Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0517 MUSEUM FINDINGSBEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION ~88-012, A REQUEST FOR ) A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILD- ) INGS IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET IN HEIGHT AND FOR A USE NOT ) AGREED ON IN ADVANCE BY THE CITY AND SOSC IN THE SOSC ) PLAN, AT THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE MUSEUM OF NATURAL ) HISTORY TO BE LOCATED AT EAST MAIN STREET AND WALKER ) AVENUE. ) APPLICANT: PACIFIC N.W. RAPTOR REHABILITATION CORP. ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS RECITALS: 1) Taxlots 1300, 1700 & 1800 of 39 1E 10D is located at East Main and Walker Avenue and is zoned SOSC, Southern Oregon State College. 2) The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a building in excess of 40 feet in height and for a use not agreed on in advance by the City and SOSC in the SOSC Plan. 3) Criteria for approval of a Conditional Use Permit is found in Chapter 18.104 of Ashland's Municipal Code. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the Approval Authority finds that the proposal conforms with the following general criteria: A. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development are such that the development will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability and appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. C. In determining the above consideration shall be given to the following: 1) Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density. 2) The availability and capacity of public facilities and utilities. 3) The generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets. 4) Public safety and protection. 5) Architectural and aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 4) The applicant has requested conceptual approval for the proposed museum, as provided for in section 18.104.030, which states "Review of a conditional use permit shall be based on submission of detailed plan containing the same information as required in Section 18.72. However a conditional use permit may be reviewed based upon submission of preliminary or conceptual plans provided that both the applicant and the approval authority agree to utilize the site review procedures of Chapter 18.72 for final development review." The applicants stated i~ their original application to use this procedure, and the Council agrees to it. -1- 5) The Council, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on April 26, 1988 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Council received this matter on appeal from the Planning Commission, which held hearings on February 10 and March 9, 1988, and adopted findings, on March 30, 1988. Now, therefore, The City Council of the City of Ashland, finds and concludes as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits numbered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits proponents exhibits numbered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits numbered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous exhibits numbered with a "M" SECTION 2. FINDINGS 2.1 The Council finds that it has received enough information to decide the two Conditional Use Requests. 2.2 The Council finds that the proposed request for Conditional Use Permit for a use not agreed on in advance by the City and SOSC in the SOSC Plan, and for building heights in excess of 40 feet, meets the relevant criteria of the Conditional Use Chapter 18,104. Specifically, the Council finds that: A. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The relevant section of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan which specifically describes this is to be found in the supporting document "The Southern Plan for the 80's", a campus plan for Southern Oregon State College adopted by the Council and SOSC as the guiding Plan document for the campus area. This area is mentioned on page 59 of the plan and states that this area is "...to be retained as a land bank opportunity area for addressing institutional program realignments, to serve the Southern Oregon area. This area may also serve emerging considerations for joint private and institutional facilities in support of research and development programs...". The Council finds that the proposal for a private, non-profit natural history museum on this site closely matches the description found in the "Southern Plan for the 80's" In addition, the Council adopts by reference the findings submitted by the applicants with respect to conformance with the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, document P-10, page 5 through 10 inclusive. -2- The Council does not find any significant conflict with the Ashland Comprehensive Plan raised by the opposing testimony. While diverse opinions and interpretations were offered of the plan document, the Council finds no factual information in the testimony that indicates a conflict. B. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development are such that the development will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability and appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. One of the key findings of this section is to define the "neighborhood" mentioned in the criteria. Some of the testimony received requested that the Council consider the entire city the "neighborhood". We believe that the Conditional Use process is intended to evaluate impacts on the local area, not on the entire city. In addition, data presented by Wayne Kittieson indicated that the traffic impacts of the facility will be similar to neighborhood shopping centers or large apartment complexes, other "neighborhood" sized projects. While the Museum will have an economic impact on the entire city, the size, design, and operating characteristics impact only the immediately surrounding area. Therefore, the Council will define the neighborhood as the area surrounding the Museum site. The neighborhood consists of the College campus, the Middle School, Walker Elementary School, the Forensics Lab and National Guard Armory to the west, and the residential areas around Fordyce and North Wightman Street to the north-west. The most sensitive of these uses are the residential areas. The most major impact on these areas would be traffic, however the traffic impact will be confined to East Main Street, and therefore not adversely impact the majority of the homes. Homes located on East Main Street will be affected by the increase in traffic, but this street is designated as an arterial street, and the study presented by Wane Kittieson, a professional traffic engineer, is that even with all anticipated growth, east Main Street will have acceptable levels of traffic flow. The size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed facility are consistent with current SOSC structures on campus, as well as with similar educational facilities of this sort. Several buildings on the SOSC campus presently exceed the 40 foot height requirement, specifically, Churchill Hall 56', stadium 63', drama lab 53' and library & Stevenson Hall, 44' each. In addition, the physical dimensions of the proposed museum are appropriate to accomplish the goals of the project. The Museum needs high ceilings in the exhibit halls to allow museum curators to attract a more extensive variety of exhibits, and the IMAX theatre requires a large screen. Land to the north that is outside the city's Urban Growth Boundary and zoned Exclusive Farm Use will not be adversely impacted by the use, and will not be further committed to urbanization than their proximity to the City limits makes them already. The operating characteristics are also compatible with the schools. The School District testified that they had no conflict with the proposal, and the efforts that will be directed at Site Review to minimize traffic flows on Walker Street will further reduce the impacts on the adjacent schools. In addition, data presented by Wayne Kittieson and the Planning staff indicated that peak visitation will occour in the summer, when schools are not in session. The Council therefore concludes that the size, design, and operating characteristics of the facility are compatible and will have minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood. C. In determining the above consideration shall be given to the following: 1) Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density. The original proposal did not meet this criteria, in the opinion of the Planning Commission. The Commission required a re-design of the architecture, to comply with specific height and setback requirements contained in their recommendations. The Council concludes that these height and setback requirements are sufficient to assure harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density. The buildings would be of a scale similar to those of the campus area. The setbacks from the street would be significant, and vary with the height of the structure. The lot coverage will be small, with a building of 122,000 square feet on a site of 14 acres. The Site Review procedure (section 18.72 AMC) contains sufficient authority to allow for a compatible architecture to be decided at a later date, when final plans have been completed. Therefore, the Council is deferring to the Site Review procedure the final decisions on specific site usage and architectural compatibility. 2) The availability and capacity of public facilities and utilities. The testimony of the Public Works director indicates that sufficient capacity is available for water, sewer, storm drainage, and electricity to serve the building. This testimony was not contradicted with any facts in the hearings. 3) The generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets. The testimony of Wayne Kittieson is the most reliable estimate of the traffic capacity contained in the record. It indicates that based on a study of the existing streets, with all the existing and projected growth of the city, East Main Street, Walker Street, and Tolman Creek Road all have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional traffic which this use would generate. There may be specific improvements required at the project site, and further analysis is required for the Site Review Procedure. The Site Review procedure is appropriate to deal with the requirements of traffic control, and contains specific authority to require traffic improvements, specifically section 18.72.070 (L.), which states "Require new developments to provide limited controlled access onto a major street by means of traffic signals, traffic controls and turning islands, landscaping, or any other means necessary to assure the viability, safety, and integrity of the major street as a through corridor." The Council interprets this final section to include the authority for off-site traffic imnprovements when it can be demonstrated that the additional traffic generated by this use is the reason for the improvements necessary. 4) Public safety and protection. The location of the building with respect to the fire and police station, and the statements of staff and the proponents in the record are sufficient for the council to conclude that there is sufficient public safety and protection in the City of Ashland. 5) Architectural and aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The condition of the Planning Commission in requiring a setback and height limit which would make the buildings similar in scale and setback to the campus of Southern Oregon State College is adopted by the Council. Furthermore, the requirement of the Site Review Chapter to require compliance with Ashland's Site Design and Use Guidelines is sufficient to insure that the later procedure of review will insure reasonable architectural compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The Council concludes that the most important neighborhood to consider are the institutional uses which surround the site, any residential areas are at a considerable distance, and the architecture of this site will have a negligible impact on their neighborhood. The Council further concludes that this decision can only be supported by the imposition of additional conditions, specific authority for which is contained in section 18,104,050, to limit the number of visitors per day, insuring that the capacity of the area is not exceeded, to require additional traffic studies to be presented at the time of Site Review, so that traffic mitigation may be accomplished based on objective facts and sound engineering principles, and additional restrictions on the site design which must be complied with at the time of Site Design Review. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Council concludes that the proposal for the construction of buildings in excess of 40 feet in height and for a use not agreed on in advance by the City and SOSC in the SOSC Plan, at the proposed site of the Museum of Natural History is supported by the evidence in 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 ~88-012. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action ~88-012 is denied. The -5- following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That the first phase of the project approved at the capacity of 2,750 visitors per day. This capacity is to be a maximum capacity. The Museum shall enter into an agreement with the city at the time of site review, providing a written guarantee of the visitation limit, and agreeing to an auditing procedure so that the City may verify the actual numbers. 2) That a traffic impact and mitigation study be completed, performed by a registered professional transportation engineer. This report shall be a requirement of the Site Review for this project. The study shall examine the traffic flows that this project will generate, the capacity of surrounding streets and key intersections, the possible mitigations, and the estimated costs of the improvements. The study will place a higher priority on mass transit improvements than on mass transit improvements than on other street improvements. The study shall clearly differentiate between existing traffic flows, future expected traffic flows generated by other uses contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan, and the additional traffic generated by this use. The Study shall use the peak day approved in this Conditional Use in the analysis. The study shall also investigate the potential use of mass transit to mitigate traffic impacts in the city caused by this use. The study shall examine and report on ways to route traffic away from Walker St. The applicants shall coordinate their planning with Rogue Valley Transit District. 3) That the height limit of the buildings on the project shall not exceed 55 feet, with the exception of the rotunda, which shall not exceed 70 feet. 4) That the site review for the first phase include a relocation of the building with a setback of 1.5 feet for each foot in height from East Main St., and .75 feet for each foot in height from Walker St., implemented as a bulk plane setback of 33 degrees and 56 degrees respectively. 5) That the applicants will provide for the reuse of surface and shallow ground water existing on the site for landscaping, and otherwise reduce the use of City of Ashland water for landscaping maintenance. 6) That the applicants will construct the building to cost- effective energy use, shall investigate and report on the feasibility of the use of solar energy to heat and cool the building, and the use of electric energy as a back-up source. 7) That the applicants investigate and report on the creation of on site wetlands where conditions permit. Nan E. F~anklin City Recorder L. Gordon Medarls Mayor -6-