.3.9) the lot coverage for the Mountain Meadows Planned Community with the additional coverage of the final Phase 5 proposed here remains consistent with the vision of the originally-approved master plan. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed buildings are in compliance with the building height allowance under the R-2 standards. Building heights are not to exceed 35 feet or 2½ -stories, and here the tallest two-story units are 23-feet 7 5/8-inches at their highest point. The Planning Commission finds that building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards are fully considered in the discussion of the site development and design standards in part 18.4 discussed in detail below. The Planning Commission concludes that the applicable regulations for the underlying Health Care Service District are or will be complied with under the proposal The second approval criterion is that, The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). The Planning Commission finds that the subject property is located within the Health Care Service District which is addressed in AMC 18.3.3, however as noted in AMC 18.3.3.030.A, when residential uses are proposed they are considered in light of the R-2 standards in part 18.2. The Planning Commission further finds that the subject property is located within the Wildfire Lands overlay zone, 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, and any new landscaping proposed will need to per Resolution #2018-028. A condition has been included below to require a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan and plant list be provided for the review and approval of the Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of a building permit or to bringing any combustibles onto the site. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the applicable overlay zone requirements in AMC 18.3. The third criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed residential units have entry doors which face the adjacent public street and which include a covered entry that enhances the entrance. No parking is proposed between the building and the street; all parking is located to the side and rear of the structures. Each senior housing unit requires one off-street parking space, and Lots #1-7 have single-car garages which take access from the shared driveway, while Lot #8 takes access from the shared driveway serving The street-fronting units are setback from the front property line the minimum front yard setback in the R- 2 zone, which is consistent with the majority of the residential units in the Mountain Meadows, which have their porches at eight- to ten-foot setbacks while the front faces of the residences are at 15 - 20 feet. PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 10 The building materials are compatible with the surrounding area, and mix modern and classic elements. The units are proposed to have horizontal lap siding and/or board-and-batten siding, and composite shingles. The paint colors are proposed to be neutral shades in similar tones. One street tree chosen from the street tree list will be placed for each 30 feet of frontage, while taking into account the spacing of driveways and street light placement. Conceptual landscaping plans have been submitted with the application, and are designed so that plant coverage of 90 percent will be achieved within five years of planting. Final landscaping plans with irrigation details will be provided for review with the building permit submittals to demonstrate compliance with the Irrigation and Water Conserving Landscaping requirements. Street trees will be provided for in the landscape park row adjacent to the Mountain Meadows Drive frontage and in the parking bays. There will also be street trees in the parking bays on Skylark Place. The trees will be selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide, and will be two-inch caliper at the time of planting. All landscaping is to be maintained in good condition, and the association declaration, included as an exhibit with the application, details the responsibility for maintaining landscaping on both the association-owned property on the private individual lots, as well as community standards, trees, irrigation, sidewalks, and private yards contracts with a professional landscape company to maintain all front yards of single family homes as - and condominium association-owned landscaped areas, and all irrigation water for the association-maintained areas is metered separately from individual residential water meters and billed to the HOA. Recycling and refuse disposal areas will be provided pursuant to AMC 18.4.4, and to meet the needs of Recology, individual trash cans and recycle containers will be placed at the curb by the resident of each unit or by an HOA maintenance employee. The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.4.4.070 includes minimum area requirements when either common or private open space is required. In the case of applications involving both Performance Standards Options subdivisions and Site Design Review with a base density of ten units or more, a minimum of eight percent of the total lot area is required to be provided in open space, with a minimum of four percent to be provided in common open space and no more than four percent provided in private open space. In conjunction with the approval for Phase I of the Mountain Meadows planned community, which included the first 24 units, the Planning Commission also approved a conceptual master plan for the broader 21½-acre Mountain Meadows planned community which included the preservation and enhancement of 3¼-acres of open space. The master plan considered open space at the community level, across all future phases of the community, and noted that fully 15 percent of the parent parcel was dedicated to open space. The approval detailed how a resident of the upper parts of the community could navigate the pr topography through a network of walking paths, small bridges and building elevators to access the main community park area along Kitchen Creek. Two creek corridors through the property Kitchen Creek and an irrigation-fed drainage - were incorporated into the open space and enhanced to inhibit erosion and address stormwater detention while ensuring their ability to convey a 100-year storm event. The treatment of these creek corridors was approved by the Division of State Lands (DSL). A wetland/marsh system was developed for water detention, flood control, filtration and habitat, and to add further diversity and habitat, an upland forested area was established between the creek and wetland riparian zones. Trees included alders, willows and larger Oaks were identified and preserved within the open space areas. The Planning Commission finds that the Mountain Meadows Planned Community, as originally approved with its masterplan in 1995, PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 11 addressed and exceeded the requirements for providing open space with the preservation and enhancement of 3¼-acres of community open space. The Planning Commission finds that the applicable standards of Part 18.4 have been satisfied. The fourth criterion for Site Review approval is that, The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.The adequacy of public facilities is fully addressed in the Outline Plan discussion under 2.3 above, and the Planning Commission finds that on the basis of that discussion, the proposal complies with all applicable standards in 18.4.6 and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and through the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property by the applicant with the current proposal. The final approval criterion addresses Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. This criterion does not apply, as no Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards have been requested with the current application. 2.6 The Planning Commission concludesthat the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for a Solar Setback Exception. The application materials explain that the subject property is relatively narrow from north-to-south, with a 141.9-foot north-south dimension. Based on the solar access performance standard provisions of AMC 18.4.8.040, this dimension could only accommodate two lots. Due to the parent imited north- south dimension, the proposed development utilizes attached wall construction for six of the eight structures, however two units require Solar Access Exceptions. The first approval criterion for a Solar Setback Exception is that, The exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy (i.e., passive and active solar energy systems) on the site by future habitable buildings. The application materials assert that the additional shading proposed does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on site by future habitable buildings as the shadows cast by Units #3 and #7 fall below the eave line and would not adversely impact the installation of roof-top solar panels on the shaded properties. In addition, Unit #2 is a two-story unit which could take advantage of passive solar with the upstairs windows. Both shaded units are also noted as having outdoor spaces which orient to the east or west to avoid shading. The second approval criterion is that, The exception does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a passive or active solar energy system used by a habitable structure on an adjacent lot. The Planning Commission finds that as the Exception requested here is at the subdivision level, neither of the impacted lots has a passive or active solar energy system in place, however as the proposed shading does not impact the roof of either structure both could install active roof-top solar energy systems without any substantial diminishment of solar access which is similar to the allowances made for Cottage Housing. In addition, passive solar design could be utilized with the upper floor windows and outdoor living areas PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 12 provided. The third and final Solar Setback Exception approval criterion is that, There are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. The application materials explain that the parent parcel is a preexisting lot of record within a planned unit development that anticipated both attached wall and detached wall residential construction. The parcel is wide east-to-west but narrow north-to-south which makes compliance with solar access difficult while also responding to minimum densities. This is further complicated because the site is within a 55+ senior housing development which seeks to keep finished site grades of from 2½ to three percent, and as such cannot step the structures into the grade to achieve compliance. The application further notes that the alternative would be a driveway bisecting the property from east to west in approximately the location of Unit 3 to provide a wider separation and achieve solar setback compliance, however this would create other layout issues by forcing units to orient north to south toward Skylark Place, rather than Mountain Meadows Drive, and adding substantially more impervious surface. The Planning Commission finds that the lot configuration is such that it complicates solar access compliance when considered in light of site grades and planned density. 2.7 The application includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards to allow the applicant to provide head-in on-street parking that is partly within the right-of-way and partly on the adjacent private property along Skylark Place rather than in a parallel lane along the street, and to provide curbside sidewalks on the private property adjacent to the right-of-way. As proposed, the applicant would add a landscaped park row and a parking bay for the on-street parallel parking spaces along Mountain Meadows Drive, with a five-foot curbside sidewalk, in keeping with the pattern of the broader Mountain Meadows planned community, and Skylark Place would be improved with 16 head-in parking spaces, including one ADA space. A five-foot, six-inch sidewalk is also proposed. The proposed landscape islands and a portion of the head-in parking spaces would be within the dedicated right-of-way, with the remainder of the improvements on the adjacent private property. The Planning Commission concludesthat the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for an Exception to the Street Design Standards. The first approval criterion is that, There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. The application materials explain that the Mountain Meadows Community is a 55+ retirement community, and that the streets have been designed with seniors and their unique mobility challenges in mind with accessible parking placed in close proximity to the uses it is intended to serve, and efforts made to provide more parking in close proximity to the clubhouse, which is the central hub of the community. The clubhouse is located at the top of a steep hill, and many senior residents can still drive but are unable to walk up and down that hill two times every day to eat lunch and dinner in the clubhouse dining room, visit the library, socialize with friends, attend musical events and fitness classes. Because the subject property is the final phase of the Mountain Meadows development, it is the only place on the campus left where additional parking can be provided, and a head-in parking arrangement is proposed because it is the best solution to provide more parking in the space available. The application materials further explain that PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 13 Mountain Meadows is unique in Ashland. Mobility issues mean a parking spot to the central hub of the community, the clubhouse, is essential. The application materials emphasize that street connectivity is provided, yet the streets see very little vehicular traffic and little traffic from outside of the residents, home care providers, house cleaners and other professionals associated with the residents of the community. Additionally, the publicly accessible but private developmentstreets and sidewalks are similar to other streets, alleys and sidewalks throughout the Mountain Meadows Community where some typically-public improvements are provided on private-owned property. The Mountain Meadows Community improves and maintains the sidewalks, alleys and streets in good condition 2020 MMOA Rules & Regulations 8.10.7 addressing s the street design in this proposal and is willing to assume responsibility for the proposed head-in parking spaces on the north-side of Skylark Place. The Planning Commission finds that the use of the subject property and broader Mountain Meadows Planned Community for senior housing, and the associated mobility challenges of some senior residents is a unique circumstance which is complicated by the location of the community clubhouse atop a steep hill presenting a demonstrable difficulty for some residents in accessing this community hub on foot. This necessitates providing as much parking as possible in relative proximity to the clubhouse, and the applicant has thus proposed to provide head-in parking to accommodate more spaces than would parallel parking. The second criteria of the approval of an Exception is that, The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable: for transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience; for bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic; and for pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. The exception is to not install standard street improvements on Skylark Place. Skylark has existing head- in parking on the north side, and the proposed development pattern reflects the parking on the north side of the same street in an effort to limit the distance of travel for the senior residents and guests utilizing on- street parking. Head-in parking provides more parking spaces closer to the clubhouse than would be created with regular parallel parking bays, and this increases the comfort level and pedestrian safety for persons who have difficulty walking long distances or may need to use mobility devices. Connectivity is maintained with sidewalk access. Declaration and Rules & Regula informal carpooling system has developed where residents who still drive offer rides to their neighbors to ss. The proposed head-in parking will also be used to bolster these informal transportation systems. The application materials explain that the subject property was used as a parking lot for many years for the above purposes until a fence was erected last year. For four years before the fence went up, the number of vehicles parking on the lot at different times of the day and evening was counted and recorded. Every PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 14 day except Sunday the daytime count averaged 35 cars on the lot, with all on-street parking spots full on After excluding Skylark Assisted Living employees, this suggests a demand of 15-20 parking spaces for residents, visitors, employees and home care workers. In the evenings when the clubhouse restaurant was open for dinner, there was still an average of about 8-10 cars parked on the vacant lot, again with all on- street parking spots full on both sides of Mountain Meadows Drive, Fair Oaks Avenue and in t Green circle. Before the lot was fenced, there was an informal head-in parking system; if that had not been the case, these numbers would have been much higher. A few of those cars were associated with visitors to Skylark Assisted Living, but the vast majority were involved in Mountain Meadows activities and amenities, visiting relatives or , or employees of the management company and restaurant, or employed directly by residents to assist them The third approval criterion is that, The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The application materials assert that with the proposal, including the requested exception, an incomplete street system will be completed, and will help alleviate the current shortage on-street parking for residents, guests, employees and home-care workers. There are about 25 employees working in the clubhouse, either directly for ththe restaurant. These employees now compete for limited parking spaces. The clubhouse is the center of activity for socialization, education, dining, library, fitness programs, interaction with professionals, etc., and as residents age in place, getting from their various homes scattered around the community up to the clubhouse becomes more problematic, as does finding a place to park for commuting employees. The current parking near the clubhouse is limited to 13 spaces around the circle known as Hunter Green and whatever is available along Mountain Meadows Drive and the east end of Fair Oaks Ave. The additional on-street parking spaces this plan offers to supplement the available on street parking is a big factor in community enthusiasm for the new development. The application materials further explain that there are currently about 225 people now living in the Mountain Meadows community. Some are comfortable walking to and from the clubhouse and dining facilities; others in the 55+ community facing mobility challenges are not. When additional property on the west side of North Mountain Avenue, within the North Mountain Neighborhood, was added to the community it meant an additional 43 residential units (28 single family homes and 15 condominiums) with senior residents who actively use the clubhouse and its amenities, and mobility challenges combined with the added distance, slope and inclement weather increase car commutes and have made clubhouse parking more of a community problem. The applicant asserts that the 19 additional on-street parking spaces the plan offers by proposing head-in parking here addressed that problem. The Planning Commission finds that the head-in parking proposed here makes the most efficient use possible of the available curb space and as such is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The final approval criterion is that, The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. The Planning Commission notes that the Street Design Standards section contains standards for street connectivity and design as well as cross sections for street PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 15 improvements. The standards are intended to provide multiple transportation options, focus on a safe environment for all users, design streets as public spaces, and enhance the livability of neighborhoods, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.provements proposed are consistent with the pattern developed in the master planned community to provide options for the senior residents of the Mountain Meadows Planned Community, many of whom have mobility challenges and need accessible parking in proximity to the Mountain Meadows clubhouse in its role as a neighborhood center. 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 & Final Plan approval, Site Design Review, Solar Access Exception and an Exception to the Street Design Standards is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #PA-T2-2020-00026. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #PA-T2-2020-00026 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1.That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2.That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, including but not limited to the lot coverage, solar access and frontage improvements detailed herein. 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 issuance of a building permit. 3.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. 4.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. 5.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. 6.That the prior to submittal of the final subdivision survey plat for review and signature: a.The final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of the Final Plan approval. b.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, public and private pedestrian access, parking, drainage, irrigation and fire apparatus access shall be indicated PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 16 on the final survey plat for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. c.That final civil engineering plans including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage, electric and driveway improvements shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric, and Public Works/Engineering Departments. 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, fire hydrants, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins, and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the civil plans. Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utility and street installations shall be completed according to approved plans prior to signature of the final survey plat. d.A final storm drainage plan detailing the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project 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. e.Final engineered construction drawings for the proposed improvements to Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to work in the street right-of-way or installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. These construction drawings shall include a required handicap access ramp at the intersection of Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place as well as for any on-street handicap accessible parking spots. Ramps shall meet current United States Access Board Guidelines (PROWAG) and shall be designed in accordance with the current Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) design guidelines. The design shall include all grades as presented on the ODOT Detail 1720 and must be submitted to and approved by the City of Ashland Engineering Department. Easements to accommodate the proposed street frontage improvements shall be dedicated to the city on the final survey plat. All street improvements including but not limited to the paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalk, street trees in irrigated park row planting strips, street lighting and on-street parking shall be installed according to the approved plan under permit from the Public Works Department prior to signature of the final survey plat. f.Final grading and erosion control plans. g.Final site lighting details. h.A final size- and species-specific landscape planting with irrigation details and showing parkrow improvements shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to planting. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. i.That street trees, 1 per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed on the Mountain Meadows and Skylark frontages prior to signature of the final survey plat. All street trees PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 17 shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications in AMC 18.4.4.030.E and the Recommended Street Tree Guide. The street trees shall be irrigated. j.That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to approved addressing; fire apparatus access including necessary easements; fire apparatus approach, turn-around, and work areas; aerial ladder access; fire hydrant spacing and distance; fire flow; firefighter access pathway; fire sprinklers; and limits on fencing and gates which would impair access shall be satisfactorily addressed in the Final Plan submittals. Fire Department requirements shall be included in the civil drawings 7.That the building permit submittals shall include: a.Identification of all easements, including but not limited to public and private utilities, public and private pedestrian access, parking, drainage, irrigation and fire apparatus access. b.Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all units other that #3 and #7 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. Details shall be provided demonstrating that Unit #3 and #7 are in compliance with the approved exceptions. c.Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas. Lot coverage for the parent parcel shall be limited to no more than the 77 percent described in the application materials. 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 (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. April 13, 2021 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2020-00026 April 13, 2021 Page 18 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 MountainMeadows Community Subdivision Final Phase Eight Unit, Ten LotPerformance Standards Subdivision, Multi-Family Site Design Review, Solar Setback Waiver and Lot LineAdjustment ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 Property Owners:Hunter and Madeline Hill 828 Boulder Creek Lane Ashland, OR 97520 Mountain MeadowsOwners Association Inc. c/o Keila Miramontez, Community Director 855 Mountain Meadows Drive Ashland, OR 97520 Architect: Bruce Richey, Architect,AIA 30 Portland Avenue Medford, OR 97504 Engineering Services: Dew Engineering, Inc 815 Bennett Avenue Medford, OR 97504 Landscape Architecture: KenCairn Landscape Architecture 545 A Street, Suite 3 Ashland, OR 97520 Project Manager: Steve Ennis Steve Ennis Architect 1108 East Jackson Street Medford, OR 97504 Planning Consultant: Amy Gunter Rogue Planning & Development Services 1314-B Center Dr., PMB #457 Medford, OR 97501 Subject Property: SE corner of Skylark Place and Mountain Meadows Drive ax Lots:39 1E04AD;234 Map & T Comprehensive Plan Designation:Healthcare Zoning: Healthcare(HC) AdjacentZones: HC,NorthMountain (NM) R-1-5, Jackson County RR-5 andEFU Overlay Zones: Healthcare Services District Wildfire Hazards Site Design Review Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 1 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 Request: A requestfor OutlineandFinal Plan Review forthe final phase of the Mountain Meadows Community. The proposal is foran eight-unit, ten lot Performance Standards Subdivision. The proposed development requires SiteDesignReviewapproval. A Solar Setbackwaiveris requested to allowfor additional shading of a north property line beyond what wouldbe cast by a six-foot fence on December 21 at noon. The existingstreetlayout,developmentpatterns,andimprovementswithinthefinalphaseofdevelopment requires an exception to the street standards as the street layouts within the Mountain Meadows Community Master Plan differ from the citys current standards. A property line adjustment between ’ the Mountain Meadows Parkside Condominium Stage 4 to the south is also proposed. Mountain Meadows Community Background: The development proposal isfor a vacantparcel atthe southeastcorner of Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place. The subject property is within the development area of Mountain Meadows Community, a 55+ active, retirement living community and is the last lot of the planned community that commencedtheplanning and development process with the city more than 27 years ago. Mountain Meadows is a 21.5 acre Planned Residential Community with the Healthcare Services Overlay. Beginning in February 1995,the property owner, Madeline Hill requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning to a proposed Senior Housing Code. During this process, it was determined that the development of the Mountain Meadows Senior Living visioncould be undertaken with theHealth Care Overlay Zone which allows for residential development to the standards of the R-2 zone. In June 1995, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to Health Care and Zone Change to HC (Health Care Services) (PA-95-021). The approval of the Mountain Meadows Subdivision conditions stated that the comprehensive plan “ mapamendmentshall only apply tothe applicant and a project for senior housing.Should the applicant choose notto pursue her senior development, then the zoning shall revert to either RR-.5zoning or the zoning established by the neighborhood planning process”. Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 2 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 Throughoutthe following years, Madeline Hill fulfilled her visionand developed the Mountain Meadows Community.ThefirstOutline Plan Approval for the Mountain Meadows Community wasgranted bythe Planning Commission in August 1995 (PA95-074). Mountain Meadows Community proposed a phased development of 323 residential units including single familydetached homes, single family attached homes including duplexesand cottage clusters of four, six and eight units. Apartment units, a community center building, maintenance building and an assisted living facility were also proposed. The areas of the public right- of-way, and 3.9 acres of common areas and open space area were proposed with the Outline Plan to serve the entire 21.5-acre development. Thetotalplanareawasacknowledged,buttheindividualunit/structural designreview,accessandstreetimprovementportionsoftheMountainMeadowsMasterPlanwerenot approved, and each subsequent phase of development was reviewed on a case-by-case basis with Subdivision and Site Design Review as necessary. A FinalPlanapplicationforPhase I whichincluded a 25-unitresidentialdevelopment,installationofthe firstofthestreetimprovementsandtheplattingoftheMountainMeadowsCommunity.Phase I was approved in September 1995 (PA95-104). In September 1995, Outline Plan approval for Phase II, a 35-unit subdivision, a multi-storyassistedliving facility consisting of 70 small apartments, and a special needs facility of 24 small apartments (PA95-102) wasgranted.PhaseIIwasapprovedin1996(PA96-007).PhaseIIdevelopmentincludedtheextensionof the right-of-way for Mountain Meadows, Fair Oaks Avenue andSkylarkPlace, Boulder Creek Lane, Cobblestone alley, South alley, Stoney Point. In 1998, the Site Review for 75 condominiums and a clubhouse (PA98-019) was approved. The clubhouse service as a dining room, wellness center and a service area. This phase of the development is now the Parkside Phase 2, 3, 4, and the Mountain Meadows Clubhouse. A three-lot partition was created as part of this application and Parcels 1, 2 and 3 were created. These lots werepart of the larger area of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Mountain Meadows Subdivision. Skylark Place was dedicated extending to the east and terminating at the Urban Growth Boundary. This parcel proposed development was created south of the Skylark Place extension and is Parcel 3. Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 3 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 Subject Property: The parcel proposed for developmentis36,781 square feet (.84 acre) with 105.74-feet of frontage on Mountain Meadows Drive and 209.58 feet of frontage on Skylark Place. The property is vacant of structures and there are no significant natural features on the property. To the south of the site is the building commonly referred to as The Golden Aspen Building”. It is a multi-story residential complex. “ The legal name is Mountain Meadows Parkside Condominium Stage Four. Also to the south is street parking, and the Hunters Green open space area. ’ Across Mountain Meadows Drive, are the Pavilion Condominiums, a multi-story residential complex. The uses to the north include Skylark Assisted Living, a multi-story Healthcare building. To theeast is a 17- acrepropertyinJacksonCountyzonedEFUwithonenon-farmdwelling. Mountain Meadows Drive has a 46-foot-wide right of way.It is partially improved with pavement, curbside sidewalk and park row adjacent to parallel parking bays on the west side of the street. Curbs and parallel parking is available on the subject property side of the street, but thatside lacks sidewalk and park row. Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 4 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 Skylark Place has a 41-foot-wide public right of way. The street is partially improved with a five-foot sidewalk, six-foot park row, two 11-foot travel lanes and head in parking spaces on the east end of Skylark Place. Thepropertyandtheadjacent properties arezonedHealthcare (HC) and the residential use regulations are subject the R-2 zoning standards Detailed proposal: Therearethree components to theproposal. A propertyline adjustment between the subject property andthepropertiestothesouthisrequested.TheadjacentpropertyowneristheMountainMeadows OwnersAssociation, and they are part of the application proposal. The Property Line Adjustment is ’ proposedtoadjustpropertylinesalongthesouth,sharedpropertyboundarytoprovideadequate setbacks for the condominium units in the Golden Aspen Condominiums and to shift the property line to locate the majority of the improvements associated with each development (sidewalk and green space) to fall within their respective property boundaries. Thissouth property line also is where the side yardsetbackfortheproposeddevelopmentismeasuredfrom.Theexisting36,781squarefoot(.84 acres)lotareaisproposedtobereducedto34,288squarefeet(.79acres). Theproposalistodevelopthe.79-acreparcelwithan,eight-unit,tenlotsinglefamilytypeofresidences using the Performance Standards Option. These will be sold individually as owner occupied residences and each unit will be a member of the Mountain Meadows Owners’ Association, with full access to the responsibilities and benefits in that organization’s governing documents. Links to the 2016 Amended & Restated Declaration for Mountain Meadows Planned Community, and the 2020 Mountain Meadows Owners’ Association Rules & Regulations are in the attachments. Units#1 - #4,areproposed to be attached in groups of two. These units have their front entrances facing Mountain Meadows Drive. These units are proposed to have covered porch entry and courtyard areas to enhance the sense of entry. The front door of Unit #5 faces Skylark Place and includes a front porch area that area also faces Skylark Place. This residence entry is accessed from the pedestrian sidewalk system that connects to the pedestrian sidewalk system. There is a substantial grade changes on the north side of the structure between the sidewalk and the unit that necessitates a retaining wall and stairs. Units #6 and #7 are oriented to the east, and the front entry is accessed from the internal pedestrian sidewalk system. Unit #8 has front porch oriented towards Skylark Place and will be similar in size, height, mass, and scale as the other seven units. This is the final phase of the Mountain Meadows Development. The proposed density of the individual parcel conforms to minimum density standards. Remarkably, the proposed development conforms to the density at final build-out that was anticipated and approved by your predecessors 26 years ago when Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 5 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 MadelineHill andMountain Meadows made its first presentation to the Ashland Planning Commission way backin1995. Theadditionof eight units conformsto the minimum density standards for the proposed .79-acre lot. Minimum density is 80 percent of the base density of 10.665 dwelling units. (.79 acres X 13.5 du/acre = 10.665 base density X. 80 = 8.53). Eight units also conform to the minimum residential densities expected with the build-out of the Mountain Meadows development. The base density of the total development area was determined to be 290.25 residential units (21.5 acres X 13.5 du/acre = 290.25). The minimum density of the developable area is 232.2 units (.80 X 290.25 = 232.2). There are presently 239.25 residential units within the development area, with the addition of the proposed units, the total development of residential units will be 247.25 units. The proposed units are each designed with a modern, open floor plan that is sought by the 55+ community allowing for aging in place. Additionally, the creative layout and use of the property and public rights-of-way in a manner that supports additional residential density in an area of Ashland that caters to the senior living community. Eachresidentialunit requires one parking space. The Performance Standards Option and the improvement of public streets require oneon-streetparking spaceper lot. Paved, vehicular accessto theproperty is provided from Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place. Both are classified as neighborhoodstreets. The proposal provides for the required single-vehicle parking space in the attached garages at the rear of the residences. These parking spaces are proposed to be accessed from Skylark Place via a private driveway that will function similar to an alley. The proposed street improvements require an exception to the street standards. The exceptions are necessary due to the unique widths of the public rights-of-way and the unique on-street parking pattern with head in parking, that were approved with the previous Mountain Meadows Development including the Site Design Review for Skylark Assisted Living Facility which is across Skylark Place to the north. The senior residents necessitate shorter distances of travel from parking areas to their destinations and generate a generally lower number of vehicle trips. Head-in parking also provides more on-street parking spaces per linear foot than parallel to the curb. Additionally,unlike the usual pattern where public’improvements such as parking, alleys and sidewalks ‘ located on privately owned property are also privately maintained, at Mountain Meadows, repair and replacement of some of their ‘public’ improvements occurs on a more frequent basis and are paid for by the HOA. The HOA has found that ownership and responsibility for installation, repair and maintenance Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 6 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 ofsome parking and some street improvements is theHOA’s preferred alternative. Curbside sidewalks and head-in (or perpendicular) parking are development patterns found in the MountainMeadows Development.Theproposal isconsistent with existinglayout andtraffic patterns. All necessaryutilities to service the development either exist or will be installed in order to provide connection to city facilities. On the following pages, findings of fact addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are provided. For clarity, the criteria are infont and the applicants responses are in Times New Roman ’ Calibri font. Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 7 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 CRITERIA from the Ashland Land Use Ordinance The requestisfor an Outline and Final Plan Review for the final phase of the Mountain Meadows Community. The proposal is for an eight-unit, ten lot Performance Standards Subdivision. The proposed developmentrequiresSiteDesign Review approval. A Solar Setback waiver is requested to allow for additional shading beyond what a six-foot fence would on thenorth property line ascaston December 21, at noon. The existing street layout, development patterns, and improvements within the final phase of development requires an exception to the street standards as the street layouts within the Mountain Meadows Community Master Plan differ from the citys current standards. There are two areas where ’ property line adjustments between the Mountain Meadows Owners Association and the Parkside Condo Association parcels to the south and east are also proposed. 18.3.9 – Performance Standards Subdivision 18.3.9.030 PSO - Overlay Finding: The subject property is within the Performance StandardsOverlay. The lot proposed for development is the final phase of the Mountain MeadowsCommunitywhich was a 21.5 acre Planned Residential Development within the Healthcare Services Overlay. The previous approvals acknowledgethat theplan was for the entire 21.5-acre site. The previous Planning Commissions and City Councils made explicit ’ findings that the approvals applied to the entire site area of the Mountain MeadowsCommunity as long as Madeline Hill was the applicant. After 27 years, the final phase of the community is ready for development and Madeline Hill is the applicant. As afforded through the flexibility in design from the purpose and intent section of the Performance Standards code which allows for smaller lot areas, clustered housing,reduced setbacks,etc.Theoriginal application documents created a long-term vision.The1995application documents for the Outline Plan approval included findings addressing the standards as they applied across the site including public use areas, openspaces,and lot coverages. The applicationnotes that thereis a community center, a fitness center, and a large 3.9-acre (167,820 squarefeet) open space that is the area between Kitchen Creek and an irrigation ditch. The outdoor, open space and recreation areas within the Madeline Hill Park (Kitchen Creek Park) include natural and landscape areas with park like lawn areas andnatural open spaces. The proposal for the Outline Plan of the Mountain Meadows Subdivision indicated the amount of coverage areas and it was less than 65 percent across the entirety of the Mountain Meadows Community. Lots #1 - #8 will be owner occupiedresidences.Lot#9willbe ownedby The Mountain Meadows Parkside Condominium Association.Lot#10will be owned byTheMountain Meadows Owners’ Association. Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 8 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 18.3.9.040. A.3. - OutlinePlan Approval Criteria The Planning Commission shall approve the outline planwhen it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. Finding: The applicant finds that all applicable ordinance requirements of theCityhavebeen met.As detailed in the written summary above, the findings on the subsequent pages and the attached site plans, exhibits and attached documents demonstrate compliance with city standards. 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. Findings: Adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the development. In consultation with representativesof the variousCity ofAshland Departments (i.e.Water, Sewer,Streetsand Electric Division) the proposednew lots will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. An electric transformer is present along the north property line. Electric service will be extended to the units and each unit will have an electric meter in a location that addresses the needs of the electric department. Eight new water meters are proposed to service each unit. The water meters in the location most convenient for the water department. Additionally, two new water meters are proposed to provide water for landscaped areas around the eight new homes. Throughout the Mountain Meadows community, the HOA pays for the cost of irrigation water used in yard areas. Storm water facilities will comply with the standards of the City of Ashland and the Rogue Valley Stormwater Quality Design Manual. The Stormwater runoff will be captured on site and conveyed to a storm drain manhole with a restricted orifice that will limit discharged to a pre-development flow. Any runoff exceeding this will be stored in underground pipes. Following discussions with Recology,individualcanswill be provided for each residence and collected on trash day at the curb line of the Skylark Placeextension as the curb line continues to the servicedriveway across proposed Lot 8 that leads to the dumpster ofthe Condominium building that is adjacent to the proposed development area. Trash is typically taken from the residential units to the curb line by the Mountain Meadows Maintenance department Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 9 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 employees. TheSkylark Place curblinewhere the can would be placed is not in conflict with parking, access, vision clearance or other on-street improvements. c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees,rock outcroppings, etc., have beenidentifiedin the plan of the development and significant features have beenincludedin the open space,commonareas,and unbuildable areas. Finding: There are significant natural features preserved in the open space areas of the Mountain Meadows Community. The parcel proposed for development lacks natural features. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The development ofthe property will not prevent the adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is for the final plan of a 21.5 acre master planned development and the adjacent parcels within the Mountain Meadow Community which are developed with the Assisted Living Facility is across Skylark Place from the subject property and there are larger scale condominium developments to the south and west. The property to the east is outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. Skylark Place has a street plug and terminates at the boundary of the subdivision. The adjacent property is Jackson County EFU and is occupied by a residence. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. Finding: Per recordeddocument #2016-1848,2016 Amended and Restated Declaration for Mountain “ Meadows Planned Community”, adequate provisions for maintenance of open space and common areas is already provided in Article 16.1: Successor Declarant is undertaking the work of developing Platted Lots and constructing Dwellings and incidental improvements upon Mountain Hill Estates, which will be the Successor Declarants final phase of Mountain Meadows. Mountain Hill Estates is already a part of Mountain Meadows and therefore does not require the filing of any supplemental declaration annexing it tothe Planned Community.” This final phase of the subdivisionwill becompletedinonephase. The open spaceswereprovidedwith the first Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 10 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 phaseof the Mountain Meadows Community along Kitchen Creek to the south ofthe subject phase of the development. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. Finding: The 34,288-square foot property is zoned healthcareand when residential development is proposed, where the otherregulations inthis ordinancedo notrefer to the HC zone, the standards for the R-2 zone (part 18.2 Zoning Regulations) shall apply. The additionof eight units conforms to the minimum density standards for the proposed .78- acre lot. Minimum density is 80 percent of the base density of 10.62 dwelling units. (.79 acres X 13.5 du/acre = 10.665 base density X .80 = 8.5). Eight units also conform to the minimum residential densities expected with build-out of the Mountain Meadows development. The base density of the total development area was determined to be 290.25 residential units (21.5 acres X 13.5 du/acre = 290.25). The minimum density of the developable area is 232.2 units (.80 X 290.25 = 232.2). There are presently 239.25 residential units within the development area, with the addition of the proposed units, the total development of residential units will be 247.25 units. Phase 1 Dwelling units: 24 Phase 2 Dwelling units: 92.25 Phase 3 Dwelling units: 88 Phase 4 Dwelling units: 35 Total Existing: 239.25 New units proposed: 8 Total proposed: 247.25 dwelling units g. The development complies with the Street Standards. Finding: The street development pattern for this phase of development is consistent withthestreet developmentpattern foundthroughoutthe Mountain Meadows Community. Theright-of-way for Mountain Meadows Drive existsat41-feet. There are parallel parking bays meandering along the length of thestreet.This is less than the minimum standard, but itis the pattern throughout the development. The proposed improvements add a landscaped park row and a parking bay for Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 11 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 the on-street parallel parking spaces. A five-foot sidewalk is proposed behind the curb line of the parking spaces. Skylark Place also has a 41-foot wide public right-of-way. Skylark Place is a dedicated public street that terminates into theadjacent propertyto the east and serves as the access to the parking garage for the Golden Aspen condo building. Skylark Place is proposed to be improved with 16 head-in parking spaces, including one ADA space. A five-foot, six-inch sidewalk is proposed. The only improvements within the public right-of-way includes the landscape islands and a portion of the head-in parking spaces. The proposed street development requires an Exception to Street Standards because the existing street system and the proposed new streets do not comply with the adopted street standards. The street pattern within the Mountain Meadows Community isdesigned specifically for mobility challenged individuals, with accessible parking in close proximity tothe uses it isintended to serve. Street connectivity is providedwiththe development,yet the streetsseeverylittle vehicular traffic and little traffic outside of the residents, home care providers and other professionals associated with the residents of the community. Additionally, the publicly accessible but private development streets and sidewalks are similar to other streets, alleys and sidewalks throughout the Mountain Meadows Community where some public like improvements are upon private property. This allows for the Mountain Meadows Community to maintain and improve the sidewalks, alleys and streets in good condition and repaired by the community to the community standards. indings of fact addressing the exception criteria are provided. F h. Nothing in thissectionshall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. Finding: This final phase of theMountain Meadows Community development is proposed in one phase and there will be no transferring of dwelling units. 18.3.9.070 Setbacks All development under this chapter shall conform to the following setback standards, which are in addition to the requirements of the applicable zone. Finding: Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 12 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 The frontyardsetback forLots #1, #2, #3 and #4 abutting Mountain Meadows Drive is shown at 11-feet 3” for the front porch and more than 15-feet to the front façade of the structure. This is the consistent setback used on the other residences in the Mountain Meadows Community. The separatedunits require a 10.89-foot setback. Theproposed setback is 11 feetwhich complies with thestandard. Solar Access(18.4.8): Theparentlot is exempt from the solar setbackordinance per the definition of the north lot line” for the purposes of thesolar setback ordinanceis north lot line found in AMC 18.6. The “ acrossthe public right-of-wayfor Skylark Place. Northern Lot Line. Any lot line or lines less than 45 degreessoutheast or southwest of a line drawn east-west and intersecting the northernmost point ofthe lot. If the northern lot line adjoins any unbuildablearea (e.g., street, alley, public right-of-way, parking lot, or common area)other than a required yard area,thenorthern lot lineis that portion of thenortherly edge ofthe unbuildablearea which is due north from the actual northern edge of the applicant'sproperty. Within the development,six units are proposed in a duplex type of format with Units #7 and #8 as stand- alone structures. Two of the units require a solar setback waiver. The solar setback standards require no more shadow upon the north property line than would be cast by a six-foot fence on December 21 at noon. This standard requires a substantial setback from north property lines. Because the development is proposed to not connect all the units into 4-plexes, there is a small separation between the units which is not enough to provide the required solar setback. The requested solar setback waiver applies to only two lots, #2 and #6. Solar setback waiver documentation and findings are attached. Parking: Parking for senior living facilities requires one parking space per residential unit. The Performance Standards Option and the improvement of public streets require one on-street parking space per lot. There are 19 on-street parking spaces proposed. This is because even though the senior housing parking demand and trip generation is generally lower than in a typical neighborhood, this type of demographic necessitates the presence of home care workers and other aides who provide one-on- one visits to the senior residents. It is important to have ample on-street parking that’s accessible and available for use by the residents, their guests and the workers that come into the development. The required parking space for each residential unit is in the attached garages at the rear of each residence. These parking spaces are proposed to be accessed from Skylark Place via a 25+ foot wide private driveway that will function similar to an alley. The proposed private driveway accessing the required parking spaces varies between 30-feet, 1-inch to 25-feet, 1 inch. The single vehicle garage parking spaces on Lots 1-7 take access from the proposed Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 13 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 private driveway. Lot #8 is accessed via the shared driveway along the east property line that provides access to the Golden Aspen Condominium’s parking garage to the south. No parking is proposed inthe front yards. The new drive complies withdrivewayseparationstandardsandismore than35-feet fromthe intersection. The proposed utilities and storm water grading anddrainagefacilities will be designed to conform to the street design standards and the development standards of 18.4. The proposed layout provides pedestrian access and vehicular access to the adjacent lands. The proposed site plan demonstrates the location of the proposed public improvements and the private land. There are areas where these overlap and easement for public pedestrian access and vehicular access, utilities, easement, maintenance,etc. will be providedon thesurvey plat and revised CC & R and HOA documents. 18.5.2.050 - Site Development Design Standards Approval Criteria: 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, densityand . floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards Finding: The subject property is zoned within the Healthcare Services Overlay and residential uses are permitted in the zone. The parent parcel is 36,781 square feet, the proposed lot line adjustment reduces the lot area to 34,288 square feet in area. The proposal is to develop a ten-lot subdivision with eight residential dwelling units. The proposed lots comply with the standards of the underlying Healthcare Services Overlay Zone and the development standards from 18.3. The proposal complies with all applicable development standards found in 18.4. Lot Coverage: Proposed impervious areas including building footprints, patios, pathways, driveways, and decks is 26,558 square feet of the 34,288 square foot lot for a total lot coverage of 77.5 percent. This exceeds the maximum on the parcel proposed for development but when considered over the area of the Mountain Meadows Community as agreed upon by the previous review authorities, the total lot coverage is substantially less than 65 percent in the zone. The open space areas account for 3.4 acres in area. Of these, much of the open space is within the Kitchen Creek floodplain corridor and there are no improvements or impervious surfaces. Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 14 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 The MountainMeadows Owners’ Association has a 99-yearrecordedlicense withtheowners of the 17 acre EFU property to the east, which residents use for open space, gardening and outdooractivities. These32,787 squarefeet (0.75 acres)are inaddition to the open space square footage amounts described above that are available to all Mountain Meadows community residents. Based on the most recent planning application for development within the Mountain Meadows Community, the lot coverage breakdown proposed at that time provided the coverage details of the entire community. The entire Mountain Meadows Community development area has less than 50 percent which is less than that maximum of 65 percent. Lot Coverage: Mountain Meadows Community area: 936,004 SF (21.5 AC) Structures and Driveways, (including private walks and patios): 273,853 SF (29%) Streets and Sidewalks: 197,771 SF (21%) Landscape and Park areas: 464,263 (50%) Total Coverage: 471,624 SF (50% coverage areas) Proposed Coverage: Lot Area: 34,288 SF(.79 AC) Structures:16,280 SF (47.5%) Paving and Walkways: 10,747 SF (31.4 %) Landscape Areas: 7,261 SF (21.1 %) Total Coverage: 26,558 SF (77.5% coverage area) Balance from Mountain Meadows Community Area: allowed coverage is 65%, there is only 50% coverage existing, leaving 15% of lot area for coverage area. The proposed coveragearea exceedsthe total amount allowed by22,287.2 SF or 12.5 percent. There is a balanceof136,778.6 square feet of overage area. The proposed area in excess of the per lot coverage standard is far outweighed bytheprovision ofsubstantial open space areas. Consistent with the original Mountain Meadows Community decisions, while the proposed portion of the development exceed lot coverage, the overall Mountain Meadows Community at final build out will be less than 65 percent coverage. Parking: Each residential unit is designated as senior housing which requires one on-site parking space. The Performance Standards Option and the improvement of public streets require one on-street parking space per lot for eight spaces. The proposed street parking includes 21 spaces which provides adequate parking for the individual lots and also for the development, users of the services provided within the development, guests of the residents and home care workers. Paved, vehicularaccess to the propertyis provided from Mountain Meadows Drive and Skylark Place. Both are classified as neighborhood streets. Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 15 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 The proposal provides for the required single-vehicle parking space in the attached garages at the rear of the residences. These parking spaces are proposed to be accessed from Skylark Place via a 25+ foot wide private driveway that functions similar to an alley. Energy Usage:All of the newly constructed units within the proposed development will be constructed to the current building code energy standards. The units will be high performance, using the best practices and innovative construction technologies to gain efficiencies in design, energy systems, and materials for increased energy efficiency, superior indoor air quality, lower water usage and responsible useofnatural resources. B.Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). Finding: The proposal demonstrates compliancewith the overlay zoneHC standards and the R-2 standards.The buildingheightis less than 35-feet. The setbacksconform to the standards and the distance between the dwellings is 10-feet or more than ½ the height of the building heights. C. Site Development and Design Standards. Finding: The proposed sitedevelopmentcomplieswith the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. Theproposed parking isadjacent to theresidential dwellings in a garage or new public parking spaces. There are short travel distances from the parking spaces to the entrances of the dwellings. The layout and design do not provide for vulnerable areas that are not visible from the units and open space. Low level landscape lighting for the paths will be provided throughout the open space and bollard lighting for the driveway is proposed. Each unit will have a shrouded yard/porch light that provides down-lighting and security for the unit but will not directly illuminate adjacent properties. No landscaping or plant materials are proposed that prevent surveillance. Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 16 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 Building Orientation: All residence havean entrydoor that face the public street and include a covered entry that enhances the entrance. Unit #5 is lower than the sidewalk and has stairs utilizing the walkways that connect through the development. Though the entry door is not on the building plane closest to the street, the entry door faces the street and includes porch like elements that enhance the presence of an entry. Unit #1 has frontage on both streets and has orientation towards Mountain Meadows Drive. No parking is proposed between the building and the street. All parking is located to the side and rear of the structures. The front residences are setback from the front property line the minimum front yard setback in the R- 2 zone. The majority of the residential units within the Mountain Meadows Community are set back 8 - 10 feet to the uncovered front porches and 15 - 20 feet to front facades of the residence. The proposed setbacks are consistent with the build-to line on the adjacent properties and throughout the Mountain Meadows Community Subdivision. arages: Required parking spaces including garages for Lot #1 to Lot #7 take access from the shared G driveway. Lot #8 takes access from the shared driveway into the Golden Aspen building’s garage. Building Materials: The building materials are compatible with the surroundingarea.The materialsare mixtureofmodernwith classicelements. Theunitsare proposed to havehorizontal lap siding, board & batten siding, and composite shingles. The paintcolors are proposed to be neutral shades in similar tones. Streetscape: One street tree chosen from the streettree list will be placed for each 30 feet of frontage, excluding the spacing from the driveways and the street light. 18.4.4.030 Landscaping and Screening: The proposed landscaping plan, and the irrigation plan that will be submitted with the building permits complies with the Irrigation and Water Conserving Landscaping requirements of the City ofAshland. The conceptual landscaping plan submitted with the application has beendesigned so that plantcoverage of 90 percent within five years of planting is met. Street trees will be provided for in the landscape park row adjacent to the Mountain Meadows Drive frontage and in the parking bays. There will also be trees street trees in the parking bays on Skylark Place. The trees will be selectedfromtheRecommendedStreet TreeGuide.The streettrees will be two-inch caliper at the time of planting. Several years ago, Mountain Meadows received recognition for creating its own Arboretum; and just last year completedwork on a butterfly garden. All landscaping will be maintained in good condition. Article10in the 2016 MMOA Declaration provides specific detailson responsibility for maintaininglandscaping in both Common Property and on Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 17 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 individually owned lots. Section 8.10 in the2020 MMOA Rules & Regulations provides even more details about landscaping maintenance, community standards, trees, irrigation, sidewalks, and private yards. Both documents can be found in the Attachments. From the beginning, this community took a rather unusual approach to landscaping. To ensure a comprehensive community standard, the HOA contracts with a professional landscape company to maintain all front yards of single family homes, 100% of landscaped areas owned by the HOA, and 100% of landscaped areas owned by each condominium association. In addition, all irrigation water for those areas come from water meters separate from individual residential water meters. For example, in a row of four homes, there would be five water meters. The fifth one is billed to the HOA. All condominium unit owners have their own individual water meters, while a separate water meter billed to the HOA tracks water used for landscape irrigation. This project will use the same approach to irrigation. Recycle/Refuse Disposal Areas: Recycle/refuse disposal areas will be provided pursuant to chapter 18.4.4. To meet the needs of Recology, individual trash cans and recycle containers will be placed at the curb by theresident of each unit or by an HOA maintenance employee. D. City Facilities. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities, and adequate capacity for 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. Water: There is an existing eight-inch water main in Mountain Meadows Drive and another in Skylark Place that serves the property. Sanitary Sewer: There is an eight-inch line in Skylark Place. Electrical: The property is serviced by underground power and there is an electric transformer vault north of the subject property. All electrical service on the site will be served by the electrical transformer adjacent to the property. Storm Sewer: There is a 12-inch line in the Mountain Meadows Drive and in Skylark Place. Necessary easements for the utilities will be provided on the Civil drawings and the survey plat. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. Finding: Not applicable. Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 18 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 Exceptionto Street Standards 18.4.6.020.B.1. 1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specificrequirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. Finding: The Mountain Meadows Community is a 55+ retirement community. Thestreets are designed specificallywith seniors in mind. The street pattern within the Mountain Meadows Community isdesigned specificallyfor mobilitychallenged individuals, with accessible parking in close proximity totheusesit is intended to serve. The community needs more parking places close to the clubhouse. There are three unique and unusual aspects that demonstrate the difficulty inmeeting the specific requirements of this chapter. The first is that the clubhouse is located at the top of a steep hill. Many of the senior residents can still drive but are unable towalk upanddown that hilltwo times every day to eat lunch and dinner in the clubhouse dining room, visit the library, socialize with friends, attend musical events and fitness classes. This is the final phase of the Mountain Meadows Development, so its the only place on the campus left where a few more parking spacescan be located. The second unique and unusual aspect is that there is no other area left foradditional parking. Thehead-in parkingsystem is proposed because its the best solution for the lack of any other area foradditional parking. The obvious third unusual aspect of the site that speakstothe need for additional parking is the demographic makeup of the residents. This is the only place in Ashland set up like Mountain Meadows.Mobilityissuesmeanshorterwalkingdistancefromone’sparkingspottothe“central hub”ofthecommunity,theclubhouse,isessential. The street connectivity is provided with the development, yet the streets see very little vehicular traffic and little traffic from outside of the residents, home care providers, house cleaners and other professionals associated with the residents of the community. Additionally, the publicly accessible but private development streets and sidewalks are similar to other streets, alleys and sidewalks throughout the Mountain Meadows Community where some public like improvements are upon private property. This allows for the Mountain Meadows Community to maintain and improve the sidewalks, alleys and streets in good condition and repaired by the community to the community standards. See 2020 MMOA Rules & Regulations, section 8.10.7 on sidewalks. The community’s governing body is enthusiastic about the street design in this proposal and is willing to assume responsibility for the proposed head-in parking spaces on the north side of Skylark Place. The exception willresult in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity b. Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 19 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 considering the following factorswhere applicable. Finding: The exception is tonot install standardstreet improvements on Skylark Place. Skylark has existing head-in parking on the north side. The proposed development pattern reflects the parking on the north side of this samestreet. Thestreetsare designed to limit the distance of travel for the senior residentsandguests utilizing on-street parking. Connectivity ismaintained with sidewalk access.Becausethehead-indesignprovidesmoreparkingspacesclosertotheclubhousethan would regular parking bays, this increases the comfort level and pedestrian safety for persons who have difficulty walking long distances or may need to use mobility devices. The word “connectivity” appears frequently in the Mountain Meadows Declaration and Rules & Regulations, because it is one of the community’s guiding principles. An informal carpooling system has developed where residents who still drive offer rides to their neighbors to reach the clubhouserestaurant “at the top of the hill” or to attend a fitness class. The proposed head-in parking will also be used to bolster these informal transportation systems. ubject property was used as a parking lot for many years for the above purposes until a The s fence was erected last year. For four years before the fence went up, the community counted and recorded the number of vehicles parking on thatlot at differenttimes of the day and evening. Every day except Sunday thedaytime count averaged 35 cars on the lot, with all on-street parking spots full on both sides of Mountain Meadows Drive, Fair Oaks Avenue and in the Hunter’s Green circle.Ifyoueliminate Skylark Assisted Living employees, you still had probably 15-20 cars from residents, visitors, employees and home care workers. In the evenings when the clubhouse restaurant was open for dinner, there was still an average of about 8-10 cars parked on the vacant lot, again with all on-street parking spots full on both sides of Mountain Meadows Drive, Fair Oaks Avenue and in the Hunter’s Green circle. It should be noted that before the lot wasfenced, an informal head-in parking system was available; if that had not been the case, these numbers would have been much higher. A few of those cars were associated withvisitors to Skylark AssistedLiving, but thevast majority wereinvolved inMountainMeadowsactivities and amenities,visiting relatives/friends who live “atthe topof the hill”, providingservicesas contractorsoremployeesofthemanagementcompanyandrestaurant, oremployeddirectlyby residentstoassistthemtoremain“independent”. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. c. Finding: The requested exceptioncompletes anincompletestreet system. The proposed street system and layout will help alleviate thecurrent shortage of enough on-street parking for residents, guests, employees and home-care workers. There are about 25 employees working in the clubhouse, either directly forthecommunity’s management company or contracted to provide dining services in our restaurant, who compete for the limited parking spots. As mentioned earlier, planning activity back in 1995 was pretty much on target; the exception revolves around lack ofsufficient parking. As time has gone on, Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 20 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 manymore jobs have been created thanwaspredicted in the beginning. The clubhouse is the center of activity for socialization, education, dining, library, fitness programs, interaction with professionals, etc. As residents “age in place”, getting from their various homes scattered around the community “up to the clubhouse” becomes more and more problematic, as does finding a place to park for commuting employees. Parking near the clubhouse is currently limited to 13 spaces around the circle known as Hunter Green and whatever is available along Mountain Meadows Drive and the east end of Fair Oaks Ave. The additional on-street parking spaces this plan offers is a big factor in community enthusiasm forthe new development. There are currently about 225 people now living in the Mountain Meadows community. Some are comfortable walking to andfrom the clubhouse anddining facilities; others are not. This is, after all, a 55+ community and while aiming to “age in place”, mobility challenges do happen. After the early “pioneers” moved into Mountain Meadows, it became apparent that Madeline Hill’s dream had hit a “sweet spot”. Two parcels of land on the west side of North Mountain Avenue, in the North Mountain zoning area, were added to the initial 21.5 acres. These were developed into 43 more residential units (28 single family homes and 15 condominium homes). These additional senior residents also actively participate in the clubhouse and fitness amenities, and it’s rather a difficult stretch for some to make that once or twice per day trek “up the hill” to the restaurant and other amenities. Inclement weather increases car commutes. The net of this situation is that clubhouse parking is a community problem. In fact, it ranked second in a recent survey of residents as to the most needed improvements. The 19 additional on-street parking spaces the plan offers is a big factor in community enthusiasm for the new development. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. Finding: The Purpose and Intent of the StreetStandards section speaks to connectivity and design and to creating a publicspaceinthecommunity.Theimprovementsareconsistentwiththepatternthat existsthroughoutthedevelopmentandallowsforthe mostconsistentdevelopmentpatternfor theseniorresidentsoftheMountainMeadowsSubdivision. 18.4.8 Solar SetbackStandards C. Exceptions and Variances. Finding: For the purposes ofsolar the existing parent parcel hasanaverage north south lot dimension of 141.90- feet. The slope of the lot 150-feet to the north is -.02 percent. A new lot is required to be 70.58-feet wide. In this case that wouldlead to two parcels. The alternative is the assignment of a solar factor. This is similar to the Millpond standard or when a maximum solar shade producing point is recorded with the plat of a partition and restricts the heights of structures to demonstrate compliance at partition level. In the case of this property, the assignment of a solar factor would not alleviate that the narrow north Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 21 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 south lot width issimilar to a townhouseorcondominium type of lot layout and the property lines in this case are 5.5 feet from the north wall of the lot requesting the solar waiver and the residence to the north is 5.5 feet from their south property line. There is no required setback between structures except the separation between building standards and solar. The proposalcomplies with the separation standards but does not meet solar because even a typicaleave height of 10 feet (1foundation stem- ‘ ’ ’ wall, 8plate height and 1plate height) the structures would need to be 14 feet away from thenorth ’ ’ property line. A six-foot tall shadow casts an approximately 14-foot-long shadow starting six-feet off the ground and falling at a 25 degree angle. The proposed structures both cast shadows that exceed what is permitted thus a solar waiver is sought. Duetothe limited parent parcel north/south, theproposed development utilized attachedwall construction for sixof the eight structures and utilizedmulti-storyconstruction to provide for passive solar where shading from the structure to the south impacts the south wall of the main floor of the unit and an east and west facing outdoor space. 1. Solar Setback Exception. The approval authority through a Type I review pursuant to section 18.5.1.050 may approve exceptions to the standards in 18.4.8.030, Solar Setbacks, if the requirements in subsection a, below, are met and the circumstances in subsection b, below, are found to exist. a. That the owner or owners of all property to be shaded sign, and record with the County Clerk on the affectedproperties’ deed, a release form supplied by the City containing all of the following information: i. The signatures of all owners or registered leaseholders holding an interest in the property in question. ii. A statement that the waiver applies only to the specific building or buildings to which the waiver is granted. iii. A statement that the solar access guaranteed by this section is waived for that particular structure and the City is held harmless for any damages resulting from the waiver. iv. A description and drawing of the shading which would occur. Finding: The signaturesof the affected adjacent property owners have been secured. Madeline Hill and Hunter Hill presently own the property and are the developers of said units. The waiver applies only to the two structures on Lots 2 and 6 and no other lots. The solar shadow exceeds that as required per the solar setback standard which requires no more shadow upon the north property line than would be cast by a six-foot fence on December 21 at noon. Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 22 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 The city is held harmless foranydamages resulting fromthe solar waiver. The drawing of the proposed solar waiver area is provided with the application plan submittal set. b. The approval authority finds all of the following criteria are met. i. The exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy (i.e., passive and active solar energy systems) on the site by future habitable buildings. Finding: The proposaldoes not dimmish the reasonable useofsolar energy. The solar shadow is calculated based on the longest day of the year. The shadow cast by Unit 3 and Unit 7 do not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on the site by the future residence. Active solar could be installed without shading impacts from the proposed adjacent dwelling as the shadow is below the eave line in both instances. Unit 2 is a two-story structure allowing it to take advantage of the passive solar provided on the second story windows. ii.Theexception does not diminishany substantial solaraccesswhichbenefits a passive or active solar energy system used by a habitable structure on an adjacent lot. Finding: The exception only impactspassive solar onone exterior wall of the twoof the eight residences that are to the north of Unit 3 and Unit 7. In both cases, the units shaded by the structure to the south have access to passive solar on the east and west façades where outdoor living areas are providedandwindowstoallowpassivesolarintothosespacesisalsoproposed. iii.Thereare unique or unusual circumstances that apply tothissitewhich do not typically apply elsewhere. (Ord. 3147 § 8, amended, 11/21/2017) Finding: The parent parcel is a preexisting lot of recordwithin a planned unit development that anticipated attached wall and detached wall residential construction. The parcel is wide east to west andnarrow, north tosouth.The parcel is bound by public right-of-way on the west and east side and a driveway serving theadjacentdevelopmentto thesouth. To the south of this parcelis a largemulti-story structure that substantiallyshades thesite. The parent parcel, forthe purposes of the solar setback has very little slope north to south, but the actual grade of the property is more substantial. To achieve an alley like, or consolidated access toreduce the number of curb cuts or individual driveways to units, with the shortest vehicle traveldistance, the shared driveway to seven of the eight units is proposed from Skylark Place. Retaining finished grades atnot more than 2.5 – 3 percent is critical in the senior housing development and thisis unique to the development as other projects would step structures, sidewalks,or steepen ’ Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 23 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 driveways andsidewalks to reduceheight of structure for solar purposes. Theaccess tothe property is somewhat restricted due to adjacent street patterns including separation between intersections and driveway separation. The alternative development would have created an east to west, long alley that was more than 35-feet from the intersection to the south, in approximately the location of Unit 3. A driveway that crossed the lot east to west to make solar setback compliance simpler as shadow would have fallen to Skylark Place, but other layout issues would then be presented that would have created an undesirable development pattern. This includes that the units would have been oriented towards Skylark Place and not Mountain Meadows Drive as sought by the orientation standards. Additionally, if access were shifted to create a north / south lot orientation based on access to garages, a long driveway bisecting the site east to west increasing pervious surfaces within the development. Property Line Adjustment: B. Approval Criteria. The Staff Advisor shall approve or deny a request for a property line adjustment in writing based on all of the following criteria. Parcel Creation. No additional parcel or lot is created by the lot line adjustment. 1. Finding: No new parcel or lot is created by the lot line adjustment. 2. Lot Standards. Except as allowed for nonconforming lots, pursuant to chapter 18.1.4, or as required by an overlay zone in part 18.3, all lots and parcels conform to the lot standards of the applicable zoning district, including lot area, dimensions, setbacks, and coverage,per part 18.2. If a lot does not conform to the lots standards of the applicable zoning district, it shall not be made less conforming by the property lineadjustment. As applicable, all lots and parcels shall identify a buildable area free of building restrictions for physical constraints (i.e., flood plain, greater than 35 percent slope, water resource protection zones). Finding: The proposed lot line adjustment relocates the propertylinesto the boundaries of the development of the adjacent parcels and the proposed parcel. The proposed property line adjustment does notmake the existing lots non-conforming because there are portions of the structure that crossthe property line and the proposal removesthe property line thatis within the structure andprovides a newsix-foot side yard setback for the new residential construction. 3. Access Standards. All lots and parcels conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. Lots and parcels that do not conform to the access standards shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. Finding: Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 24 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 The property line adjustment does not impact the vehicle area design, nor does it limit access. The proposal for the subdivision transfers the property from the subject lot to the Parkside Condominium and the Mountain Meadows Homeowners Association and places the driveway access to Parkside on their own property. The proposed south property line adjustment provides a side yard setback to the Parkside Condominium structure where the structure presently has none. This increases lot conformance. Attachments: 1) Boundary Survey 2) Conceptual Site Development Plan 3) Conceptual Building Elevations, Sections and Floor Plans 4) Solar Setback Waiver Elevations and documents 4) Civil Engineering Plans 5) Landscape Plan 6) Mountain Meadows Homeowners Association documents 7) Mountain Meadows Community presentation Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 25 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 Mountain Meadows Community Final Phase – Modified Findings Page 26 of 27 February 3, 2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 ! ! )Up!cf!dpnqmfufe!cz!uif!Bqqmjdbou!boe!sfuvsofe!up!uif!Djuz!pg!Btimboe!Qmboojoh!Ejwjtjpo*! Sf;!!!!! QB.U3.3131.11137-!Npvoubjo!Nfbepxt!Es/! Ebuf!Bqqmjdbujpo!Fyqjsft ;!!!Kvof!8-!3132! ! Qvstvbou!up!bo!Jodpnqmfufoftt!Efufsnjobujpo-!J-!uif!voefstjhofe!bqqmjdbou!ps!bhfou!gps!uif!bqqmjdbou-! fmfdut!pof!pg!uif!uisff!pqujpot!cfmpx!cz!jojujbmjoh;! ! ADG )!`````*!! 2/!Tvcnju!Bmm!pg!uif!Njttjoh!Jogpsnbujpo )Jojujbm!jg!fmfdufe*! J!bn!tvcnjuujoh!bmm!pg!uif!jogpsnbujpo!sfrvftufe!jo!uif!Jodpnqmfufoftt!Efufsnjobujpo!mfuufs/! Vomftt!difdlfe!cfmpx-!J!bn!sfrvftujoh!uibu!uif!Djuz!pg!Btimboe!Qmboojoh!Ejwjtjpo!sfwjfx!uijt!beejujpobm! jogpsnbujpo!xjuijo!41!ebzt!pg!tvcnjttjpo!up!efufsnjof!xifuifs!uif!bqqmjdbujpo!jt!dpnqmfuf/!J! voefstuboe!uibu!uijt!41.ebz!sfwjfx!gps!dpnqmfufoftt!qfsjpe!gps!uif!ofx!jogpsnbujpo!qsftfswft!nz! pqqpsuvojuz!up!tvcnju!beejujpobm!nbufsjbmt-!tipvme!ju!cf!efufsnjofe!uibu!uif!bqqmjdbujpo!jt!tujmm! jodpnqmfuf!bgufs!uif!tfdpoe!sfwjfx/!!)!Uif!231. Opuf;! efufsnjobujpo!pg!dpnqmjbodf!xjui!bqqmjdbcmf!dsjufsjb!epft!opu!dpnnfodf!voujm!uif!beejujpobm!sfwjfx! gps!dpnqmfufoftt!qfsjpe!jt!dpnqmfufe/*! Difdl!jg!eftjsfe! J!xbjwf!gvsuifs!sfwjfx!pg!uif!jogpsnbujpo!tvcnjuufe!gps!dpnqmfufoftt!boe!ejsfdu!sfwjfx! pg!uif!jogpsnbujpo!tvcnjuufe!gps!dpnqmjbodf!xjui!uif!Dpnnvojuz!Efwfmpqnfou!Dpef! dsjufsjb-!sfhbsemftt!pg!xifuifs!uif!bqqmjdbujpo!jt-!jo!gbdu-!mbufs!efufsnjofe!cz!uif!tubgg!up! cf!jodpnqmfuf/! J!voefstuboe!uibu!cz!difdljoh!uif!bcpwf!tubufnfou!uif!bqqmjdbujpo!xjmm!cf!fwbmvbufe!cbtfe!vqpo! uif!nbufsjbm!tvcnjuufe!boe!op!opujdf!pg!boz!njttjoh!jogpsnbujpo!xjmm!cf!hjwfo/!Jg!nbufsjbm! jogpsnbujpo!jt!njttjoh!gspn!uif!bqqmjdbujpo-!uif!bqqmjdbujpo!xjmm!gbjm!up!nffu!uif!cvsefo!pg! tipxjoh!uibu!bmm!dsjufsjb!bsf!nfu-!boe!uif!bqqmjdbujpo!xjmm!cf!efojfe/! Note: Since the property owner's Madeline & Hunter Hill, own the properties requesting and granting the solar waiver, and the property descriptions do not exist, the solar waiver agreement form has not been provided yet as it would not accurately depict the legal descriptions. ! RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 ! )!``*! 3/!Tvcnju!Tpnf!pg!uif!Sfrvftufe!Jogpsnbujpo;!!! )Jojujbm!jg!fmfdufe* !!Efdmjof!up!Qspwjef!Puifs!Jogpsnbujpo! ! J!bn!tvcnjuujoh!tpnf!pg!uif!jogpsnbujpo!sfrvftufe!boe!efdmjojoh!up!tvcnju!puifs!jogpsnbujpo!sfrvftufe! jo!uif!Jodpnqmfufoftt!Efufsnjobujpo!mfuufs/!J!voefstuboe!uibu!cz!efdmjojoh!up!tvcnju!bmm!jogpsnbujpo!uif! Djuz!pg!Btimboe!cfmjfwft!ofdfttbsz-!uif!Btimboe!Qmboojoh!Ejwjtjpo!nbz!dpodmvef!uibu!uif!bqqmjdbcmf! dsjufsjb!bsf!opu!nfu!boe!b!Efojbm!xjmm!cf!jttvfe!ps!sfdpnnfoefe/! )!`````*!! 4/!Efdmjof!up!Qspwjef!boz!pg!uif!Sfrvftufe!Jogpsnbujpo )Jojujbm!jg!fmfdufe*! J!efdmjof!up!qspwjef!boz!pg!uif!jogpsnbujpo!sfrvftufe/!!J!voefstuboe!uibu!uif!Dpnnvojuz!Efwfmpqnfou! Efqbsunfou!nbz!dpodmvef!uibu!uif!bqqmjdbcmf!dsjufsjb!bsf!opu!nfu!boe!b!Efojbm!xjmm!cf!jttvfe!ps! sfdpnnfoefe/! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! Tjhofe!boe!Bdlopxmfehfe! !!!!!!!)*! ! ! ! February 3, 2021 ! !!!!!!! Ebuf! ! ! Sfuvso!up;! Djuz!pg!Btimboe-!Qmboojoh!Ejwjtjpo! Buuo;!Efsfl!Tfwfstpo-!Tfojps!Qmboofs! d0p!Djuz!Ibmm-!31!Fbtu!Nbjo!Tusffu! Btimboe-!PS!:8631! ! ! RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 No.DescriptionDate 192912.4.2020 SUBMITTAL PLANNING PLANTING Project Number Consultant Date SCALE 1" = 10' RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/03/2021 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 *CORRECTED NOTICE* PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00028 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 364 Walker Avenue (Walker Elementary School) APPLICANT/OWNER: HMK Company for the Ashland School District DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will conduct an initial public hearing to review details of the proposal and take public comments on a request for Site Design Review approval for a 22,450 square foot, single-story addition to Walker Elementary School at 364 Walker Avenue. As part of the proposal, the parking lot and drop-off lane would be relocated and expanded, with access to be taken via Hunter Court (the driveway serving Hunter Park) and a new courtyard would be created. m (PA#2012-00899) to allow new signage for Walker Elementary School in conjunction with the proposed addition, and Tree Removal Permits to remove 20 trees. An existing 9,700 square foot classroom will be demolished in conjunction with the proposal. No final decision will be made at this initial public hearing; the item will come back to the Planning Commission for COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:ZONING: a decision at the April 13, 2021 meeting. Single Family Residential; R- MAP:TAX LOT #: 1-5; 39 1E 10; 3600. NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will review this Planning Action at an electronic public hearing on Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 6:00 PM. See page 2 of this notice for information about participating in the electronic public hearing. ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 7:00 PM G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\W\\Walker\\Walker_364_Walker School\\PA-T2-2021-00028\\Noticing\\Walker_364_PA-T2-2021-00028_NOC_Corrected 3.1.21.docx Tree Commission Meetings Notice is hereby given that the Tree Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown on Page 1. If you would like to watch and listen to the Tree Commission meeting virtually, but not participate in any discussion, you can use the Zoom link posted on the City of Ashland calendar website https://www.ashland.or.us/calendar.asp . Anyone wishing to submit written comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with 10:00 a.m. on Monday, March 1, 2021. 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 March 2, 2021. Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Tree 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 PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, March 1, 2021. meeting, send an email to In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of Commission Testimony testify at, 4) specify the agenda item you wish to speak to, 5) specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 6) 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 contact -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). G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\W\\Walker\\Walker_364_Walker School\\PA-T2-2021-00028\\Noticing\\Walker_364_PA-T2-2021-00028_NOC_Corrected 3.1.21.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 March 9 PC Hearing Testimony 10:00 a.m. on Monday, March 8, 2021. 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 March 9 PC Hearing Testimony 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 9, 2021. 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. Oraltestimony 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 Monday, March 8, 2021. In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email March 9 Speaker Request , 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) specify if you willbe 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, 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 G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\W\\Walker\\Walker_364_Walker School\\PA-T2-2021-00028\\Noticing\\Walker_364_PA-T2-2021-00028_NOC_Corrected 3.1.21.docx 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. 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. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\W\\Walker\\Walker_364_Walker School\\PA-T2-2021-00028\\Noticing\\Walker_364_PA-T2-2021-00028_NOC_Corrected 3.1.21.docx 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. Demolition and Relocation Standards AMC 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. 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\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\W\\Walker\\Walker_364_Walker School\\PA-T2-2021-00028\\Noticing\\Walker_364_PA-T2-2021-00028_NOC_Corrected 3.1.21.docx Memo DATE: March 9, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Derek Severson, Senior Planner RE: Walker Elementary School Initial Public Hearing This application has been scheduled for an initial public hearing because the proposed use of Hunter Court, the private driveway through Hunter Park, requires Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission approval which is still pending. The Commission can familiarize themselves with the proposal and identify potential issues, however a final decision would need to wait until the Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission makes a determination on the use of Hunter Court. Proposal PA-T2-2021-00028 requests Site Design Review approval for a 22,450 square foot, single-story addition to Walker Elementary School at 364 Walker Avenue. This addition would replace an existing 9,700 square foot classroom building that will be demolished, and a new courtyard area will be created. As part of the proposal, the existing drop-off lane at the corner of Walker and Homes, and the parking lot off of Homes Avenue, are to be relocated and expanded, with parent pick-up and drop-off access to be taken from Homes Avenue and Hunter Court. While identified in the Transportation System Plan (TSP) as a future neighborhood street, Hunter Court is not currently dedicated as public right-of-way and is presently a private driveway over the Hunter Park property which is under the authority of the Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission. The application also includes requests for -00899) to allow new signage, and Tree Removal Permits to remove 20 significant trees. Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission Review & The Use of Hunter Court Because Hunter Court is a private driveway on park property, the Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission must agree to its use. proposal, a number of issues were identified as requiring further discussion before the Parks Commission could agree to the use of Hunter Court. These included the details and extent of improvements to Hunter Court, including considerations of bicycle & pedestrian connectivity to the Central Ashland Bikepath; the need to align the proposed driveway with the existing driveway across Hunter Court; the responsibility for on-going maintenance of the Hunter Court improvements; the possibility of a shared parking agreement between Walker Elementary School and Hunter Parkwillingness to grant a storm drainage easement to allow the use of private storm drain lines through the park. A copy of February staff report to the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission is attached. This item is tentatively scheduled to be back before the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission for consideration at its March 10, 2021 regular meeting. The Planning Commission cannot approve the use of Hunter Court without agreement from the Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission. Until such an agreement is reached, Planning staff determined that the best approach in keeping this bond-funded application moving forward was to conduct an initial public hearing before the Planning Commission at the March 9, 2021 regular meeting to allow Planning Commissioners to familiarize themselves with the details of the application, hear presentations from staff and the applicant, and take comments from interested Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us members of the public. No decision would be made at the March meeting, and the item would then come back to the Planning Commission for a decision at the regular meeting on April 13, 2021 based on the outcome of the March 10, 2021 Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission meeting. Site Description The subject property is a 9.7 acre parcel at the northeast corner of the intersection of Walker and Homes Avenues. The property and properties in the vicinity to the north, south, and east are zoned R-1-5 (Single Family Residential) while property across Walker Avenue to the west is zoned SO (Southern Oregon University). Walker Elementary School was originally designed and built in 1948, and has continued to expand in the years since. Most recently, a bond-funded project in 2008 included expansion of the library and renovation of the administration area. Campus buildings and parking are currently clustered on the southern half of the property with a playground area to the north. There are also two baseball fields and a large lawn area on the north side of the property. The application materials indicate that the playground and the asphalt surface court area will remain accessible to the public after school hours, during the weekend and on school holidays. The existing campus is oriented to Walker Avenue. There is a bus loop along Walker which is to remain, along with a student entrance/exit. ecotone developed as a safe and identifiable front of the campus, and which includes a short segment of Paradise Creek which has been daylighted through a sustainable, active science lab with passive learning areas where students can self-guide through a series of educational plaques. Walker Elementary School has an enrollment capacity of 350 students, with an average enrollment of 300 students per year. Class sizes range from 20 to 30 students. There are 12 classroom teachers and an additional 20 to 30 staff in the various administrative, classified, and teaching staff positions. The current proposal does not propose to increase the enrollment capacity for the school. As currently configured, the campus has a number of areas that do not conform with current standards: parking and vehicular circulation are located between the building and the street, there is a lack of landscape buffering for the parking areas, driveway curb cuts do not comply with controlled access standards, and sidewalks are installed curbside without parkrow planting strips or street trees. The school was constructed prior to the current standards, and as such these items are considered to be legal non-conforming development. Demolition & Addition s been well designed to function with the proposed changes to circulation while not detracting from the existing sense of entry from Walker Avenue. A Demolition/Relocation Review Permit will need to be reviewed by the Building Official prior to demolition of the existing classroom building. Parking & Parking Lot Improvements Presently, there are 46 off-street parking spaces in place on campus. Based on the 4,938 square foot area of the assembly space on campus, there should be 63 off-street spaces at the ratio of one space per 75 square feet. The proposal here includes an increase in the number of off-street parking spaces provided through the creation of a new 62 space parking lot which would be accessed from Hunter Court and the installation of a four space parking bay along Hunter Court. This parking lot includes parking lot trees in islands, accessible parking spaces, raised walkways for pedestrian circulation, and the creation of a new detention pond/bio-swale adjacent to a new drop-off lane. Walker Elementary School requires 70 covered bicycle parking spaces, all covered. There are presently 22 covered bicycle parking spaces on the north side of the gymnasium building. The applicant proposes to address this pre- existing, non-conforming situation by adding bicycle parking on the east side of the campus, just north of the proposed classroom addition. Two banks of 24 new bike racks would provide for a total of 66 secure bicycle parking space on campus. Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Hunter Court In staf neighborhood street and should be considered with that functionality in mind. To that end, staff believes that the improvements should be consistent with street standards, that the new driveway should align with the driveway across Hunter Court which serves the pool parking area, and any proposed fencing north of the new driveway should not be placed directly behind the curb where it might interfere with the functionality of on-street parking. In addition, staff believe that the should address bicycle and pedestrian circulation to and from the Central Ashland Bikepath as required in AMC 18.4.3.090.B.1 Homes Avenue Homes Avenue is also considered a neighborhood street in the TSP. Street standards would typically call for a right-of-way width of from 47- to 57-feet, depending on the on-street parking configuration. Here, the Homes Avenue right-of-way is only 16-feet in width. Along the north side of the existing right-of-way, there is a 24-foot be formally dedicated as right-of-way particularly given that it already contains a paving, curbs, gutters and sidewalk. Conclusion Staff are generally supportive of the request, and look forward to the application coming back to the Commission for a decision once the necessary agreements have been reached with the Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission with regard to the use of Hunter Court. Any questions or concerns that the Commission would like to convey to staff and the applicants prior to the next meeting would be much appreciated. Attachments: Notice of Public Hearing Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission February 10, 2021 Staff Report Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Vtf!pg!Ivoufs!Dpvsu!cz!Xbmlfs!Fmfnfoubsz!Tdippm ! ! Steve Mitzel 02-08-21 Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 February 8, 2021 Si te Design Review for Addition of more than 10,000 SF to non-residential structureand Conditional Use Permit to modify the Walker Elementary School Sign Program SUBJECT PROPERTY: ADDRESS: 364 Walker Avenue MAP & TAX LOTS: 39 1E 10; Tax Lot: 3600 P ROPERTY OWNER: Jackson County School District #5 Walker Elementary School 885 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, Oregon 97520 Contact: Steve Mitzel, Director of Operations OWNER REPRESENTATIVE:HMK Company PO BOX 1176 Medford, OR 97501 Contact: Mike Freeman ARCHITECT: BBT Architects 1140 SW Simpson Ave, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97702 Contact: Matthew Guthrie STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: ZCS Engineering & Architecture 45 Hawthorne Street Medford, OR 97504 Contact: Sylas Allen CIVIL ENGINEER: Powell Engineering 1874 Rossanley Drive Medford, OR 97501 Contact: Todd Powell LANDSCAPE: Kencairn Landscape Architecture 545 A Street, Suite 3 Ashland, OR 97520 Contact: Kerry KenCairn Page 1 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 PLANNING CONSULTANT: Rogue Planning & Development Service 1314-B Center Dr., PMB# 457 Medford, OR 97501 Contact: Amy Gunter Request: The request is for Site Design Reviewand Conditional Use Permit. The proposal is for a 22,450square foot (SF) one-story addition at Walker Elementary School, the addition of a new sign area requires a modification of the existing conditional use permit. The proposal includes interior renovations, mechanical upgrades, and a seismic retrofit to the existing classroom building (excluding the more recent library addition). The 5,000 SF lower level will be primarily used for mechanical and electrical equipment. There is a second level mechanical space of 1,235 SF. Additional mechanical and electrical upgrades are planned for the existing, stand-alone 9,418 SF gymnasium building. Vehicular access easement and street like improvements to Hunter Court are proposed as part of this proposal. This allows the relocation and expansion of the parking lot and drop-off lane, and new courtyard space are also included in the proposed site work. The demolition of an existing 9,700SF classroom wing is proposed. The proposalincludes new perimeter security fencing, interiorcourtyard fencing, stormwater management structures, selectivetree removal, landscaping, and a service building that will includethe mechanical chiller and recycling containers. Tree removal approval to remove 20 significant trees is requested. New landscape areas including mitigation trees, street trees, and improved water-efficient irrigation are proposed. The proposal includes a new stormwater management system including above-ground detention swales. Property Description: The subject property is a 9.7 acres parcel northeast of the Walker Avenue and Homes Avenue intersections. The property is the home of Walker Elementary School. The property is bound by Walker Avenue to the east, Homes Avenue to the south, and the driveway aka Hunter Court that serves Hunter Park is to the west. Walker Elementary School was designed in 1948. The school originally included six classrooms, an administration area, a Multi-Purpose room, a kitchen, and a boiler room. By 1952, four more classrooms and a day lit basement was added. In 1958 a classroom wing was added which included seven new Page 2 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 classrooms, a staff break room, and restrooms. Walker’s largest expansion occurred in 1966-67 when a stand-alone gymnasium, music room, and stage were constructed along with an addition to the historic school. The administration area was expanded, and the southeast classroom was converted into a library. In 1995 a greenhouse was added along the southwall of the gymnasium and in 2008 the library was expanded, and the administration area renovated. Walker Elementary School has an enrollment capacity of 350 students, averaging 300 students per year. The class sizes range from 20 – 30 students. There are 12 classroom teachers and a robust Title IX program. There are typically 20 – 30 staff in all the various admin, classified, and teaching staff positions. The Walker Elementary School campus buildings and parking lot are clustered on the southern half of the property. The playground area was developed as an innovative and inclusive play area for disabled children to play on playground equipment regardless of the use of wheelchairs or crutches, walkers, etc. due to the rubberized surface. The playground was made possible in 2002 by wide-spread community support. The playground and the asphalt surface court area will remain accessible to the public after school hours, during the weekend and school holidays. There are two baseball fields on the north side of the property and a large acre area of lawn. The existing campus is oriented towards Walker Avenue. There is a bus drop off and pick-up loop. This entry is a student entrance/exit. The front of Walker School is referred to as their 'ecotone'. The Walker School Ecotone was developed to create a safe and identifiable front of the school. Within the ecotone, Paradise Creek is daylighted through a sustainable, active science lab. There are passive learning areas where students can self-guide through the educational information plaques. The location of the parking between the building and the street, lack of landscape buffering of the existing parking areas, driveway curb cut spacing, and street improvements including the curbside sidewalk and lack of street trees are non-conforming development situations. When Walker Elementary School was constructed, there was not a site review process or standards. The building architecture was recognized by the City of Ashland Historic Commission In 2012 a Conditional Use Permit was granted for the school district sign program. The school's changeable copy, reader board sign, and wall signs have approval through the Ashland School District Master Sign Permit approval from 2012. Walker Elementary School and all properties in the vicinity to the north, south, and east are zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-5). The property across Walker Avenue is zoned SO. Page 3 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 The Walker Elementary School property is bound on two sides by public rights-of-way and Hunter Court is shown as a future street right-of-way on the street dedication map. The city streets, Walker and Homes Avenues are improved with curb, gutter, pavement, and curbside sidewalks. The existing street improvements are existing non-conforming due to the curbside sidewalks and lack of street trees. Walker Avenue is classified as Avenue, Homes Avenue is a Residential Neighborhood Collector, and Hunter Court is a driveway accessing the parking and the Walker Elementary School parking lot. Hunter Court is shown to be designated a Neighborhood Street in the Transportation System Plan if the street was dedicated. Proposal: In 2018, the voters approved a School Bond measure. The primary goals of the bond are to improve the health and safety of all students in the district. Individually, the bond measures noted the need for a comprehensive renovation (new finishes, MEP systems, doors, windows, and roof), replacement of classroom wing with new classrooms, climate resiliency, seismic retrofit, campus security including new secure entry and respect the historic character. As existing, Walker Elementary School layout and orientation are towards Walker Avenue and toward the parking area between the building and Homes Avenue. No changes are proposed on Walker, but the proposed entry plaza area, the improved parking areas, and the perimeter security fencing and gates upgrades will increase the safety of the teachers, students, classified employees, volunteers, and community members that utilize the elementary school campus. Additionally, seismic upgrades, HVAC, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical upgrades with a focus on green technologies and renewable energy-focused design and construction are proposed. Walker Elementary School has asite-based special education, and students receiving those services will have their classroom and activity areas improved. The project team, BBT Architect, and HMK Management worked with the Walker Elementary School staff, the school districts Core Team, the School User Groups, and the Site Core teams to refine the layout and design. The proposal is the result of many months of community collaboration. The proposed design, layout, and construction are consistent with the policies of the Climate Energy Action Plan, and a review of the proposal from Brightworks Sustainability is provided in the application materials. The proposal includes the demolition of a 9,700 square foot existing classroom wing. This structure is to the rear of the main Walker Avenue portion of the building and is on the north side of the existing parking area. The area from where this structure is removed will be redeveloped with a classroom building addition and the courtyard area north of the new addition. Page 4 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 Substantial renovations of the existing 1940 and 1950 (main building facing Walker) interior renovations to the existing administration office areas, classrooms, and restrooms are proposed. A 22,450 square foot, single-story classroom building is the largest improvement proposed for Helman Elementary School. The new classroom building is proposed at the south end of the Helman Elementary School campus area. The new classroom wing is proposed to have general classrooms, a sensory classroom, and SPED dedicated classroom area. There are new kindergarten classrooms with kinder- sized restrooms, general activity spaces for small group breakout areas. The central campus area is made larger with the design and removal of the existing classroom wing. This area will become a central courtyard area and with redevelopment, soft paths and a possible outdoor ‘amphitheater” could be added. These features are shown on the plan but are not central to the proposal. The proposal includes the removal and reconfiguration of an existing non-conforming parking area and creating a conforming parking lot area. The proposed parking area is to be accessed from Hunter Court, a private driveway that provides access to Hunter Park and the Daniel Meyer Memorial Pool. The drop off lane and parking lot are not ideally situated relative to the main office. Visitors to the site either need to walk around the building to the main entrance orenter through the unsupervised south entrance. While intercom and camera technologies can assist with some security aspects, the lack of supervision and a secure entry is something the school needed to beaddressed. The proposal includes some new perimeter security fencing. The proposed fencing secures the courtyard area of the school, but the playground area and the large field area will remain accessible to the public outside of school hours. A new mechanical equipment enclosure area is proposed. This area is central to the campus and is not visible from any public right-of-way. Access and Site Circulation: The majority of the improvements on Walker Avenue are proposed to remain. The bus loop will remain in its present location. There is a curb cut on the south side of the structure for the parent drop off lane. This curb cut will be removed and the asphalt driveway removed and replaced with landscape areas. There are two, driveway approaches to the Walker Elementary School site from Homes Avenue. There is a one-way vehicular loop from Homes Avenue to Walker Avenue. This is proposed to be removed. The other access is to the school parking area adjacent to Homes Avenue. This driveway leads to the 40+ space parking lot. This parking area and the two driveways are proposed to be removed with new access Page 5 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 from Hunter Court. Hunter Court is a private driveway that is noted on the TSP as a future public street. There are street like improvements to Hunter Court proposed. Parking: There are 46, onsite vehicle parking spaces. Based on the 4,938 square foot area of the assembly spaces, there should be 63, on-site parking spaces. The proposal includes an increase in the number of parking spaces provided on-site through the creation of a new, 62 space parking area accessed from a requested easement from Ashland Parks to use Hunter Court. This parking area is proposed to have parking lot shade tree islands and accessible parking spaces and raised walkways. Walker Elementary School requires 70 bicycle parking spaces, all covered. Though several Walker Elementary School students ride their bicycles to school, never have anywhere near 70 bicycles been present at campus. There are presently 22 covered bicycle parking spaces on the north side of the gymnasium building. This is a pre-existing, non-conforming situation. The proposal adds bicycle parking on the east side of the campus, just north of the proposed classroom addition. Two, banks of 24 bike racks for a total of 66 secure bicycle parking spaces are proposed. Trees and Landscaping: A detailed Landscape and Tree Protection and Removal Plan have been provided. There are more than 100 trees on-site. There are 20 significant trees proposed for removal to facilitate site construction and development. A significant tree is a conifer tree having a trunk 18 caliper inches or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH), or a deciduous tree having a trunk 12 caliper inches in DBH. The trees proposed for removal include one, 10-inch DBH Oak tree (Quercus); five maple trees (Acer), a 10-inch DBH, two 11-inch DBH, a 14-DBH, and a 17-inch DBH; a 14-inch Raywood Ash (Fraxis); a 14-inch DBH spruce (Picea); four Incense Cedars (Calocedrus decurrens) including a 33-inch DBH, a double stemmed with two 16-inch DBH stems, a 28-inch DBH, and a 21-inch DBH. Two Maple (Acer), one with 14-inch DBH and one, 17-inch DBH. There are two Tulip trees (Liriodendron tulipifera) 10-inch DBH and 12-inch DBH. A 12-inch Sweet Gum (Liquidambar) and a 19-inch, Apple (Morus) are also proposed for removal. The proposed tree protection plan retains a substantial number of trees on-site, and the landscape plan uses a variety of deciduous shade trees, shrubs, and ground covers. Implementing water-conserving landscape and irrigation design, the proposed landscape plan and the future irrigation plan can demonstrate compliance with the standards and is appropriate in a school grounds setting. Page 6 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 Findings of Fact: The following information addressing the findings of fact for the applicable criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code is provided on the following pages. For clarity, the criteria are in Arial font and the applicant’s responses are in Times New Roman font. Page 7 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 Criteriafrom the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Site Development Design Standards Approval Criteria: 18.5.2.050 Approval Criteria An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in subsections A, B, C, and D below. A. Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. Finding: The subject property is zoned single-family residential (R-1-5). Public schools are a permitted use in the R-1-5 zone. The proposed classroom additionexceeds all the setbacks in the zone and the structure is more than 10- feet from Homes Avenue, a side yard. The proposed building is less than 35-feet, the maximum building height in the R-1-5 zone. The maximum allowed lot coverage in the zone is 50 percent. The existing site coverage is 66 percent of the site area. The proposed redevelopment, removed surfaces, and existing surfaces reduce lot coverage by 3.5 percent to 62.5 of the campus. Existing Total Area: 438,150 SF Existing Pervious Area: 146,9947 SF Existing Impervious Area: 291,203 SF Existing Lot Coverage: 66% Proposed Total Area: 438,150 SF Proposed Pervious Area: 164,014 SF Proposed Impervious Area: 274,136 SF Proposed Lot Coverage: 62.5% These pervious totals include paving along Homes that are on the District's property. The street and sidewalk along this edge is 13,992 SF, if the street were a dedicated right of way, the impervious surfaces would be reduced to 59 percent. This is a non-conforming situation that is not being increased but is being reduced through the proposal. The property is exempt from density and floor area ratio standards. The proposed architecture is consistent with elementary school design. Though not residential, the proposed new structure has pitched roofs and eaves which are common design elements found in residential construction. The site development standards place substantial emphasis on the pedestrian accessibility to the commercial business and the layout of sites requiring the parking be to the rear or side of the structure. Due to the nature of elementary school campus safety and security, the structure Page 8 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 has substantial setbacks from the street, and the entrances are not accessible from the sidewalks. The parking and vehicular circulation occur between the structure and the street as well. The proposed new classroom wing is oriented towards Homes Avenue with large windows, doors that access the classroom areas, the new building is not accessible to the public from the sidewalk due to safety considerations. B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). Finding: The proposed landscape plan complies with the Wildfire Hazards Overlay. No other overlays apply to the site development. 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. 18.4.2.040 Non-Residential Development Finding: The property is developed with a public elementary school that was first constructed in the late 1950s. The Walker Elementary School campus and the development layout are non-residential but serve the surrounding residential neighborhood. The development of the majority of the campus including the locations of the parking areas, orientation to the streets, setbacks, site coverage, are non-conforming concerning the present site development standards. Additionally, other standards that typically apply to commercial development or typical residential development when developed to the standards for placement, orientation, and design of building from the Site Development Design Standard, conflict with the student and staff campus safety goals. The proposed modifications to the site layout and access bring the property closer to compliance with the standards by shifting the parking spaces and student drop off area away from Walker Avenue and Homes Avenue and providing a landscape bioswale. The proposal provides for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the students through a design that supports resource conservation and renewable energy sources and high- efficiency construction, HVAC, mechanical and plumbing efficiencies, and electric upgrades. The building is proposed to have a wide building facade along Homes Avenue with windows into classroom areas along the facade. Page 9 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 The proposed site alterations to remove the curb-cuts nearest the southwest corner of the property from Homes Avenue and from Walker Avenue shifting the vehicular traffic and parking areas away from the busy intersection increasing pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Bus riders will continue to use the historic Walker Avenue entrance. The proposed addition provides a clearly defined, secure entry on the west façade of the new addition. The proposed addition is built to a similar façade line as the existing historic building area of the library addition. As typically with school development, the setback proposed issubstantially further from the public street than a commercial or employment development due to the nature of the use as a public, elementary school. The proposed design though does provide a positive impact on the streetscape with traditional forms that resemble the 1950s historic construction. Materials of the proposed addition include wood frame construction, Portland cement stucco, fiber cement siding, and aluminum windows. The Portland cement stucco will match the existing, and the fiber-cement to provide massing breaks between historic structure and materials and the new. Also, to reduce overall volume at addition where massing changes occur. The architects are working to match the historic color, a light grey color as seen in the attached photos. Landscaping is proposed to enhance the site and provide screening of the parking lot and trees to provide cooling of the surface parking areas. B. Basic Site Review Standards. 1. Orientation and Scale. a. Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street and not a parking area. Automobile circulation or off-street parking is not allowed between the building and the street. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or to one side. See Figure . 18.4.2.040.B.1 Finding: See finding g. b. A building façade or multiple building facades shall occupy a large majority of a project’s street frontage a illustrated in Figure 18.4.2.040.B, and avoid site design that incorporates extensive gaps between building frontages created through a combination of driveway aprons, parking areas, or vehicle aisles. This can be addressed by, but not limited to, positioning the wider side of the building rather than the narrow side of the building toward the street. In the case of a corner lot, this standard applies to both street frontages. Page 10 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 Spaces between buildings shall consist of landscaping and hard durable surface materials to highlight pedestrian areas. Finding: See finding g. The property is large, more than 700-feet of frontage along Walker Avenue and Homes Avenue, the wider sides of the building occupy the majority of the façade. c. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. The entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible, functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. Finding: See finding g. d. Building entrances shall be located within 20 feet of the public right of way to which they are required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs where a greater setback results in improved access, or for sites with multiple buildings, such as shopping centers, where other buildings meet this standard. Finding: See finding g. e. Where a building is located on a corner lot, its entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot corner at the intersection of the streets. The building shall be located as close to the intersection corner as practicable. Finding: The new construction is to the rear of the existing campus building. The historic façade faces Walker Avenue. The proposed classroom wing extends along the Homes Avenue façade and the addition is closer to Homes than existing structures on the campus. There The proposal does not seek to alter the historic entry. f. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Finding: There are public sidewalks adjacent to all of the public street frontages. The property frontage is bound by curbside sidewalks. The curbside sidewalks are pre-existing, non- conforming. Excepting where the curb cut on Homes Avenue is proposed to be closed, no changes to the existing curbside sidewalks are proposed. Page 11 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 g. The standards in a-d, above, may be waived if the building is not accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices and automotive service stations. Finding: The proposal seeks to waive the standards of a. – d. above because though the new classroom building is accessed by students/parents/guardians as pedestrians from the neighborhood, the building is not a business that is accessible to the general public and the structure is not “open to the public during business hours”. The existing building has a historic orientation toward Walker Avenue and the bus loop. The proposal does not alter the historical building orientation towards the higher order street. The proposed entry area modifications and improvement parent drop off isle will provide a better orientation to the Homes Avenue campus entry. Under Oregon law (ORS 358.653) the school district is required to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to avoid inadvertent impacts as the result of any new construction project involving historic properties under its control. A local historic preservation specialist, George Kramer of Kramer & Company. has been in consultation with the project architects to believes that Walker Elementary will likely prove to be historically significant and will work with BBT and the District during the design phase to minimize any impacts to the degree feasible while still meeting district needs. The proposal increases the separation of the driveway on Homes from the Walker Avenue intersection. This is to increase the amount of vision clearance and on-street vehicle maneuvering area. The enhanced student drop-off will improve the vehicle stacking that at times occurs onto Homes Avenue during the morning and afternoon drop off and pick up. 2. Streetscape. One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that portion of the development fronting the street pursuant to subsection 18.4.4.030.E. Finding: There are new street trees proposed to be installed according to the standards of 18.4.4.030.E. There are existing trees that may affect the number of new street trees, but along Homes Avenue and Hunter Court, where not restricted by hydrants, intersections, existing, trees, etc., every 30-feet, behind the curbside sidewalk, new trees will be planted. 3. Landscaping. Page 12 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 a. Landscape areas at least ten feet in width shall buffer buildings adjacent to streets, except the buffer is not required in the Detail Site Review, Historic District, and Pedestrian Place overlays. Finding: The existing and proposed structures are buffered by at least ten feet from the streets. There are no changes along Walker Avenue. The building is more than 30- feet from the sidewalk on Homes Avenue. b. Landscaping and recycle/refuse disposal areas shall be provided pursuant to chapter 18.4.4. 18.4.4.030 Landscaping and Screening B. Minimum Landscape Area and Coverage. All lots shall conform to the minimum landscape area standards of the applicable zoning district (see Table 18.2.5.030.A - C for residential zones and Table 18.2.6.030 for non- residential zones). Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, areas proposed to be covered with plant materials shall have plant coverage of not less than 50 percent coverage within one year and 90 percent coverage within five years of planting. Finding: The areas of disturbance from the construction are proposed to be landscaped with a formal landscape plan. A large area of the property is lawn area and will remain as such. Due to the nature of the use of the property as a public elementary school, lawn area, and hardscape are the primary landscape materials. Within the new parking area, landscape islands with shade producing trees are proposed. The parking areas and vehicular maneuvering areas drain to the parking lot bioswale. All areas of proposed landscaping provide for plant materials that grow to 90 percent coverage within five years of planting. C. Landscape Design and Plant Selection. The landscape design and selection of plants shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. Tree and Shrub Retention. Existing healthy trees and shrubs shall be retained, pursuant to chapter 18.4.5. Consistent with chapter 18.4.5 Tree Preservation and Protection, credit may be granted toward the landscape area requirements where a project proposal Page 13 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 includes preserving healthy vegetation that contribute(s) to the landscape design. Finding: The tree protection and preservation plan and the tree removal plan call for the removal of the trees that are within the areas of construction of the addition, the relocated parking area, the improvements adjacent to Hunter Court and that would not survive the impacts from construction. Of the more than 100 trees on the site, there are only 20 significant trees proposed for removal. The majority of the site's trees are retained. 2. Plant Selection. a. Use a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, and ground covers. b. Use plants that are appropriate to the local climate, exposure, and water availability. The presence of utilities and drainage conditions shall also be considered. c. Storm Water Facilities. Use water-tolerant species where stormwater retention/detention or water quality treatment facilities are proposed. d. Crime Prevention and Defensible Space. Landscape plans shall provide for crime prevention and defensible space, for example, by using low hedges and similar plants allowing natural surveillance of public and semi-public areas, and by using impenetrable hedges in areas where physical access is discouraged. e. Street Trees. Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. See the Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide. Finding: The proposed landscape plan has been created by a local landscape architect. The landscape plan uses a variety of deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground covers. Due to the wildfire hazards overlay, no evergreen trees are proposed. The plants selected are appropriate Page 14 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 for the local climate and exposure. Water tolerant species are proposed within the stormwater detention facilities. The planting plan allows for natural surveillance of the public space. New street trees are proposed along Homes Avenue behind the sidewalk. There is a large stature Raywood Ash tree on the Hunter Court frontage that is preserved with the proposed street improvements. Additional street trees are proposed behind the sidewalk and in the landscape park row between the parking area and the parallel parking on Hunter Court. 3. Water Conserving Landscaping. Commercial, industrial, non- residential, and mixed-use developments that are subject to chapter 18.5.2 Site Design Review, shall use plants that are low water use and meet the requirements of 18.4.4.030.I Water Conserving Landscaping. Finding: The proposed landscaping plant materials are low water use and meet the requirements of 18.4.4.030.I. 4. Hillside Lands and Water Resources. Landscape plans for land located in the Hillside Lands overlay must also conform to section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands, and in the Water Resources overlay must also conform to section 18.3.11.110 Mitigation Requirements for Water Resource Protection Zones. Finding: Not applicable. 5. Screening. a. Evergreen shrubs shall be used where a sight-obscuring landscape screen is required. b. Where a hedge is used as a screen, fire-resistant and drought-tolerant evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that not less than 50 percent of the desired screening is achieved within two years and 100 percent is achieved within four Page 15 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 years. Living groundcover in the screen strip shall be planted such that 100 percent coverage is achieved within two years. Finding: There are no areas where evergreen screening shrubs are required. 6. Plant Sizes. a. Trees shall be not less than two-inch caliper for street trees, and 1.5-inch caliper for other trees at the time of planting. b. Shrubs shall be planted from not less than one-gallon containers, and where required for screening shall meet the requirements of 18.4.4.030.C.5 Screening. Finding: All plant and tree species will be planted per the specifications. D. Tree Preservation, Protection, and Removal. See chapter 18.4.5 for Tree Protection and Preservation and chapter 18.5.7 for Tree Removal Permit requirements. Finding: Findings addressing tree removal have been provided. E. Street Trees. The purpose of street trees is to form a deciduous canopy over the street. The same effect is also desired in parking lots and internal circulation streets; rows of street trees should be included in these areas where feasible. All development fronting on public or private streets shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the following standards and chosen from the recommended list of street trees. 1. Location of Street Trees. Street trees shall be located in the designated planting strip or street tree wells between the curb and sidewalk, or behind the sidewalk in cases where a planting strip or tree wells are or will not be in place. Street trees shall include irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the standards established by the Community Development Department. Finding: Page 16 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 There are existing street trees along Homes Avenue that will be retained. Where proposed, new street trees are behind the existing curbside sidewalk and on the private property due to lack of right of way. The new street trees along the school district side of Hunter Court are also planted behind the sidewalk where the parking bay is adjacent to the curb line. The large stature XXX tree on the school side of the Hunter Court is proposed to be retained. All street trees will have irrigation and will conform to the standards of the Community Development Department. 2. Spacing and Placement of Street Trees. All street tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions that may, for reasons such as safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff Advisor’s review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall meet all of the following requirements. a. Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches. Finding: Due to the existing locations of established trees along the street improvements of Homes Avenue and the proposed improvement to Hunter Court, the street tree planting spacing is not a standard 30-foot interval. Tree planting area specified on the landscape planting plans. b. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb lineof intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than ten feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles. Finding: No street trees will be plantedwithin 25-feet of the intersections of Homes Avenue and Walker Avenue or Homes Avenue and Hunter Court. Proposed street trees will be located on the final landscape plans more than ten feet Page 17 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 from the driveway. Fire hydrants are not within ten feet of street trees. c. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than ten feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant. Finding: No street trees will be planted within 20-feet of streetlights. d. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 2.5 feet from the face of the curb. Street trees shall not be planted within two feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees, or tree wells, shall be at least 25 square feet; however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root system and add to the health of the tree. Tree wells shall be covered by tree grates in accordance with City specifications. Finding: The street trees are proposed behind the existing curbside sidewalk. No tree wells are proposed. e. Street trees planted under or near power lines shall be selected so as to not conflict with power lines at maturity. Finding: There are no street trees proposed that would conflict with the power lines. f. Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from the development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation, where approved pursuant to section 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards, may be utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor. Finding: Page 18 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 The existing, healthy street trees that will not be damaged during construction are proposed to be preserved and counted towards the total number of street trees along the frontages where development is proposed. 3. Pruning. Street trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least eight feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces. Finding: The existing street trees will be pruned to provide adequate clearance above the street. There are trees along Hunter Court that are proposed for removal, but none are street trees as there is not a public right-of-way. 4. Replacement of Street Trees. Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer with those from the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. The replacement trees shall be of size and species similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor. See the Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide. Finding: Street trees removed, will be replaced with appropriate species with the proposed site improvements. F.Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening. Parking lot landscaping, including areas of vehicle maneuvering, parking, and loading, shall meet the following requirements. Single-family dwellings and accessory residential units are exempt from the requirements of subsection 18.4.4.030.F.2, below. 1. Landscaping. a. Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of seven percent of the total parking area plus a ratio of one tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect. Finding: There are is one redevelopmentparking area proposed or modified as part of this request. There is more than seven percent of the area Page 19 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 for the 66 parking spaces devoted to the landscape area. These areas include landscape islands and a large bioswale/pond area. b. The tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be selected from the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission to avoid root damage to pavement and utilities, and damage from droppings to parked cars and pedestrians. See the Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide. Finding: The parking lot shade trees are a mixture of Zelkovas, Maple trees, and Kentucky yellowwood trees. These species have large canopies and are not known to cause root damage or droppings onto vehicles or pedestrians. c. The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least two feet from any curb or paved area. Finding: The trees are at least two feet from any curb or paved areas. d. The landscaped area shall be distributed throughout the parking area and parking perimeter at the required ratio. Finding: The landscape areas are distributed in the parking area and at the perimeter. e. That portion of a required landscaped yard, buffer strip, or screening strip abutting parking stalls may be counted toward required parking lot landscaping but only for those stalls abutting landscaping as long as the tree species, living plant material coverage, and placement distribution criteria are also met. Front or exterior yard landscaping may not be substituted for the interior landscaping required for interior parking stalls. Finding: There are substantial buffers around the parking area and within the parking lots landscaped with tree species and living plant material distributed to meet the placement standards. The area of Page 20 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 landscaping that screens and buffers the parking areas exceed the minimum areas required. 2. Screening. a. Screening Abutting Property Lines. A five-foot landscaped strip shall screen parking abutting a property line. Where a buffer between zones is required, the screening shall be incorporated into the required buffer strip, and will not be an additional requirement. Finding: The parking areas where abutting a property line are proposed to be buffered from the sidewalk by five feet or more. b. Screening Adjacent to Residential Building. Where a parking area is adjacent to a residential building it shall be set back at least eight feet from the building and shall provide a continuous hedge screen. Finding: There is no parking adjacent to a residential building. c. Screening at Required Yards. i. Parking abutting a required landscaped front yard or exterior yard shall incorporate a sight obstructing hedge screen into the required landscaped yard. Finding: Where the new parking spaces are proposed along Homes Avenue, the parking spaces are more than 10-feet from the property line. This exceeds the required yard area. No hedges are proposed due to the substantial setback and bioswale planting area. ii. The screen shall grow to be at least 36 inches higher than the finished grade of the parking area, except within vision clearance areas, section 18.2.4.040. Finding: Page 21 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 Not applicable, there are no hedges proposed due to the substantial setback from the parking area to the property lines and the landscape area between the parking area and the street. iii. The screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and plant materials. Finding: Not applicable. iv. Elevated parking lots shall screen both the parking and the retaining walls. Finding: The parking area is not proposed to be elevated. G. Other Screening Requirements. Screening is required for refuse and recycle containers, outdoor storage areas, loading and service corridors, mechanical equipment, and the City may require screening other situations, pursuant with the requirements of this ordinance. 1. Recycle and Refuse Container Screen. Recycle and refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screened from view by the placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall five to eight feet in height to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights- of-way. All recycle and refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area. Finding: The recycle and refuse area is within the campus area, north of the new classroom addition. This area is proposed to have a masonry wall that is between 5 to 8 feet tall. 2. Outdoor Storage. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view, except such screening is not required in the M-1 zone. Finding: Not applicable Page 22 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 3. Loading Facilities and Service Corridors. Commercial and industrial loading facilities and service corridors shall be screened when adjacent to residential zones. Siting and design of such service areas shall reduce the adverse effects of noise, odor, and visual clutter upon adjacent residential uses. Finding: The service corridor area is proposed to be developed to the north of the new classroom wing addition. A chiller area that is screened from view and is not seen from outside of the campus area. 4. Mechanical Equipment. Mechanical equipment shall be screened by placement of features at least equal in height to the equipment to limit view from public rights-of-way, except alleys, and adjacent residentially zoned property. Mechanical equipment meeting the requirements of this section satisfy the screening requirements in 18.5.2.020.C.4. Finding: The mechanical equipment will be screened within the mechanical room addition. A chiller area that will be behind building facades, and screening material, will be developed as shown on the site plan. The placement of any equipment will not be visible from the public right of way and the adjacent residential zoned properties. a. Roof-mounted Equipment. Screening for roof-mounted equipment shall be constructed of materials used in the building’s exterior construction and include features such as a parapet, wall, or other sight-blocking features. Roof- mounted solar collection devices are exempt from this requirement pursuant to subsection 18.5.2.020.C.4. Finding: Not applicable b. Other Mechanical Equipment. Screening for other mechanical equipment (e.g., installed at ground level) include features such as a solid wood fence, masonry wall, or hedge screen. Finding: Page 23 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 All mechanical equipment on the ground level will be screened. H. Irrigation. Irrigation systems shall be installed to ensure landscape success. If a landscape area is proposed without irrigation, a landscape professional shall certify the area can be maintained and survive without artificial irrigation. Irrigation plans are reviewed through a Ministerial process at the time of building permit submittals. Finding: There isan irrigation system is proposed. The irrigation system will comply with the water-conserving landscape standards of the city of Ashland. I. Water Conserving Landscaping. Water has always been a scarce, valuable resource in the Western United States. In the Rogue Valley, winter rains give way to a dry season spanning five to seven months. Lack of water during the dry summer season was a major problem facing early settlers. Their creative solutions greatly altered the development of this region. Talent Irrigation District's and other district's reservoirs and many miles of reticulating canals are an engineering marvel. Finding: Water-conserving landscape design has been proposed within the non-turf areas. The plants proposed around the landscape areas excepting the bio Swale are drought tolerant and are suited for the Rogue Valley climate that way. J. Maintenance. All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition, or otherwise replaced by the property owner; dead plants must be replaced within 180 days of discovery. Replacement planting consistent with an approved plan does not require separate City approval. (Ord. 3158 § 6, amended, 09/18/2018; Ord. 3155 §§ 12, 13, amended, 07/17/2018) Finding: All landscaped areas will be maintained in good condition or will otherwise be replaced. 18.4.4.040 Recycling and Refuse Disposal Areas Page 24 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 A. Recycling. All residential, commercial, and manufacturing developments that are subject to chapter 18.5.2 Site Design Review shall provide an opportunity-to- recycle site for use of the project occupants. 1. Residential. All newly constructed residential units, either as part of an existing development or as a new development, shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle site in accord with the following standards. Finding: Not applicable 2. Commercial. Commercial developments having a refuse receptacle shall provide a site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the refuse receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local sanitary service franchisee under its on-route collection program for purposes of recycling. Finding: The Walker Elementary School students and staff recycle as much paper, plastics, food waste, etc., as possible to reduce the flow of materials into the landfill. A refuse receptacle that provides an adequate collection area of materials produced at the school including recycling has been provided within the service yard area. B. Service Areas. Recycling and refuse disposal areas shall be located to provide truck access and shall not be placed within any required front yard or required landscape area. Finding: The recycling and refuse disposal area areprovided within the new screened service yard that is accessed from the parking lot on the Hunter Court side of the property. The recycling and refuse disposal areas arenot within the front yard or a required landscape area. C. Screening. Recycle and refuse disposal area screening shall be provided pursuant to section 18.4.4.030.G.1. Finding: A five to an eight-foot-tall masonry wall or fence is proposed to prevent the view from the public right of way of the refuse and recycle area. Page 25 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 18.4.4.050 - Outdoor Lighting Finding: All exterior lighting is attached to the buildings and will be directed on to the subject property. No artificial lighting will be directed to illuminate adjacent residential properties. New light standards within the parking area will be pedestrian-scale and will not illuminate adjacent residential properties. 18.4.4.060 - Fences and Walls B. Design Standards. Fences, walls, hedges, and screen planting shall meet the following standards, where height is measured pursuant to subsection 18.4.4.060.B.2, below. See Figure 18.4.4.060.B.1 for illustration of maximum fence heights. Finding: The majority of the perimeter fencing exists. The fencing at the perimeter of the school area is a six-foot, chain link fence. The existing chain-link fencing is set back more than 20 feet from the front property along Walker Avenue andmore than 10 feet from the Home Avenue side of the property. Since the fence is outside of all of the setback areas it is allowed to exceed the fence height standards from 18.4.4.060.B.2. Metal gates and decorative fencing is proposed to be added. All proposed fencing is outside of setback areas and not subject to the height standards. 18.4.3 Parking Access and Circulation: Finding: Walker Elementary school requires 66 vehicle parking spaces. Per Table 18.4.3.040: 1 space per 75 square feet of public assembly area, whichever is greater Public Assembly Area: Gymnasium = 4,938 / 75 = 65.8 Required Parking based on the largest assembly space at capacity = 66 spaces. There are 46 parking spaces available on the site. This is non-conforming as the assembly area parking calculations are not increasing due to the new construction but are required for the gymnasium area. 62 spaces in parking lot accessed from Hunter Court 4 spaces adjacent to the Hunter Court improvements Total 66 Page 26 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 The proposal increases the on-site parking by through the development of the new parking area. This increases the number of spaces allowed on-site to be closer to conformance with the parking standards. The proposed parking area relocation adds Accessible Parking spaces and expands the onsite parking to accommodate the parking demands of the elementary school. The 66 spaces are not more than a ten percent increase and are permissible under AMC 18.4.3.030.B. Accessible parking spaces as required by the Oregon building code and federal regulations are being provided in the parking area. Walker Elementary School requires 70 bicycle parking spaces, all covered. Though several Walker Elementary School students ride their bicycles to school, never have anywhere near 70 bicycles been present at campus. There are presently 22 covered bicycle parking spaces on the north side of the gymnasium building. This is a pre-existing, non-conforming situation. The proposal adds bicycle parking on the east side of the campus, just north of the proposed classroom addition. Two, banks of 24 bike racks for a total of 66 secure bicycle parking spaces are proposed. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design A. Parking Location 1. Except for single and two-family dwellings, required automobile parking facilities may be located on another parcel of land, provided said parcel is within 200 feet of the use it is intended to serve. Finding: All required parking is on parcels owned by Ashland School District. There are parking spaces parallel to Hunter Court proposed, these are on the School Districts' property. 2. Except as allowed in the subsection below, automobile parking shall not be located in a required front and side yard setback area abutting a public street, except alleys. Finding: The parking area on Homes is presently adjacent to the sidewalk and forward of the building façade. The proposal provides a setback from the parking area to the public street. The parking area is outside of the required front and side yard. Page 27 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 B. Parking Area Design. Finding: The reconstructed and new parking areas are proposed to be designed in accordance with the standards. The proposed parking spaces are 9’ X 18’ with up to 50 percent of the provided parking spaces as compact. The parking spaces have the required back up, necessary for the types of spaces, head-in, and angled. The parking area has been designed to minimize adverse environmental impacts. One shade tree is provided for every seven spaces. Fifty percent more shade created by shade trees is proposed to address the microclimatic effects of the parking area. The parking lot is designed to capture and treat surface run-off through a large, landscape swale. C. Vehicular Access and Circulation. Finding: The proposed access modifications remove a curb cut on Homes Avenue that is close to the intersectionand relocates the current parent drop off lane that is near the intersection of Walker and Homes to be accessed from Hunter Court. The proposed layout improves on-site circulation and maintains and improves transportation system safety and operations. The proposed access is from Hunter Court. This access would serve the proposed parking area and the dedicated drop off lane. The proposed driveway to the site is off-set from the driveway to Hunter Park, across Hunter Court. These driveways are off-set to allow for increased length in the driveway to improve the number of vehicles staging for drop off and pick-up. The proposal allows for the crossing of Hunter Court to align with the landscape median across Hunter Court to allow for safer pedestrian crossing. The proposed circulation system accommodates expected traffic on the site and improves, ideally eliminates the problems caused at morning drop off and afternoon pick up. The on-site circulation system incorporates street-like features such as sidewalks, plaza areas for gathering, and shade trees. Pedestrian connections on the site and adjacent sidewalks are proposed. No obstructions will be placed in the vision clearance areas of the driveways. Page 28 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 D. Driveways and Turn-Around Design. Finding: There are pedestrian sidewalks provided adjacent to the streets, the driveways and through the parking area. Adequate drive aisles are provided so that all vehicles enter the street in a forward manner. No obstructions will beplaced in the vision clearance areas. E.Parking and Access Construction. Finding: All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds, and driveways will be paved with an asphaltsurface. The new parking areas, aisles, and turn arounds will have an onsite collection, treatment, and detention of drainage waterson the north side of the proposed driveway for parent drop off and pick up. All parking spaces will be clearly and permanently marked. The existing parking area is directly adjacent to the curbside sidewalk on Homes Avenue. The new parking area is proposed to be reconstructed and a 10-foot landscape buffer from the street. A site obscuring hedge or other site obscuring barrier is not proposed. There is more than seven percent landscaping in and immediately adjacent to the parking areas. The landscaping is uniformly distributed throughout the parking area and provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs. 18.4.3.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation Finding: The proposal is intended to provide the students, staff, parents, a safe, reasonably direct, and convenient walkway connections between primary building entrances and all adjacent streets. The proposed improvements along Hunter Court, through the parking area, from the direction of the bike path area, in particular, provide clear pedestrian access through the site. The intersection width of Homes and Hunter has been reduced to decrease pedestrian crossing of the driveway. Page 29 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 18.4.5.030 Tree Protection. Finding: The trees proposed for protection and removal were evaluated by a local landscape architect with extensive arborist knowledge. All trees on the tree protection plan will have a six-foot chain link fence installed at the dripline of the trees (or as depicted on the plan) to protect them from the impacts of construction. (See Sheet L1.1) 18.4.7 Signs. Finding: There is an existing sign program for Walker Elementary School and the Ashland School District (2009-0322). The only requested change is to add a “Walker Elementary School” sign and address numbers on the Homes Avenue façade. 4. Designated Creek Protection. Where a project is proposed adjacent to a designated creek protection area, the project shall incorporate the creek into the design while maintaining required setbacks and buffering, and complying with water quality protection standards. The developer shall plant native riparian plants in and adjacent to the creek protection zone. Finding: Paradise Creek is an ephemeral stream. It is present along the Walker Avenue frontage. The creek is partially culverted and partially above ground. There are no changes, modifications, or other site disturbances in the area of Paradise Creek. 5. Noise and Glare. Artificial lighting shall meet the requirements of section 18.4.4.050. Compliance with AMC 9.08.170.c and AMC 9.08.175 related to noise is required. Finding: All artificial lighting will meet the lighting standards. 6. Expansion of Existing Sites and Buildings. For sites that do not conform to the standards of section 18.4.2.040 (i.e., nonconforming developments), an equal percentage of the site must be made to comply with the standards of this section as the percentage of building expansion. For example, if a building area is expanded by 25 percent, then 25 percent of the site must be brought up to the standards required by this document. Finding: Page 30 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 It can be found that the existing Walker Elementary School Site largely conforms to the standards. It appears that the parking area may be less than what is required thus an increase in the parking area. The proposed site development complies with the standards for Site Design Review. Substantial elements of the site are being brought into conformance with the site development standards. The installation of stormwater detention bioswales, planting of street trees, increasing driveway separation from the intersection, an increase in covered bicycle parking spaces all increase site conformity. The proposed site improvements reduce adverse effects on surrounding property owners and the general public through increased safety. The site modifications, the new classroom structure, and the modified administration buildingurther energy conservation f efforts within the City, to enhance the environment for students walkingand cyclingto campus. 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. Finding: Adequate city facilities exist to service the proposed additional classroom building area. The proposal substantially upgrades the storm drainage facilities, where inadequate facilities exist. The Civil engineering plans provide necessary details to demonstrate proposed site development and construction can comply with city standards. See sheets C2.1 Erosion Control Plan, C3.0 Civil Site Plan, and C.4 Overall Grading and Drainage Plan. Utility details are provided on C5.0 Overall Site Utility Plan. Water: There is four-inch water main in Walker Avenue. There is also a six-inch main in Homes Avenue. There arefire hydrants on Walker Avenue, Homes Avenue, and Hunter Court. A fire vault is proposed to be installed to the west of the relocated driveway from Homes Avenue. The water line sizes are substantial and there is adequate water pressure needs for the additional structure area and the fire suppression system. Sanitary Sewer: There is an eight-inchand a ten-inchsanitary sewer line in Walker Avenue. A ten-inch sewer main is present on Homes, and there is a six-inch sanitary sewer line in Hunter Court. A new sanitary sewer lateral is proposed to extend from the new addition to Walker Avenue. There are no know capacity issues with the public sanitary sewer line on Walker Avenue. Electrical: There are major overhead electrical facilities along Walker Avenue. There are private facilities including junction boxes and vaults. To the project team’s knowledge, there are no capacity issues. A new utility transformer is proposed on the east side of Walker Avenue to the north of the north driveway of the bus loop. This transformer will service the new loads generated with the replacement construction, and upgrades to the existing services. Using LED Page 31 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 lighting throughout the structure, lights with timers for automatic shutoff, electrical energy efficiencies are sought throughout the development of the new construction. Storm Sewer: There is an eight-inch Storm sewer main in Walker Avenue. There is an eight-inch storm sewer main in Hunter Court. The development proposal includes substantial stormwater quality improvements. There is a large, landscaped bioswale proposed on the north side of the improved parking area and driveway aisle. The final Civil engineering will be designed to the standards of the DEQ MS4 General Permit Phase 2. The system will be designed to comply with all of Ashland’s specific stormwater quality design standards. Transportation: One of the primary issues at Walker Elementary is the site layout and that there is inadequate parking and inadequate area that allows for safe student drop off and pick up that is separated from the public traffic on the streets and away from the parent, teacher, visitor, school district employee parking lot area. The existing parking lot for staff, parents and visitors, is accessed via a curb cut from Homes Avenue. Just to the west of this driveway is the parent drop off lane that exits onto Walker Avenue. The driveways on Homes Ave are further from the intersection than required by code, but these driveways are close (30-feet) together. With Homes Avenue, a narrow width street, vehicular turning movements, pedestrian activity, narrow right-of-way, lead to repeated issues from all of the transportation activity in the area not only generated at Walker Elementary but at the same/similar time, the middle school just down the street with parents and students going to both schools as part of their routine, places more the traffic onto the Walker and Homes intersection. This parking area is immediately adjacent to Homes Avenue without landscape buffer, and there are no landscape islands, designated pedestrian access, or parking lot shade trees. There are curbside sidewalks on Homes Avenue. No changes to the non-conforming, curbside sidewalks are proposed. Homes Avenue has a 16-foot-wide right-of-way and a 24-foot street reservation area. Homes Avenue is considered a Residential Street. The proposal removes an existing driveway that is near the Homes and Walker intersection and shifts it to the east towards Hunter Court. The proposal seeks to provide improvements to Hunter Court and shift the parking lot access from the improved Hunter Court. Hunter Court is a private driveway and is not a dedicated public street. The Transportation System Plan speaks to Hunter Court dedicated as a neighborhood street. Due to the uses of Hunter Court, access to the public park and the public-school parent drop off and parking area, that the street improvements are installed generally consistent with the standards, is a benefit to the functions of the Homes Avenue intersection. Page 32 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 There are eight trees directly behind the existing hunter avenue curb, these trees will need to be removed to accommodate improvements. One larger stature tree will be preserved. The improvements call for widening of the street to provide for two travel lanes, a meandering sidewalk that includes a portion of curbside, along the southbound travel lane, and the landscape median for the large tree. A parking bay for four vehicles is proposed, to facilitate entering and exiting from the car, the sidewalk is the curbside of the parking bay. There is a landscape park row, the sidewalk crossing the driveway. The proposed improvements include ADA pedestrian access and crossings to the sidewalk on the east side of Hunter Court that serves Hunter Park. The driveway from Hunter Court to the school parking lot are not aligned. This is for a few reasons. They include, the vehicle trips occurring are often offset of each other. Hunter Park is most busy during the times of the year when school is out of session. When the school day begins (~8:00 AM) and ends (~2:30 PM), are not often when the park is frequented. The proposed changes improve pedestrian safety by increasing driveway spacing away from the most heavily used intersection. The proposed changes to the parking area and increasing the length of the driveway and vehicular maneuvering area onsite to facilitate parent drop off and pick up without pushing traffic onto the public streets. The one-way vehicular traffic circulation is proposed which increases student and pedestrian safety. Walker Avenue is considered an Avenue. No modifications are proposed to the Walker Avenue frontage. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. 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 impactadjacent 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 Finding: None requested 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards; or Finding: Not applicable, see finding above. Page 33 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 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 18.2.3.090. Finding: Not applicable. 18.5.4.050 Conditional Use Permit A. Approval Criteria. 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. The proposal seeks to modify the existing Ashland School District Sign Program for Walker Elementary School. The proposal seeks to add an identification address sign on the Homes Avenue façade ofthe new, addition. This sign is requested to be 18” tall letters that say Walker Elementary School. This wall is more than 35-feet from Homes Avenue. Public Schools are addressed in Chapter 9 of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal adds much needed updated classroom spaces and student activity areas. The proposal improves the restrooms and provides a SPED specific classroom area. This achieves the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to make a maximum effort toward the utilization of present and future educational and recreational facilities and resources through public (bond measure), private (PTO, Ashland Booster Clubs, community support), and city Comprehensive Planencourages cooperation between the City and School District cooperation. The when new school facilities are considered or when City action affects the School District, this provides the city discretion to offer leniency instead of strict adherence to the site development standards that apply to non-residential development. Though the campus will be completely secured with fencing, options to retain community access outside of school hoursare being discussed. The primary issue with allowing access outside of school hours is that too many community members allow dogs to run free and dog debris and school settings are highly incompatible. There is a place holder area for a track shown on site plans. This is not part of the project scope. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Finding: No impacts from signage. Page 34 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 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 to 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. Finding: The target use in the zone is residential development with a minimum density of approximately 44 residential parcels. The proposedadditional sign area will not have any greater adverse material effects on the livability of the impact area than a 50+ residential parcel subdivision. 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. Finding: This installation of additional signage at Walker Elementary School to delineate the entrance will not adversely affect the neighborhood as it is not an illuminated sign and the sign is not going to negatively impact the expansive façade of the Walker Elementary School frontage. Schools are not similar in bulk, scale, or coverage to structures in the surrounding residential area. Schools are similar to the school buildings in the nearby areas at Ashland Middle School and Southern Oregon University. The proposed signage is intended for the specific school and is directional for the neighborhood population served by the school. The site does have less coverage than allowed in the residential zone. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted according to this ordinance. Finding: Public schools are a permitted use in the residential zone. 18.5.7.040 Tree Removal Permit. 4. Removal of significant trees as defined in part 18.6, on lands zoned SOU, on lands under the control of the Ashland School District, or on lands under the control of the City. Significant Tree. A conifer tree having a trunk 18 caliper inches or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH), or a deciduous tree having a trunk 12 caliper inches in diameter at breast height. Tree That is Not a Hazard. Page 35 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 a. The tree is proposed for removal 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. Finding: The 20trees are proposed for removal to permit the applicant to be consistent with other applicable ordinance requirements and standards applicable to the Site Design Standards. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. Finding: The tree removals will not have significant negative impacts on erosion, soil stability, the flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. Areas from where trees are removed will be redeveloped with structures, hardscaping, and re-landscaped. There are more than 100 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height and larger on the Walker ElementarySchool Campus and along the Hunter Court 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 thesubject property. The City shall grantan exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Finding: There are more than 100 trees on the subject property and several trees within 200-feet of the subject property. The proximity to Hunter Park which is heavily vegetated provides substantial species diversity, canopy coverage, and tree densities. The proposed development replaces canopy, tree densities, sizes, and species diversity. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. Finding: No residential components. 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 Page 36 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 approval of the permit. Finding: Mitigation trees are proposed throughout the property. There are 20significant trees proposed for removal. The landscape plan calls for over 30 replacement trees. These include Kentucky yellow trees, Zelkova, maple, and Lindens. Required mitigation of 20 removed trees, is achieved through the installation of the required street trees and the proposed shade trees for the parking areas to reduce the microclimatic impacts of the pavement. Attachments: General: G0.00 – Cover Sheet G0.01 – Standards Sheet G0.02 – Code Analysis Plan G0.03 – Code Analysis G0.04 – Assemblies Civil Engineering Sheets: C1.2 – Site Demolition Plan C2.1 – Erosion Control Plan C3.0 – Civil Site Plan C4.0 – Overall Grading and Drainage Plan C5.0 – Overall Site Utility Plan Landscape: L1.0 – Site Materials Plan L1.1 – Tree Protection and Removal Plan L2.0 – Irrigation Plan L2.1 – Irrigation Details L3.0 – Planting Plan L3.1 – Planting Details Architectural: AD2.01 – Overall Demolition Floor Plan A1.01 – Site Plan A1.02 – Site Details A2.01 – Overall Plan A2.02 – Roof Plan A2.10 – Floor Plan Sector A A2.11 – Floor Plan Sector B Page 37 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 A2.12 – Floor Plan Sector C A3.01 – Overall Elevations A3.02 - Elevations A3.03 - Elevations A3.04 – Historic and Perspective Views A9.01 – Finish Schedules Electrical: E1.01 – Electrical site Plan E1.02 – Communication Site Plan Page 38 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 Page 39 of 39 RECEIVED BY EMAIL 02/08/2021 No.DescriptionDate BBT ARCHITECTSCOPYRIGHT © 2/5/2021 10:47:14 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 E1.63CLASSROOM AND MULTIPURPOSE ROOM A/V DETAILS M2.20MECHANICAL & PLUMBING ROOF PLAN - SECTOR AM2.21MECHANICAL & PLUMBING ROOF PLAN - SECTOR BM2.22MECHANICAL & PLUMBING ROOF PLAN - SECTOR C E0.02COMMON DEVICE GROUPING AND MOUNTING M3.10MECHANICAL PIPING FLOOR PLAN - SECTOR A M3.11MECHANICAL PIPING FLOOR PLAN - SECTOR BM3.12MECHANICAL PIPING FLOOR PLAN - SECTOR C E4.04ENLARGED POWER PLAN - MECHANICAL 200 E6.10COMMUNICATION & A/V PLAN - SECTOR AE6.11COMMUNICATION & A/V PLAN - SECTOR BE6.12COMMUNICATION & A/V PLAN - SECTOR C E5.10FIRE ALARM & SECURITY PLAN - SECTOR AE5.11FIRE ALARM & SECURITY PLAN - SECTOR BE5.12FIRE ALARM & SECURITY PLAN - SECTOR C E4.02ENLARGED POWER PLAN - KITCHEN 167 M2.12HVAC FLOOR PLAN - SECTOR C & GYM E4.01ENLARGED POWER PLAN - BASEMENT M5.00CONTROL LEGENDS AND DIAGRAMS M6.00MECHANICAL LEGEND & SCHEDULES M6.01MECHANICAL SCHEDULES & DETAILS MD2.10HVAC DEMO FLOOR PLANS - NORTH E1.62INTERCOM AND PROGRAM DETAILS MD2.11HVAC DEMO FLOOR PLANS - SOUTH E1.51FIRE ALARM AND SECURITY DETAILS FS1.00FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT PLAN E0.01ELECTRICAL SYMBOL SCHEDULE M2.10HVAC FLOOR PLAN - SECTOR AM2.11HVAC FLOOR PLAN - SECTOR B E4.03ENLARGED MDF & IDF PLANS E1.02COMMUNICATION SITE PLAN ITE PLANE1.20LIGHITNG CONTROL DETAILS E1.61COMMUNICATION DETAILS E2.10LIGHTING PLAN - SECTOR AE2.11LIGHTING PLAN - SECTOR BE2.12LIGHTING PLAN - SECTOR C E3.10POWER PLAN - SECTOR AE3.11POWER PLAN - SECTOR BE3.12POWER PLAN - SECTOR C M6.02MECHANICAL DETAILSM6.03MECHANICAL DETAILS M5.01CONTROL DIAGRAMS E1.01ELECTRICAL SITE PLANITE PLAN E1.10ONE LINE DIAGRAM S N M4.01HVAC SECTIONSO ATI AL E0.03SITE DETAILSC SNI DRAWING INDEX C U HEIGHTSTRI MM MECHANICAL DEMOLITION C ED1.01XXX 1ELE 02CO ELECTRICAL DEMOLITION FOOD SERVICE MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL A TRI 0 1.1. LE CLC EEE S1.12FOUNDATION & FLOOR FRAMING PLAN - SECTOR C P2.12PLUMBING FLOOR & BASEMENT PLAN - SECTOR C P6.00PLUMBING LEGEND, SCHEDULES, AND DETAILS A6.10REFLECTED CEILING PLAN - SECTOR AA6.11REFLECTED CEILING PLAN - SECTOR BA6.12REFLECTED CEILING PLAN - SECTOR C P2.10PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN - SECTOR AP2.11PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN - SECTOR B S2.10ROOF FRAMING PLAN - SECTOR A S2.11ROOF FRAMING PLAN - SECTOR BS2.12ROOF FRAMING PLAN - SECTOR C A8.10EXTERIOR DETAILS - FOUNDATIONA8.11EXTERIOR DETAILS - FOUNDATION A9.10FINISH FLOOR PLAN - SECTOR AA9.11FINISH FLOOR PLAN - SECTOR BA9.12FINISH FLOOR PLAN - SECTOR CS1.10FOUNDATION PLAN - SECTOR AS1.11FOUNDATION PLAN - SECTOR B A8.01DOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULES A8.15EXTERIOR DETAILS - OPENINGSA8.16EXTERIOR DETAILS - OPENINGS S0.10STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTES A5.01ENLARGED PLANS - SECTOR AA5.02ENLARGED PLANS - SECTOR BA5.03ENLARGED PLANS - SECTOR C A8.12EXTERIOR DETAILS - ROOFA8.13EXTERIOR DETAILS - ROOF S6.01ROOF FRAMING DETAILS A7.01VERTICAL CIRCULATIONA7.02VERTICAL CIRCULATION A8.03CASEWORK SCHEDULE S4.01FOUNDATION DETAILS A5.10INTERIOR ELEVATIONSA5.13INTERIOR ELEVATIONSA5.14INTERIOR ELEVATIONSA5.15INTERIOR ELEVATIONSA5.16INTERIOR ELEVATIONSA5.17INTERIOR ELEVATIONSA5.18INTERIOR ELEVATIONSA5.19INTERIOR ELEVATIONSA5.20INTERIOR ELEVATIONSA5.21INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A8.20CASEWORK DETAILSA8.21CASEWORK DETAILS A8.02STOREFRONT TYPES A9.01FINISH SCHEDULES A8.14EXTERIOR DETAILS A8.22INTERIOR DETAILSA8.23INTERIOR DETAILSA8.24INTERIOR DETAILS LE A4.17WALL SECTIONSA4.18WALL SECTIONSA4.19WALL SECTIONSA4.20WALL SECTIONS A7.03STAIR DETAILS HED DRAWING INDEX SCSU H S 1FINI PD1.03XXX PLUMBING DEMOLITION STRUCTURAL PLUMBING 0 . 9 A L1.1TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL PLANVAL PLAN AD6.01DEMOLITION REFLECTED CEILING PLAN AD2.01OVERALL DEMOLITION FLOOR PLANR PLAN A3.04HISTORIC AND PERSPECTIVE VIEWS TIVE VIEW A2.01OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1R PLAN - LEVEL 1 C4.0OVERALL SITE GRADING PLAN PLAN OA2.07DIMENSION PLAN - SECTOR A A2.08DIMENSION PLAN - SECTOR BA2.09DIMENSION PLAN - SECTOR C C2.2EROSION CONTROL DETAILS N AND REM C2.0EROSION CONTROL NOTES TILITY PLAN C5.0OVERALL SITE UTILITY PLAN L PLANN FLOO C2.1EROSION CONTROL PLAN ITE PLAN C3.0OVERALL CIVIL SITE PLAN A2.10FLOOR PLAN - SECTOR AA2.11FLOOR PLAN - SECTOR BA2.12FLOOR PLAN - SECTOR C S C C1.2SITE DEMOLITION PLANN PLANRR C1.0CIVIL GENERAL NOTES A3.01OVERALL ELEVATIONSPE G0.02CODE ANALYSIS PLAN PLANRADIN A2.02OVERALL ROOF PLANF PLAN L1.0SITE MATERIALS PLAN PLAN ON L0.0LANDSCAPE COVERL2.1IRRIGATION DETAILS SA4.01BUILDING SECTIONSA4.02BUILDING SECTIONSA4.03BUILDING SECTIONSA4.04BUILDING SECTIONSA4.05BUILDING SECTIONS LITITT G C6.1STANDARD DETAILSN DETAIL G0.01STANDARDS SHEETG0.05RATED ASSEMBLIESL3.1PLANTING DETAILS AND PER VERALL ELEVATI HEEC6.0PROJECT DETAILSN PLAN L2.0IRRIGATION PLAN NTREE G0.03CODE ANALYSIS IVIL II O PLANA4.10WALL SECTIONSA4.11WALL SECTIONSA4.12WALL SECTIONSA4.13WALL SECTIONSA4.15WALL SECTIONSA4.16WALL SECTIONS L3.0PLANTING PLANO - OR PLAN - R PLAN - GUTI OO SITE ITE SECTORA210FLOORPLANSECTORAASCOC LITIITE MATERIAL G0.00COVER SHEETSBOC VERALL DEM DE ANALYDE ANALY HEE COC OPLAN VERALL FLA3.02ELEVATIONSA3.03ELEVATIONS SSL1.4SITE DETAILSL1.5SITE DETAILSL1.6SITE DETAILSA1.02SITE DETAILS G0.04ASSEMBLIES TEOS VERALL ROO CSSITE DETAIL NN TANDARDEMBLIEVERALL VERALL VERALL S DRAWING INDEX O OS A1.01SITE PLANITE PLAN NATIATI VER OC ELEVATIELEVATI RI STSITE DEMPLANTINL31PLANTINGDETAILS1PLANTINGDETAILS L1.1TREE PR O O 10FLOOR IARCHITECTURAL DEMOLITION SS G OS OOOOO GG IRRI.1IRRILITIT ST S 00CO02CO03CO HI .1ER .11FLFL OSOS S SASSS0SOOO 2S0O0O0O02S02O S RAL DEM OON ARCHITECTURAL APEU LANDSCAPE T C GENERAL HITE 1 1040ARCHITECTURALARCHITECTURAL IVIL1121 CIVIL.020304 LAND 0 200.10 .....1....C 001.1........ ... L1. G0G0G0G0G0 C2C3C4C5RDA2A2A2A2A2A3A3A3A3 223 L3 SC CLLLAAAA GENERALGENERAL C AA No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 2/5/2021 10:37:26 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 48" MAX 1' - 6" 17" - 19" 15" MAX 48" MAX 38" MAX 18" MIN 33" - 36" 36" MAX 27" MIN 38" - 43" 28" - 34" 48" MAX 48" MAX XAM"84 NIM"04 48" MAX 3' - 0" DEPTH WITH REACH CHANGES MAX 34" - 48" MAX 48" MAX 48" MAX NIM XAM "0-'5 "0-'1 "0-'4 PROVIDED WHEN URINALS PROVIDE MIN OF (1) 17" MAX@ADA TOP OF RIM 48" MAX AT ADA FLUSH HANDLE CLEARANCE 6" MAX TOE SURFACE REFLECTIVE TO 34" MAX 40" MAX 29" MIN 17" - 25" DEPTH 27" MIN 9" MIN CLEARANCE 8" MIN KNEE NIM XAM "0-'6 "0-'1 "0-'5 MIN42" MAX 1 1/2" 24" MIN 18" MIN MIN 1' - 6"39"-41" 3' - 6" MIN 54" MIN 33"-36" 39"-41" 1' - 0" MAX 17"-19" 1' - 0" MIN 3' - 0" MIN 16"-18" 33" - 36" No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 2/5/2021 10:37:41 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 UP KITCHEN DN DN DN No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 2/5/2021 10:37:48 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 No.DescriptionDate BBT ARCHITECTSCOPYRIGHT © 2/5/2021 10:40:27 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 3/4" No.DescriptionDate 02.05.2021 1929 WALKER ELEMENTARY COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS2020 SCHOOL ADDITION & ASHLAND, OR 97520 SCHOOL DISTRICT 5 JACKSON COUNTY 364 Walker Ave. N t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 LAND USE O RENOVATION Bend, Oregon 97702 I Project Number T 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 R C O U Consultant F R TT Date S O N N O C No.DescriptionDate 02.05.2021 1929 WALKER ELEMENTARY COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS2020 SCHOOL ADDITION & ASHLAND, OR 97520 SCHOOL DISTRICT 5 JACKSON COUNTY 364 Walker Ave. N t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 LAND USE O RENOVATION Bend, Oregon 97702 I Project Number T 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 R C O U Consultant F R TT Date S O N N O C No.DescriptionDate 02.05.2021 1929 WALKER ELEMENTARY COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS2020 SCHOOL ADDITION & ASHLAND, OR 97520 SCHOOL DISTRICT 5 JACKSON COUNTY 364 Walker Ave. N t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 LAND USE O RENOVATION Bend, Oregon 97702 I T Project Number 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 R C O U Consultant F R T T Date S O N N O C No.DescriptionDate 02.05.2021 1929 WALKER ELEMENTARY COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS2020 SCHOOL ADDITION & ASHLAND, OR 97520 SCHOOL DISTRICT 5 JACKSON COUNTY 364 Walker Ave. N t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 LAND USE O RENOVATION Bend, Oregon 97702 I T Project Number 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 R C O U Consultant F R T T Date S O N N O C No.DescriptionDate 02.05.2021 1929 WALKER ELEMENTARY COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS2020 SCHOOL ADDITION & ASHLAND, OR 97520 SCHOOL DISTRICT 5 JACKSON COUNTY 364 Walker Ave. N t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 LAND USE O RENOVATION Bend, Oregon 97702 I T Project Number 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 R C O U Consultant F R T T Date S O N N O C 02.05..2021 No.DescriptionDate 1929 COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 12/30/2019 5:31:04 PM SCHOOL DISTRICT #5 ASHLAND, OR 97520 Walker Elementary JACKSON COUNTY 364 WALKER AVE. School Addition & MATERIALS t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 LAND PLAN USE SITE Bend, Oregon 97702 Renovations Project Number 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 Consultant Date TR UO C RET N UH 0'10'20'30'90' 60' SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" E U N E V A S E SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC.4, T.39S., R1E., W.M. JACKSON COUNTY, ASHLAND, OREGON M O H Engineering and Consulting, LLC. , published, or used in whole or in part, for any other project or purpose without the express written authorization of Powell EU NE VA RE KL AW instrument of professional service, shall remain the property of Powell Engineering and Consulting, and is not to be reproduced COPYRIGHT © 2020 Powell Engineering and Consulting, LLC. This document, and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an No.DescriptionDate 192912.4.2020 TREE PROTECTION COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 12/30/2019 5:31:04 PM AND REMOVAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #5 ASHLAND, OR 97520 Walker Elementary JACKSON COUNTY 364 WALKER AVE. School Addition & LAND USE t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 PLAN Bend, Oregon 97702 Renovations Project Number 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 Consultant Date 0'10'20'30'90' 60' SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC.4, T.39S., R1E., W.M. JACKSON COUNTY, ASHLAND, OREGON Engineering and Consulting, LLC. , published, or used in whole or in part, for any other project or purpose without the express written authorization of Powell instrument of professional service, shall remain the property of Powell Engineering and Consulting, and is not to be reproduced Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. COPYRIGHT © 2020 Powell Engineering and Consulting, LLC. This document, and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an 02.05..2021 No.DescriptionDate 1929 COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 12/30/2019 5:31:04 PM SCHOOL DISTRICT #5 ASHLAND, OR 97520 Walker Elementary JACKSON COUNTY 364 WALKER AVE. School Addition & IRRIGATION t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 LAND PLAN USE Bend, Oregon 97702 Renovations Project Number 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 Consultant Date 0'10'20'60' 40' SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" PROPOSED PATH WILL NEED TO BE MOVED *EXISTING IRRIGATION HEADS LOCATED IN TO EDGE OF PATH SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC.4, T.39S., R1E., W.M. JACKSON COUNTY, ASHLAND, OREGON Engineering and Consulting, LLC. , published, or used in whole or in part, for any other project or purpose without the express written authorization of Powell instrument of professional service, shall remain the property of Powell Engineering and Consulting, and is not to be reproduced FLOW RATE (GPM) NOZZLETHROW COPYRIGHT © 2020 Powell Engineering and Consulting, LLC. This document, and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an MODEL (*) (**) , FULL 2 1 , 4 1 SYMBOL 02.05..2021 No.DescriptionDate 1929 COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 12/30/2019 5:31:04 PM SCHOOL DISTRICT #5 ASHLAND, OR 97520 Walker Elementary JACKSON COUNTY 364 WALKER AVE. School Addition & IRRIGATION DETAILS t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 LAND USE Bend, Oregon 97702 Renovations Project Number 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 Consultant Date 0'10'20'60' 40' SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC.4, T.39S., R1E., W.M. JACKSON COUNTY, ASHLAND, OREGON IRRIGATION POINT OF CONNECTION #1 IRRIGATION POINT OF CONNECTION #2 SECTION: HUNTER ICV- SIZE ON PLAN Engineering and Consulting, LLC. , published, or used in whole or in part, for any other project or purpose without the express written authorization of Powell DETAIL: I-40 POP-UP ROTOR instrument of professional service, shall remain the property of Powell Engineering and Consulting, and is not to be reproduced " 90° ELBOW (INCLUDED) DETAIL: PROS SPRAY HEAD SECTION - ROOT WATERING SYSTEM COPYRIGHT © 2020 Powell Engineering and Consulting, LLC. This document, and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an 02.05..2021 No.DescriptionDate 1929 COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS12/30/2019 5:31:04 PM SCHOOL DISTRICT #5 ASHLAND, OR 97520 Walker Elementary JACKSON COUNTY 364 WALKER AVE. School Addition & PLANTING t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 LAND PLAN USE Bend, Oregon 97702 Renovations Project Number 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 Consultant Date 0'15'30'60' onally, all planting areas will 60' evice. All planting areas shall be served by a designated ¾” domestic water meter and a City of Medford approved backflow prevention d SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" All landscape planting areas shall receive clean, sandy loam topsoil to a minimum depth of 12” or as noted on the plan. Additi All planting areas shall receive 3” of unsettled organic mulch. SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC.4, T.39S., R1E., W.M. JACKSON COUNTY, ASHLAND, OREGON Engineering and Consulting, LLC. , published, or used in whole or in part, for any other project or purpose without the express written authorization of Powell instrument of professional service, shall remain the property of Powell Engineering and Consulting, and is not to be reproduced COPYRIGHT © 2020 Powell Engineering and Consulting, LLC. This document, and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an 02.05..2021 No.DescriptionDate 1929 COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS12/30/2019 5:31:04 PM SCHOOL DISTRICT #5 ASHLAND, OR 97520 Walker Elementary JACKSON COUNTY 364 WALKER AVE. School Addition & PLANTING DETAILS t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 LAND USE Bend, Oregon 97702 Renovations Project Number 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 Consultant Date (3) 3"Ø LODGE POLE, SET PLUMB SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC.4, T.39S., R1E., W.M. JACKSON COUNTY, ASHLAND, OREGON (3) 3"Ø LODGE POLE, SET PLUMB SECTION - SOIL PROFILE IN ISOLATED PLANTERS NOTE Engineering and Consulting, LLC. SECTION - TREE PLANTING , published, or used in whole or in part, for any other project or purpose without the express written authorization of Powell 2 4 instrument of professional service, shall remain the property of Powell Engineering and Consulting, and is not to be reproduced PLAN: MULCH RING @ LAWN TREE SECTION: SHRUB PLANTING 13 COPYRIGHT © 2020 Powell Engineering and Consulting, LLC. This document, and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 2/5/2021 10:37:24 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 1REMOVE PLASTER, LATH, AND FURRING BACK TO FACE OF PUMICE BLOCK FOR HSS TUBE, CHANNEL OR SHEAR WALL SEISMIC DEMO PLAN KEYNOTES 2STRIP WALL TO STUDS IN PREPARATION FOR PLYWOOD SHEATHING AND GYPSUM APPLICATION. 3REMOVE FLOOR FOR NEW CHASE OPENING 1DEMO STAGE, SALVAGE WOOD FLOORING 4DEMO CLASSROOM WING IN ITS ENTIRETY INSTALLATION AT EXTERIOR WALL. DEMO PLAN KEYNOTES 2DEMO BUILT-IN CASEWORK KITCHEN DN DN DN UP UP UP No.DescriptionDate BBT ARCHITECTSCOPYRIGHT © 2/5/2021 11:22:35 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 SITE PLAN KEYNOTES 1EXISTING GREENHOUSE TO REMAIN 550/70 BASEBALL FIELD TO REMAIN 3EXISTING BUS LOOP TO REMAIN 7COVERED WALKWAY, BASE BID 8GREASE TRAP INTERCEPTOR 4SERVICE YARD ENCLOSURE 10COVERED BIKE PARKING 2EXISTING PLAYGROUND 9FIRE ACCESS LANE 6FIELD TO REMAIN " 0 - ' 0 1 HUNTER COURT 40' - 6"287' - 0" " 0 - ' 0 1 33' - 0" 147' - 0" 33' - 0" NO ITAVRESE R "0-'4 2 "0-'6 " " 0 0 - - ' ' 5 5 1 1 WALKER AVENUE No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 2/5/2021 10:35:56 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 8' - 0" 48' - 0" 34' - 0" 8' - 3 1/2" 17' - 11 5/8" 9' - 4 1/2" No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 2/5/2021 10:36:09 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 84' - 8" 9' - 9"23' - 0"11' - 6"32' - 9"7' - 8" 49' - 9" 18' - 10" 85' - 6" 264' - 3" 44' - 9" 65' - 5" KITCHEN DN No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 2/5/2021 10:36:30 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 7REMOVE AND REINSTALL ALL EXISTING MECHANICAL 4WALL BRACED WINDOW EXTERIOR SHADE, TYP 12-PLY MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOF MEMBRANE 5FIRE-RETARDANT PLYWOOD SHEATHING EQUIPMENT - PROVIDE NEW CURBS ROOF KEYNOTES 2ROOF REPLACEMENT 3OVERHANG BELOW 8TUBULAR SKYLIGHT 6ROOF CRICKET 84' - 8" 9' - 9"23' - 0"11' - 6"32' - 9"7' - 8" 49' - 9" 1/2" / 1'-0" 18' - 10" 10' - 0" 85' - 6" 264' - 3" 1/2" / 1'-0" 1/2" / 1'-0" 44' - 9" 1/2" / 1'-0" 65' - 5" DN 1/2" / 1'-0" No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 2/5/2021 10:36:37 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 848" WOOD PLANK WAINSCOT. TYPICAL ALL HALLWAYS 4CASEWORK SHOWN TYPICAL FOR ALL SECTOR C FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES 5BUILT-IN RECEPTION DESK 7EXISTING SLOPED FLOOR 6DRINKING FOUTAIN 1NEW FLOOR SLAB 2OPERABLE WALL CLASSROOMS 3UTILITY SINK 84' - 8" 9' - 9"23' - 0"11' - 6"32' - 9"7' - 8" 8' - 0"11' - 6"11' - 6" 4' - 9" 11' - 6" A101 A301 11' - 6" 11' - 6" 49' - 9" A401 B711A711 B101 A911 A601 DN A021 A511 A121 A221 18' - 10" A901 A011 A211 A521 154' - 1" A031 A131 A23 1 85' - 6" A33 1 A631 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 2/5/2021 10:36:44 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 848" WOOD PLANK WAINSCOT. TYPICAL ALL HALLWAYS 4CASEWORK SHOWN TYPICAL FOR ALL SECTOR C FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES 5BUILT-IN RECEPTION DESK 7EXISTING SLOPED FLOOR 6DRINKING FOUTAIN 1NEW FLOOR SLAB 2OPERABLE WALL CLASSROOMS 3UTILITY SINK 84' - 8" 9' - 9"23' - 0"11' - 6"32' - 9"7' - 8" A631 A431 A041 44' - 9" A441B441 B561 110' - 2" A931 B661 C661 A641 A161 65' - 5" B951 A261 A841 KITCHEN B761 A851 A151 DN A551 A471 A871 A071 A771 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 2/5/2021 10:36:50 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 848" WOOD PLANK WAINSCOT. TYPICAL ALL HALLWAYS 4CASEWORK SHOWN TYPICAL FOR ALL SECTOR C FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES 5BUILT-IN RECEPTION DESK 7EXISTING SLOPED FLOOR 6DRINKING FOUTAIN 1NEW FLOOR SLAB 2OPERABLE WALL CLASSROOMS 3UTILITY SINK F481 E481 G48 1 H481 D48 1 C481 J481 A381 B481 A481 B491 DN DN B391 UP A61 0 A891 A410 A901 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 2/5/2021 10:37:02 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 29' - 0" 22' - 0" 29' - 0" 22' - 0" No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 2/5/2021 10:37:09 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 8EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS TO REMAIN. EXTERIOR KEYNOTES 7PAINT EXISTING STUCCO FINISH 9NEW MECHANICAL LOUVER 2FIBER CEMENT SIDING, FC-13FIBER CEMENT SIDING, FC-2 4SCUPPER & DOWNSPOUT 6CAST BUILDING LETTERS 1STUCCO, SC-1 5SUN SHADE No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 2/5/2021 10:37:13 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 8EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS TO REMAIN. EXTERIOR KEYNOTES 7PAINT EXISTING STUCCO FINISH 9NEW MECHANICAL LOUVER 2FIBER CEMENT SIDING, FC-13FIBER CEMENT SIDING, FC-2 4SCUPPER & DOWNSPOUT 6CAST BUILDING LETTERS 1STUCCO, SC-1 5SUN SHADE No.DescriptionDate BBT ARCHITECTSCOPYRIGHT © 2/5/2021 10:42:10 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 2/5/2021 10:37:19 AM t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 1140 sw Simpson Ave. -Suite 200 EPOXY FLOORINGEP-1DURAFLEXPOLYCRETE MDBDARK GREYINTEGRAL COVE BASE ALL RAILINGS COMMENTS SPEC SECTIONMATERIALABBREVIATIONMANUFACTURERMODEL NAME/ #FINISH/COLORCOMMENTS ACCENTACCENTP-6MILLERYELLOWACCENT PAINTP-1MILLERWHITE/CREAMFIELD GUILFORD OF MAINE; FR701 2100, COLOR: CEMENT MIX 750 CARPET TILECPT-1TARKETTMODULAR 24" X 24"PATTERN: FORMATION 11251, COLOR: PALE UMBER 58202 GUILFORD OF MAINE; FR701 2100, COLOR: COBALT 420 WALK OFF MATWOM-1SHAWSTEPPIN' OUT, 24" X 24"PATTERN: WELCOME II 5T031, COLOR: STERLING 31557 PLASTIC LAMINATEPL-1FORMICACOUNTER TOPS: 8830 ELEMENTAL CONCRETE CERAMIC TILECT-1DALTILELINEAR 8" X 24"SEMIGLOSS, COLOR: ARCTIC WHITE 0190 CT-3DALTILELINEAR 8" X 24"SEMIGLOSS, COLOR: OCEAN BLUE 1049 CT-4DALTILELINEAR 8" X 24"SEMIGLOSS, COLOR: SEA BREEZE 1174 PL-2FORMICACASEWORK: 765-58 NATURAL MAPLE CT-2DALTILELINEAR 8" X 24"SEMIGLOSS, COLOR: MUSTARD 1012 WOOD DOORDR-1VT INDUSTRIESWHITE MAPLE VENEER, CLEAR FINISH HOLLOW METAL DOOR--PAINTED P-7, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEHOLLOW METAL FRAME--PAINTED P-7, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE TACKABLE WALL SURFACETWS-1FORBOBULLETIN BOARD2186 BLANCHED ALMOND EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND INTERIOR FINISH LEGEND 1" STAINLESS STEEL MRT-2FORBOMARMOLEUM MCT MCT-3888 STONE GLASS WRITING SURACEGWSCLARUSC100 PURE WHITE RUBBER BASERB-1TARKETTTBURNT UMBER 4" MATCH DOORS RESILIENT TILESMRT-1FORBOMARMOLEUM MCT MCT-629 EIGER RUBBER STAIR TREADS & RISERSRB-2TARKETTANGLE FITBURNT UMBER CLEAR FINISHCLEAR FINISH WALL PROTECTIONFRP-1MARLITEWHITE S100GP-7MILLERDARK GRAYSOLID SURFACE COUNTERROPSSM-1CAESARSTONE3 CM4030 PEBBLE TOILET PARTITIONSTPHADRIANPOWDER COATED STEELLIGHT GREY TWS-2CLARIDGECORK1110 FAWN WALL PROTECTIONWP-3CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIESACROVYNBLUESTONE ROLLER SHADESRS-1MECHOECOVEIL FABRIC1563 GREY FIBER CEMENT PANELSFC-1AMERICAN FIBER CEMENTCEMBRIT PATINAP-050 (DARK GRAY) PAINTEDPAINTED WHITE P-2MILLERGRAY FC-2AMERICAN FIBER CEMENTCEMBRIT PATINAP-313 (BROWN) P-3MILLERBLUE SPEC SECTIONMATERIALABBREVIATIONMANUFACTURERMODEL NAME/ #FINISH/COLOR CEMENT & GYPSUM PLASTERSC-1PAINTED P-8 STRUCTURAL STEEL EXPOSED--DARK GRAYDECORATIVE STEEL PLATES--DARK GRAYSHEET METAL--DARK GRAYEXTERIOR COLORSP-7MILLERDARK GRAY P-8MILLEROFF-WHITE SCHOOL ZONE FINE FISSURED RAILINGS--BLACK 2'X4' ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILEACT-1ARMSTRONG MARKER BOARDMBCLARIDGE CONCRETE MASONRY UNITCMU-1 SEALED CONCRETECON-2GYPSUM WALLBOARDGWB-1AWP-2 ACOUSTICAL WALL PANELSAWP-1 WOOD PLANK CEILINGSWD-1CORNER GUARDSCG-1 WOOD HOOKSWD-2 MEDIUM DENSTIY FIBERBOARDWP-1MEDIUM DENSITY FIBERBOARDWP-2 GLU-LAM BEAMS---- 08 1113HOLLOW METAL DOORS AND FRAMES 06 4100ARCHITECTURAL WOOD CASEWORK 12 2400QUARTZ SURFACING COUNTERTOPS06 1800GLUED-LAMINATED CONSTRUCTION 06 8316FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PANELING 09 8414ACOUSTIC FABRIC WALL SYSTESMS 10 2113.13METAL TOILET COMPARTMENTS 07 6200SHEET METAL FLASHING & TRIM 09 2116GYPSUM BOARD ASSEMBLIES10 2601WALL AND CORNER GUARDS 05 1200STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING 03 3511CONCRETE FLOOR FINISHES 10 1101VISUAL DISPLAY BOARDS 05 5213PIPE AND TUBE RAILINGS 09 5100ACOUSTICAL CEILINGS 05 5000METAL FABRICATIONS 08 1416FLUSH WOOD DOORS 07 4646FIBER CEMENT SIDING 09 6723RESINOUS FLOORING 09 6500RESILIENT FLOORING 06 2000FINISH CARPENTRY 10 2600WALL COVERINGS 12 2400WINDOW SHADES 04 2000UNIT MASONRY 09 6813TILE CARPETING 09 9000PAINTING09 9000PAINTING 09 3000TILING 09 2236LATH SIGN TYPE 1" SIGNAGE SCHEDULE SIGN TEXT / NUMBER 177REMOTE WORK ROOM DRAWING ROOM 158CHAIR STORAGE 175COMPUTER LAB 165MULTI PURPOSE NAME159CAFE SENSORY 156TOILET ROOMS172(E) CUSTODIAL184TOILET ROOMS 200MECHANICAL EQ. 180STAFF TOILET 185CLASSROOM186STAFF BREAK189CLASSROOM190CLASSROOM191CLASSROOM192CLASSROOM193CLASSROOM194CLASSROOM195CLASSROOM 162ELECTRICAL 179CUSTODIAL 168(E) LIBRARY 166CAFETERIA 151STORAGE161STORAGE164STORAGE 170(E) WORK171(E) WORK 169(E) BOOK 160SENSORY 188ACTIVITY 167KITCHEN 174GROUP1 1/2" 178OFFICE1"1" 181BOILER 156ATOILET156BTOILET156CTOILET156DTOILET156ETOILET157TOILET183TOILET184ATOILET184BTOILET184CTOILET184DTOILET184ETOILET184FTOILET184GTOILET184HTOILET184JTOILET 1/2"1/2" 155HALL163HALL173HALL176HALL182HALL187HALL196HALL198STAIR 167BPREP 6" 1/2" 18" FROM DOOR LATCH DRAWING 1"1"1"1" NUMBER ROOMEQ. EQ. 1" 8"8" 6" SIGN TYPE 1/2" EQ. 1/2" 4" SIGNAGE SCHEDULE SIGN TEXT / NUMBER 4"5"3" DRAWING ROOM 015CUSTODIAL OFFICE 149KINDER GROUP NAME 124TOILET ROOMS 114HEALTH TOILET141SMALL GROUP 010MECHANICAL147KINDER TOILET150KINDER TOILET 009MATERIAL LIFT104CONFERENCE 112WORK ROOM 115STAFF TOILET 130CLASSROOM131CLASSROOM132CLASSROOM133CLASSROOM 016ELECTRICAL145SPED TOILET 111MAILBOXES122CUSTODIAL 102RECEPTION106PRINCIPAL134RESOURCE 144SITE BASED 011STORAGE012STORAGE100VESTIBULE118STORAGE126FIRE RISER 142CALMING 105STUDENT138READING 136ACTIVITY 101WAITING 103OFFICE109OFFICE110OFFICE113HEALTH119OFFICE143OFFICE146KINDER148KINDER 123TOILET124ATOILET124BTOILET124CTOILET124DTOILET124ETOILET124FTOILET 139MATH 013HALL107HALL116HALL121STAIR125HALL135HALL 120CDS 117FRC 014IDF137ELD140IDF DRAWING NUMBER ROOM BASECOMMENTS 114HEALTH TOILETP-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1EP-1115STAFF TOILETP-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1EP-1123TOILETP-1, CT-1, CT-4P-1, CT-1, CT-4P-1, CT-1, CT-4P-1, CT-1, CT-4EP-1124TOILET ROOMSP-1, CT-1, CT-4P-1, CT-1, CT-4P-1, CT-1, CT-4P-1, CT-1, CT-4EP-1124ATOILETCT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4EP-1124BTOILETCT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4EP-1124CTOILETCT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4EP-1124DTOILETCT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4EP-1124ETOILETCT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4EP-1124FTOILETCT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4CT-1, CT-4EP-1145SPED TOILETP-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1EP-1147KINDER TOILETP-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1EP-1150KINDER TOILETP-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1EP-1156TOILET ROOMSP-1, CT-1, CT-2P-1, CT-1, CT-2P-1, CT-1, CT-2P-1, CT-1, CT-2EP-1156ATOILETCT-1, CT-2CT-1, CT-2CT-1, CT-2CT-1, CT-2EP-1156BTOILETCT-1, CT-2CT-1, CT-2CT-1, CT-2CT-1, CT-2EP-1156CTOILETCT-1, CT-2CT-1, CT-2CT-1, CT-2CT-1, CT-2EP-1156DTOILETCT-1, CT-2CT-1, CT-2CT-1, CT-2CT-1, CT-2EP-1156ETOILETCT-1, CT-2CT-1, CT-2CT-1, CT-2CT-1, CT-2EP-1157TOILETP-1, CT-1, CT-2P-1, CT-1, CT-2P-1, CT-1, CT-2P-1, CT-1, CT-2EP-1180STAFF TOILETP-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1P-1, CT-1EP-1183TOILETP-1, CT-1, CT-3P-1, CT-1, CT-3P-1, CT-1, CT-3P-1, CT-1, CT-3EP-1184TOILET ROOMSP-1, CT-1, CT-3P-1, CT-1, CT-3P-1, CT-1, CT-3P-1, CT-1, CT-3EP-1184ATOILETCT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3EP-1184BTOILETCT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3EP-1184CTOILETCT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3EP-1184DTOILETCT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3EP-1184ETOILETCT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3EP-1184FTOILETCT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3EP-1184GTOILETCT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3EP-1184HTOILETCT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3EP-1184JTOILETCT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3CT-1, CT-3EP-1 NORTHEASTSOUTHWEST 010MECHANICALP-1P-1P-1P-1011STORAGEP-1P-1P-1P-1012STORAGEP-1P-1P-1P-1013HALLP-1P-1P-1P-1014IDFP-1P-1P-1P-1015CUSTODIAL OFFICEP-1P-1P-1P-1016ELECTRICALP-1P-1P-1P-1100VESTIBULEP-1P-1P-1P-1101WAITINGP-1 P-1P-1P-1102RECEPTIONP-1P-1P-1P-1103OFFICEP-1P-1P-1P-1104CONFERENCEP-1P-1P-1P-1105STUDENTP-1P-1P-1P-1106PRINCIPALP-1P-1P-1P-1107HALLP-1P-1P-1P-1109OFFICEP-1P-1P-1P-1110OFFICEP-1P-1P-1P-1111MAILBOXESP -1P-1P-1P-1112WORK ROOMP-1P-1P-1P-1113HEALTHP-1P-1P-1P-1116HALLP-1P-1P-1P-1117FRCP-1P-1P-1P-1118STORAGEP-1P-1P-1P-1119OFFICEP-1P-1P-1P-1120CDSP-1P-1P-1P-1121STAIRP-1P-1P-1P-1122CUSTODIALP-1P-1P-1P-11 25HALLP-1P-1P-1P-1126FIRE RISERP-1P-1P-1P-1130CLASSROOMP-1P-1P-1P-1131CLASSROOMP-1P-1P-1P-1132CLASSROOMP-1P-1P-1P-1133CLASSROOMP-1P-1P-1P-1134RESOURCEP-1P-1P-1P-1135HALLP-1P-1P-1P-1136ACTIVITYP-1P-1P -1P-1137ELDP-1P-1P-1P-1138READINGP-1P-1P-1P-1139MATHP-1P-1P-1P-1140IDFP-1P-1P-1P-1141SMALL GROUPP-1P-1P-1P-1142CALMINGP-1P-1P-1P-1143OFFICEP-1P-1P-1P-1144SITE BASEDP-1P-1P-1P-1146KINDERP-1P-1P-1P-114 8KINDERP-1P-1P-1P-1149KINDER GROUPP-1P-1P-1P-1151STORAGEP-1P-1P-1P-1155HALLP-1P-1P-1P-1158CHAIR STORAGEP-1P-1P-1P-1159CAFE SENSORYP-1P-1P-1P-1160SENSORYP-1P-1P-1P-1161STORAGEP-1P-1P-1P-1162ELECTRICAL P-1P-1P-1P-1163HALLP-1P-1P-1P-1164STORAGEP-1P-1P-1P-1165MULTI PURPOSEP-1P-1P-1P-1166CAFETERIAP-1P-1P-1P-1167KITCHENP-1P-1P-1P-1167BPREPP-1P-1P-1P-1173HALLP-1P-1P-1P-1174GROUPP-1P-1P-1P-1175COMPUTER LABP-1P-1P-1P-1176HALLP-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1178OFFICEP-1P-1P-1P-1179CUSTODIALP-1P-1P-1P-1182HALLP-1P-1P-1P-1185CLASSROOMP-1P-1P-1P-1186STAFF BREAKP-1P-1P-1P-1187HALLP-1P-1P-1P-1188ACTIVITYP-1P-1P- 1P-1189CLASSROOMP-1P-1P-1P-1190CLASSROOMP-1P-1P-1P-1191CLASSROOMP-1P-1P-1P-1192CLASSROOMP-1P-1P-1P-1193CLASSROOMP-1P-1P-1P-1194CLASSROOMP-1P-1P-1P-1195CLASSROOMP-1P-1P-1P-1196HALLP-1P-1P-1P-1198STAIR P-1P-1P-1P-1200MECHANICALP-1P-1P-1P-1 ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE WALL FINISH CEILING FINISH 177REMOTE WORK 172(E) CUSTODIAL NUMBERNAME 009MATERIAL LIFT 168(E) LIBRARY 169(E) BOOK170(E) WORK171(E) WORK 181BOILER ROOM 02.05.21 1929 No.DescriptionDate WALKER ELEMENTARY COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 11/25/2019 1:41:27 PM SCHOOL ADDITION & ASHLAND, OR 97520 SCHOOL DISTRICT 5 JACKSON COUNTY 364 WALKER AVE. LAND USE ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 RENOVATION Bend, Oregon 97702 Project Number 1140 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 200 Date ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN 02.05.21 1929 No.DescriptionDate WALKER ELEMENTARY COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS 11/25/2019 1:41:27 PM COMMUNICATIONS SCHOOL ADDITION & ASHLAND, OR 97520 SCHOOL DISTRICT 5 JACKSON COUNTY 364 WALKER AVE. LAND USE SITE PLAN t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 RENOVATION Bend, Oregon 97702 Project Number 1140 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 200 Date COMMUNICATIONS SITE PLAN