HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-1017.REG.MIN MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
October 17, 2000, 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Cbombers, 1175 E. Main Street
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Council Chambers.
Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council M~ting of October 3, 2000 were approved with amendment on page 3, paragraph
6, fifth sentence, "Fine felt that there was no substantial prejudice that might be done to the applicant,..."
SPECLAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARD~
1. Mayor mai the Proclamation of Red Ribbon Week.
2. Mayor read the Proclamation of World Population Awareness Week.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Commi~
2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Joseph Charter to Forest Lands Commission for a term to
expire April 30, 2001.
3. Liquor License Application from Mark Kelly dba:Ii Glardino.
4. Order denying motion to dismiss Appeal to City Council regarding Oregon Shakespeare Festival
Performing Arts Theater ami Parking Structure.
Councilor Reid requested item 04 is pulled from the consent aganda.
Councilors Hanck/Wheeldon m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1-3. Voice Vote: ail AYES. Motion passed.
Nolte clarified for the council that thc Order is the written formal declaration ofthe decision made two weeks ago. That
order required the appellants to submit, by October 9, 2000, a more specific notice of appeal and whcthar or not it was
done will be determined at the hearing.
Councilors liauck/Finc m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #4. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing on Appeal of Planning Action 2000074, a request for a site review for the construction
ora new theater and a conditional u~ permit to allow the fly tower to exceed 40 feet in height. Project
is located on Hargadlae Street and east of South Pioneer Street and includes the construction of a
parking structure. (Appellant: Swalee/Lang, Applicant: Oregon Shakespeare Festival)
Shaw read the guidelines for Land Use Hearing procedures.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:18 p.m:
EXPARTE CONTACT
Reid noted that she is an owner of a Bed & Breakfast in Ashland, and several ofhar guests attend OSF plays. She is
not a member of OSF, but she has walked tluough the area many times. She has also read many newspapers articles
about the issue. Hanson stated that he had engaged in a conversation with members of the Historical Commission about
the issue. Fine stated that in addition to the contacts he noted at the previous meeting, he has also returned a photocopy
of a Corporate Rules Judgement to the applicant's attorney by mail, but did not enclose any correspondence.
STAFF REPORT
Community Development Director John McLaughlin stated that this action was heard at the initial public hearing in
July by the Planning Commission. A lot of testimony was received and discussed by the Commission, and a request
was made to leave the record open for seven days for additional written testimony, which was agreed upon. The
Planning Commission mede a decision to approve the Planning Action at the August 8 meeting, by an 8 to l vote.
McLaughlin explained that the conditions attached to thc approval, are included in the council packe~.
Senior Planner Bill Moinar explained that the Oregon Shakespeare Festival has proposed to construct a new theater and
parking structure. The theater will be approximately 33,000 sq. fi, seating 344 people. It is subject to site review
approval and the applicable criteria are found in Chapter 18.72 of the Land-Uso Ordinance. Molnar explained that the
fly tower is proposed to be just over 45 feet in height, requiring a cunditional use permit. The propused building wiil
be located behind Carpenter Hall, utili~ng a portion of the current Hargadine SUeet parking lot. The theater will
Council Meeting 10/17/00 Page I of 6
consume approximately fifty-percent of the parking area, with a roughly 13,000 sq. ff footprint. The main orientation
of the theater building is toward 'South Pioneer S~'eet. East of the proposed building is a new multilevel parking
slructore, with 140 parking spaces. Molnar stated that due to the location, the project is subject to 150 separate design
standards and that the applicant had requested, and was approved by the Planning Commission, exceptions to six design
standards. The Planning Commission concluded that the project was consistent with a great majority of the standards
recommended and approved the application with thirteen conditions. Staff recommends upholding the Planning
Commission's decision and approval with the conditions.
McLaughlin stated that in the appellant's 65-pagn presentation, many of the issues raised, had been heard previously
and addressed. He also noted the following new issues that had not previously raised:
1) A proposal for bricks in the sidewalk, and sidewalk standards for poured concrete. McLaughlin noted that staffhad
added a condition requiring that the sidewalk work be done under the permit and approval of Public Works.
2) Building size requirements. McLaughlin explained that the numbers quoted were based on the architect's building
plan, which is measured from the outside of the building. He further explained that, es is writ~n in city ordinance, the
measurements are made from the inside of the walls, and the 44,000 sq. fr building is within the 45,000 sq. ft limit.
3) Building separation, and frrewalts. McLauglflln stated that one solution is to attach the theater to the parking s~ucture,
which would alleviate a few building code issues, but would also exceed the square footage requirement. An alternative
solution, would be to create a flrewall, which was also considin'ed by the architects in the building depamnent. Staff
recommended adding a condition ensuring that the buildings are noncontiguous.
McLaughlin explained that pages 1 through 25 is information that the appellant provided as was requested by council.
He stated that staff had not made a determination as to whether this information had met the requirements end that there
was no new information presented by the appellants. He felt that the issue was mainly that the appellants did not agree
with the Planning Commission decision.
APPLICANT
Craig Stone, Consulting Urban Planner representing OSF, requested &at the full Planning Commission record be
included into the record of this proceeding. He stated that in the proposal before the Planning Commission, there was
envisioned a 3-~,~ fr separation between the theater building and the parking s~uctore, which was sufficient to make
neither s~ucture exceed the size regulations oftha code. ARer approval by the Planning Coramission, discussion ensued
in the more detailed architectural design and building code processes that raised the desire to connect the buildings.
Stone explained that to do so would violate Ashland building codes and in order to comply with both the land-use and
building codes, the applicant is willing to build a run, vail. He stated that the applicant will also comply with the City's
conditional requirement regarding sidewalk const~uctlon.
Thomas Hacker, architect rapresenting OSF, voiced the desire to build a thenter that'is the best in the world, attnmting
actors, directors, and playwrights from around the world, whereby stimuiating the economy. He explained that it is the
Festival's desire to create a building of s~'ength end character and noted the number of dedicated people who have
worked for two years, end eighteen public meetings during the design of this project. He explained that by creating a
parking s~acture, parking is provided without impeding on Carpenter Hall. Hacker described the design elements,
including the aesthetic advantages. He explained that a flrewnll is consUucted of either concre~, concrete block, or
brick masonry, which vary in thickness, and is rated by the number of hours it would take for a fire to burn through the
wall. He indicated on the model where the fircwall would be consiructed, explaining that the firewall would protect
the building from burning situations from outside.
· Hacker explained for the council that the trees already existing on the site are planted directly into the ear~h, not just
in planters. Project Manager Para Brown explained for the council that vines will be planted around the perimeter, and
trees along the southeast and southwest coroem. She stated that any vegetation on the top deck would need to be
irrigated, which wilt be provided. Hacker explained that planting of 20-foot ~ee wells would significantly alter the
design s~ructurc, which would increase costs, and as a result is not planned at this time. He clarified that drainage
systems are not being included for residential u~e, but could be added later at no risk to the s~ructure and that drainage
does exist for rainfall.
City Administrator ~ Scoles explained for the council that at the time of the lease, there would be no preclusion for
the building ofreslsooms, and added that there was no preclusion for building another story either. Laws stated the
council did not require rcs~rooms, and as a result they ware not included in the design. Hacker explained that rcstrooms
have not been precluded, and could be installed after the cons~Uction. Scoles stated that if the council wanted to make
this a condition, it could be added. In conclusion, Stone stated they have aRempted to address all of the criteria,
including issues brought forth bY the opponents.
Council Meeting 10/17/00 Page 2 of 6
IN FAVOR OF APPLICATION
Dan Thorndykef369 Granite/Reed a letter into the record fi.om Ted Muinrz. (The letter is attached to the permanent
record located in the City Recorder's office). Thorndyke noted that he is an OSF board member. He sUessed the
number of compromises that have been made throughout the progress of this project. The process has been a balance
of desires both by OSF and by community members. He urged the council to refrain from underestimating the care and
concern by OSF members regarding the value o f the new theater. He requested that the council approve the application.
Paul MensclO451 N Main/Feeis there is a need to provide a quality product, and noted his involvement in tourism. The
building should "stand on its own" and reflect the style of what will be performed in the theater. He feels it is time to
move on, and not dwell on what might have been thought of in the past and rejected. He noted there are other non
profits in the city, just llke OSF, who enjoy an exemption from property taxes. He s~rossed that this is a replacement
theater. He concluded by encouraging the council to approve the application.
Duane Smitb/216$ West Jackson Rd/Noted that when he came to Ashland, the town was not much, but it did have
a theater, setting it apart fi.om all the other little towns. There was a struggling college, not expected to survive, in fact
the Festival was not expected to survive. The town has grown into a unique cultural experience. Some day, the City
of Ashland will be judged on decisions mede now. He feels the problem is not the Festival, but the traffic pattern.
Tom Knapp/820 Iowa/He explained the issues brought forward about the decision to replace the Black Swan with a
new ~heater, noting the need for actor accessibility, seating capacity, and fly height within the theater.
Rick Nagel/290 N Main #18/Spoke as a representative for the Ashland Chamber of Commerce. He stated that the
Chamber of Commerce is supportive of the application, and noted the care and sensitivity that have gone into the plan.
Kathryn Bresinuerf30S Randy Street/Voiced her support of the proposed building and how the system is addressing
the requests of the actors.
Chris Stckett/645 Glenwood Drive/Stated that the benefits contributed to the community by the new theater is
substantial and hopes ~hat the plan stays intact.
Michael Donovan/ll0 Westwocd/Spoke in favor of the application and disagreed with the appeal, He noted the
proposed parking sWacture is integral to the transportation plan. This process has been a long time coming, and there
are significant reasons why it is a benefit to the festival. Great efforts were taken to bring the public into the
development of the new theater. Great care was taken to cause as minimal an impact on the community as possible
fl~roughout the construction of the proposed theater and parking s~ructure.
OPPOSED TO APPLICATION
City Attorney Nolte clarified for the appellant, that the issue regarding conflict of interest, as presented in a memo at
the beginning of the hearing had been satisfied.
Philllp Lan~Believes the appellants' case has more than enough findings, based on ordinances, to sustain the appeal
and terminate the proposed project. Some of the raw injections, standing alone, are sufficient to do so. A lot of material
was submitted originally, and more subsequently. He urged the council to review all the material, written and oral.
Colin Swales/Presented a detailed slide-show which illusa'ated various views of the proposed site. The main wall of
the proposed building is 38 ~'et tall and faces north, which will block'thc sunlight along the walkway, and noted that
the fly tower is 56 feet tall. He voiced his concern with the lease and property line. Although the new theater does not
fall within the hillside step-down ordinance, it does abut a neighborhood that does. He agrees that the Black Swan
should be replaced, however, this phn does not replace it, but keeps it and builds another theater as well. Swales
compared various other fly towers in the city, noting how they block surrounding views. He noted the lack ofprotectiun
for pedestrians in regard to traffic, such as garbage trucks, business parking, emergency vehicles, and other traffic. He
identified the mature ~es, which will be removed and replaced with screens. He concluded by noting that the
contiguous groups of buildings exceed thc gross sq. ft limitation of 45,000 ft by more than 1.7 times, and this is without
taking into consideration the fact that the buildings are contiguous with Cmpenter Hall.
Lang noted that the Planning Commission approved a design that does not work, and as a result, long meetings ensued
between the Planning Department staff, and the developer to try to make it work. He stated that a difl~rent plan was
developed to make the buildings contiguous, but that it does not work either. He felt that the applicant was again
coming up with another plan. He does not believe it is prudent to approve a site design and series of elaborate plans
that turn out to be defective, which are then patched, and then are in violation of code. He stated that the site plan and
proposal are defective and they need to go back to thc drawing board.
Council Meeting 10/17/00 Page 3 of 6
Erie Navickas/711 Faith/Voiced his concern for the need of another Bowmer Theater end noted other urban areas that
have developed large convention centers, end the detriment they caused.
blarilyn Bri~s/$90 Glenview Drive/Passed around a map for the council to inspect. It was her intention to speak about
the architectural compatibility with the impact area, end the seale end bulk. She addressed the "sense of entry," stating
it does not meet the standards of the City of Ashland, as it is too close to Carpenter Hall. The cornice rough of the new
theater overlaps the rafter tails of Carpenter Hall end that when the Planning Commission approved the application, they
did not know where the propen'y line was at the time. She stated the drawings end the models do not meet the words
of the developers. The sense of entry is described as having columns, but in the model end drawings there are no
columns, but 4 x 4 shaft instead. A column has a base, a shaft, end a caphal. In addition, the trellis does not provide
protection when it is raining. Her criticism is the enO'y, end she feels it needs to be reworked.
Billie liicks/190 Vista/Is a Shakespeare supporter, but he has SUong concerns about the practical concepts. He lives
in the theater neighborhood and the issues of traffic end parking has not been addressed and it is inappropriate for the
council to pass the proposal until a study is done.
Bill Street/180 Mead/Spoke to the conditional use permit approval criteria, Section C, # 1 "similarity in scale, bulk end
coverage," end//3 "architectural compatibility with the impact area." He referred to a response from Craig Stone
Associates, page 5 from the document Sent to the Ashlend Pl~mnlng Commission on July 25, 2000, in response to the
lend use application, end siting the Clark v. Jackson County 1992. The case affmned the local government's
interpretation ofen ordinance, unless LUBA determines that the local govemmeut's interpretation is inconsistent with
expressed lenguage of the ordinance m' its apparent purpose for policy. He questioned the purpose of the big box
standard (45,000 sq. i~ limitation) in the downtown area. Street noted that there would be no parking structure without
the theater, end in essence they are symbiotic. In response to Mr. Hacker's earlier statements, Street believes that
without the courtyard, the new theater is really just a large warehouse. He questioned whether it fits the standards of
the City, end asked the council to deny the application.
STAFF RESPONSE
Council preferred hearing staff response after applicant rebuttal.
APPLICANT REBUTTAL
Craig Stone clarif~l that the conditional use permit will not produce a greater material adverse effect upon carmin
qualities in comparison to the target us~. A commercial zoning district (shopping centers, dapertment stores, etc.) has
afloor ~earatio of 1.0, andwith a loose interpretation ofwhat~hat means, itwouldbeover 100,000 sq. R. The second
issue regarding the size of the two buildings, because they are two separate sUuctures, there is no violation of the
45,000 sq. fl standards. He stated that the design plens were as detailed a set ofplens as the City has ever seen, but that
there are details that remain to be worked out. He explained that these details will be worked out in a way that does not
violate the City's lend use ordinance or its building codes. Regarding the enUunce architecture, experts and non experts
alike disagree on what constitutes good architecture. The Planning Commission elected to keep the architecture, but
added vegetation to the top level of the parking smactore. Storm drainage has been examined end cen be dealt with.
Stone clarified for the council that ODOT does not require a Iraffic study, end no study was done.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:28 p.m.
STAFF RESPONSE
Reid noted that it was never decided that the downtown area was not ever going to have contiguous buildings.
McLaughlin clarified, noting when the ordinance was written, that all buildings constructed prior to 1992 were exempt.
Reid stated that when the committee made the ordinance, it was not the intention to destroy thc ambience of the
downtown area, which is filled with contiguous buildings. McLaughlin clarified that as the ordinenoe is written, if
buildings are touching, they are contiguous. If the buildings ate not contiguous, they must be separated by a d/stanca
of 60-fl or a distance equal to the height of the building. McLunghlin clarified that, target use of a zone, meens similar
uses in the downtown district with a floor area ratio 1:1, meaning for every sq. ft of building for every sq. foot of lot
area. The residential area across the street has a different target zone. He also responded to the council's questions
regarding landscaping requirements in that a ~ree is required for every 800 sq./~ of plaza area. Trees are planned
throughout the site, and not just in the new brick area. In addition, the open-air public space was proposed by the
applicents as part of the equation, but there was no square footage requirement.
Council Meeting 10/17/00 Page4 of 6
McLaughlin addressed concern regarding ~affic from the parking s~'ucture, and explained that the Traffic Safety
Committee could consider making the alley one-way at any time.
Nolte explained that the building code would dictate whether the buildings can encroach onto the adjacent property, and
that this is more of a building code issue than a planning issue. McLanghlin explained that the applicants have stipulated
that they will do a boundary line adjus~nant as necessary. He continued by clarifying that the city ordinance defines
a height of a building, not from the peak of the roof, but is based on the average height of the peak and the eave. He
explained that code issues, involving the building of the s~ructure, would be resolved through the building permit
process.
McLaughlin corrected his earlier statement regarding plaza space, and clarified that there is a minimum requirement
of one square foot of plaza space for every ten square feet of gross floor area, which the applicants have met with 95,000
sq. ff of plaza space.
COUNCIL D~.LmERATION
Reid stated that she prefers contemporary rather than duplicative architecture, and that in the future, people would be
able to appreciate the style set for today, not a duplicate of the past. Although she might want to make a few changes,
she feels it is not her place to redesign the building, and felt that the council should deny the appeal.
Laws stated that there are a variety ofthlngs he does not like about the building, but he also feels that the criteria have
been met. He felt that the council has an obligation to base their decision on the criteria and that the requirements for
the conditional use permit and the site review are adequately satisfied.
Fine agreed that the aesthetics were not in accordance with his own tastes, but that this was not the issue. He felt that
there is sufficient compatibility with the architecture on the impact area. Regarding the ordinance limitation of 45,000
sq. fl, he feels that within the interpretation of the ordinance, this project is not a contiguous group of buildings of over
45,000 sq. ff. Fine requested that staff consider redefining the ordinance and felt that had the ordinance previously and
consistently been interpreted to include adjacency, this project would be more than 45,000 sq. fl in a contiguous group
of buildings. He stated that the applicant had met each of the land-use approval criteria.
Wheeldou requested that the lot line adjustment be addressed and noted her concern regarding the traffic in the alley,
and that the alley is not an exit for the parking area.
Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Nolte suggested requiring that the applicant do a lot line adjustment, if necessary under the code, for those two
buildings. The applicant could also be required to present the traffic issue to the Traffic Safety Committee for them to
determine appropriate egress. Reid stated that she does not agree with Wheeldon's concern, as traffic patterns are not
clear. She is reluctant to add that requirement to the motion without knowing what the professional design came up with
regarding ingress and egress. Laws stated that traffic issues would be better viewed after the building is constructed,
as there is no way of knowing how traffic will be affected at this point. McLaughlin stated a ~,affic flow study could
be performed at any time. Wheeldon noted her concern regarding the lack of shade for the parking s~uctore.
Councilors Laws/SnUck .m/s to approve the application with the following conditions: 1) conditions set by the
Planning Commission; 2) that the work is done under the pemit process and approved by Pubic Works; 3)
ensure that the buildings are noncontiguous; and 4) that if it is found necessary to comply with BuiMing Code
requirements, a lot line adjustment process is required. Findings are to be brought back for approval at the
next council meeting. Roll Carl Vote: Laws, ReAd, Hauck, Fine, Wheeldon, and Hanson all YES. Motion
approved.
PUBLIC FORUM Moved to continued meeting of Wednesday, October 18.
Councilor Laws/Snuck m/s moved to suspend the rules and place Ordinances, Resolutions, and Contracts next
on the agenda. Voice Vote: ali AYES. Motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSlNF. SS (None) .
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Council Meeting 10/17/00 Page 5 of 6
1. Council Meeting Look Ahead.
2. Designation of voting delegate for Annual Business Meeting at League of Oregon Cities Conference.
Moved to the continued meeting of Wednesday, October 18.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution eetab~hing Residential Direct Connect lnteroet Rates for the
Ashland Fiber Network, Re adopting all other rat~s without change and repealing Resolution No. 99-
:29."
Councilors lqne/Hauck m/s to approve Resointlon. Roli Call Vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck' Hanson, Wheeldon, end
Fine ali YES. Motion Passed
2. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Dedicating Property for Open Space Park Purposes pursuont
to AflJcle XIXA, Se~lon 2, of the Ci~ Charter (Gonzales PFoperty located at coFner of East Main and
Wightmun Streets)."
Councilors Lhuck/laws m/s to approve Resolution. Roll Call Vote: WheeMon, Ihuck' Fine, laws, ReM, and
Hanson nil YES. Motion Passed.
Director of Electric and Telecommunications Pete Lovrovich i~
Bonneville Power Administration and presented proposed Il
wholesale power conlract Will expire October 31, 2001, and thai
He explained that the City of Ashland has been a "full requi~
contract offer would continue the relationship through Septemb~
Pacific Power and Light utility rates, which includes a 25% util
of 13.8%. A conservation of renewable energy discount of apl~
due to the purchase of Green Power. Transmission service is in
increasing by leaps and bounds and no other provider comes ci
will reevaluate the rates.
A motion to approve signing of BPA Power Agreement between Ashland and BPA.
Nolte noted recent changes to the contract: 1) a recital was deh
2) clarification was added differentiating mandated and volunt
the rate covenant for the collection of charges. It was impor~a
adjusted for telecommunication revenuas to protect purclmses o
Councilors Reid/Hanson m/s to approve signing of BPA Po!
includes adding Green Power for the next budget year. Roi
and Lows all YES. Motion Passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS (none]
ADdOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. to continued meeting at
Barbara Chri~nsan, City Recorder/Treasurer
Council Meeting 10/17/00
troduced John Lebens from the Department of Energy
year BPA contract. He explained that the existing
BPA has been involved in a rate case for many months.
ement customer" with BPA since 1981 and that this
r2011. Currently, City of Ashland rates are 18%below
ty tax. This is partly due to BPA's 1996 rate reduction
~oximately $75,000 per year will be received, which is
:luded in the contract with a 1.5% increase. Trends are
)se to the rates offered by BPA. After five years, BPA
t~l as the language was confusing and redundant; and
~ry retail access. The most important change included
it to clarif~ that there is no rate coven~t that must be
~eleeiric power and BPA has agreed to this stipulation.
ver Agreement with amendment to contract that it
Call Vote: Reid, Hanson, Fine, Whecldon, Hauck'
2:00 p.m. on October 18 in the council chambers.
Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor
Page 6 of 6