Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-1107.FINDINGSBEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND STATE OF OREGON IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS FOR ) A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE ) PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION ) OF A NEW PERFORMING ARTS THEATRE, ) AN OFF-STREET PARKING STRUCTURE ) AND APPURTENANCES ON LAND IN ) DOWNTOWN ASHLAND LOCATED NORTH ) OF HARGADINE STREET AND EAST OF ) SOUTH PIONEER STREET ) ) Oregon Shakespeare Festival: Applicant ) FINAL ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW NATURE OF THE APPLICATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Summary of Decision The applications are approved for the reasons set forth below and are made subject to compliance with all of the conditions that are enumerated in Section VI and which are incorporated and made a part of this approval. B. Nature and Scope of Applications These applications sought approval for a new 344-seat indoor theatre, a parking structure, site improvements and appurtenances. The new facilities are proposed in near proximity to applicant's other theatres and facilities which are located west and across South Pioneer Street fi.om the subject property. The review of the applications by the City Council on appeal from the Planning Commission produce the following results: Approve with conditions an application for Site Design and Use pursuant to Ashland Land Ordinance (ALUO) Chapter 18.72 and relevant provisions of the Cio of Ashland Site Design and Use Standards for a new theatre, parking structure, site improvements and appurtenances, and Approve with conditions an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CLIP) pursuant to ALUO Chapter 18.104 to enable the theatre building to exceed a height of 40 (but less than 55) feet above the established mean grade. See, Record p. 192 (Drawing Al.0) for calculations of mean grade. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 1 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Applicant's plans were prepared by Thomas Hacker and Associates, Architects, Inc. mad these are bound in a set at Record p. 173 - 214. Applicant's plans and drawings contained numerous sheets that are identified on th~ cover sheet~ References to applicant's plans in this document include the drawing sheet number and Record page number(s) on which the drawing(s) appear. C. Procedural Background June 9, 2000: The subject land use applications were submitted by applicant Oregon Shakespeare Festival ("OSF" or "applicant") and received by the City of Ashland Planning Department. The applications were deemed complete by the City on the date first submitted. · July 5, 2000: The applications were considered by the Ashland Historic CommisSion, which tendered its written recommendations to the Planning Commission. July 6, 2000: The applications were considered by the Ashland Tree Commission, which tendered its written recommendations to the Ashland Planning Commission ("Planning Commission"). July 11, 2000: Following public notice in accordance with the ALUO and law, a public hearing was convened before the Planning Commission during which it accepted evidence and argument. Prior to closing the public heating, the Planrdng Commission considered requests by applicant and some opponents and acted to close the public heating but leave the record open for seven days for all parties to submit additional evidence and argument and an additional seven days for applicant to submit its written rebuttal. At the end of the fourteen day period, the record was closed. · August 8, 2000: Following closure of the record, the Planning Commission met in regular session and voted in the majority to approve the applications with conditions. · September 5, 2000: Opponents Colin Swales and Philip C. Lang filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the applications. · September 13, 2000: Applicant through its attorney John R. Hassen, moved to dismiss the appeal based upon a failure to comply with Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.108.110. October 3, 2000: The City Council considered applicant's motion to dismiss the appeal and ruled to allow the appeal to proceed. The City Council signed a final order denying applicant's motion to dismiss the appeal to the City Council on October 17, 2000. October 17, 2000: Following public notice in accordance with the ALUO and law, a public hearing was convened before the City Council to consider the appeal of the applications. During the public heating the City Council accepted evidence and argument and at the conclusion of public testimony, there being no requests to either leave the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 2 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon record open or continue the hearing, the public hearing and record were both closed. The matter is now properly before the citY C~0t~ri~il f6f final disposition. II EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL The record before the City Council consisted of 305 consecutively numbered pages and full- size drawings of the plans shown on Record p. 174 through 214. The record made before the Planning Commission was forwarded to the Council with the appeal and is incorporated as part of the record for this proceeding. Also before the City Council were full-size color plans that, in some instances, differed from the plans shown on Record p. 174 through 214. The City Council has resolved any conflicts between these drawings in favor of the more up-to- date (but full-size) drawings in Record p. 174 through 214. The record also includes the oral testimony received by the Ashland Planning Commission during its proceedings and oral testimony presented to the City Council. While the City Council carefully considered all evidence in the record, it has relied primarily (but not exclusively) upon the following in support of its approval of the subject applications for Conditional Use Permit and Site Design and Use Review: Table 1 Evidence in Support of Application Approvals Source: Record of Ashland Planning Action 2000-074 103 - 172 173- 214 2 t75 2 176 2 177 2 Applicant OSF's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, demonstrating how it believes the applications comply with the applicable substantive criteria of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) and Ashland Site Design and Use Standards (Ashland Site Design and Use Standards) as hereinbelow enumerated. Project Plans which include the following:~ Civil Site Survey and Topographic Map Cl.0 Grading and Erosion Control - Lower Level Cl.1 Grading and Erosion Control - Upper Level 178 2 C1.2 Site Utility Plan 179 2 CI.3 Standard Details 2 Landscape 186 LO.I Illustrative Site Plan 180 2 181 2 L0.2 Site Area Analysis 182 2 L1.0 Dcrnolition Plan 183 2 L2.0 Lower Level Site Plan 184 2 L2.1 Upper Level Site Plan 185 2 L2.2 Layout Enlargement 2 187 188 2 189 L3.0 Irrigation Plan IA.0 Planting Plan - West L4.1 Planting Plan - East LS.0 Section at Plaza 190 2 LS. 1 Section at Plaza Each of the plans listed in Record p, 173 - 214 are included in the record as full-size plans. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of I.aw Page 3 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashlaud, Oregon 191 2 L5.2 Details 2 Architectural ~ 192 2 Al.0 Code Analysis 193 2 A2.0 Basement Level Floor Plan 194- 2 A2.1 Lower Level Floor Plan 195 2 A2.2 Main Level Floor Plan 196 2 A2.3 Upper Level Floor Plan 197 2 A2A Roof Plan 198 2 A3.1 Exterior Elevations 199 2 A3.2 Exterior Elevations 200 2 A4.1 Building Sections 201 2 A4.2 Building Sections 202 2 A4.3 Building Sections 203 2 A4.4 Wall Sections 204 2 A4.5 Wall Sections 205 2 A4.6 Wall Sections 206 2 A4.7 Wall Sections 207 2 AP2,1 Parking Structure - Lower Level 208 2 APZ2 Parking Structure - Middle Level 209 2 AP2,3 Parking Structure - Upper Level 210 2 AP3.1 Exterior Elevations 211 2 AP3.2 Exterior Elevations 2 Electrical 212 2 El.0 Site Plan - Electrical 2 Lighting 213 2 AL1.0 Lower Level - Site Lightin~ Plan 214 2 ALI. 1 Upper Level - Site Lighting Plan 216 - 218 3 Letter fi'om project architect Thomas Hacker and Associates Architects, Inc. 220 - 222 4 Letter from project landscape architect Walker ' Macy 224 5 Memorandum from project civil engineer Harper Hour Reghellis, Inc. to and signed by Ashland Public Works Director Paula Brown 226 - 229 6 Photographs and Photo Key Map 231 7 Jackson County Assessor Plat Map with the boundaries of the subject property denoted Lighting schedule for outdoor lighting which also illustrates the adopted historic light 233 - 249 8 standard and fixture in use throughout downtown Ashland 251 9 Aerial photograph depicting buildings and building heights within the surrounding area. 253 - 254 10 Plan distinguishing plaza, courWard and hardscape areas within the subject property 256 - 257 I 1 Completed application forms and power of attorney duly executed by applicant Oregon Shakespeare Festival, Executive Director, Paul Nicholson 47 - 58 N/A Applicant's rebuttal contained in a letter dated July 25, 2000 99 -102 N/A Photographs of applicant's architectural/site model 104 N/A Perspective illustration of theatre front elevation and cour~ard III RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA The City Council has determi.ned that the below relevant substantive criteria constitute all of those which are prerequisite to approving the subject Conditional Use Permit and Site Design and Use land use applications. The below standards and criteria of the City of Ashland Site Design and Use Standards are cited by heading reference only. A verbatim recitation of all the relevant standards and criteria in the Site Design and Use Standards are contained in Section V wherein each relevant standard or criterion (or groups of standards and criteria) are followed by the conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions of the City Council. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 4 Planning Action 20004)74 City of Ashland, Oregon conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions are based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and the evidence in Section II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18) ALUO Chapter 104, Conditional Use Permits ALUO 18.104.050 Approval Criteria. A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. 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. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the Iivability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. 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: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrotmding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjecant properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. ALUO 18.104.020 Definitions. The following are definitions for use in this chapter. A. "Impact Area" - That area which is immediately surrounding a use, and which may be impacted by it. All land which is within the applicable notice area for a use is included in the impact area. In addition, any lot beyond the notice area, if the hearing authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use, is also included in the impact area. B. "Target Use" - The basic permitted use in the zone, as defined below. C-I-D. The general retail commercial uses listed in 18.32.020 B., developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 5 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon SITE REVIEW Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18) ALUO Chapter 72 Site Design and Use Standards ALUO 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter, D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Ail improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) Ashland Site Design and Use Standards SECTION II: APPROVAL STANDARDS AND POLICIES II-A. ORDINANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS II-C~I. BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS II-C-la) Orientation and Scale II-C-lb) Strectscape II-C-lc) Landscaping II-C-ld) Parking II-C-lc) Designated Creek Protection II-C-lf) Noise and Glare II-C-lg) Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings II-C-2. DETAIL SITE REVIEW II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale II-C-2b) Streetscape II-C-2c) Parking & On-Site Cimulation lI-C-2d) Buffering and Screening II-C-2e) Lighting II-C-2f) Building Materials II-C-3. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR LARGE SCALE PROJECTS lI-C-3a) Orientation and Scale II-C-3b) Public Spaces II-C-3c) Tranalt Amenities II~C-3d) Recycling II-D. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STANDARDS II-D-l) Screening at Required Yards II-D-2) Screening Abutting Property Lines II-D-3) Landscape Standards II-D-4) Residential Screening II-D-5) Hedge Screening II-D-6) Other Screening II-E. STREET TREE STANDARDS II-E-l) Location for Street Trees Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 6 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon II-E-2) Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees SECTION III: WATER CONSERVING LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES AND POLICIES · General and Miscellaneous · Plants · Irrigation · Topography · Landscape plans are required that include, in addition to the standard plan requirements, the following: SECTION VI: DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES VI-A) Height VI-B) Setback VI-C) Width VI-D) Openings VI-E) Horizontal Rhythms VI-F) Vertical Rhythms VI-G) Roof Forms VI-H) Materials VI-I Awnings, Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters VI-J) Other VI-K) Exception to Standards SECTION VI: DOWNTOWN ASHLAND AREA STANDARDS · Approval Criteria for Downtown Area Development IV FINDINGS OF FACT The City Council reaches the following facts and finds them to be tree with respect to this matter. The findings of fact are supported by the evidence contained in Record p. 103 - 257 and Record p. 47 - 58. Where the facts were in dispute, the City Council has resolved them as follows: 1. Property Description; Ownership: The record ownership and legal description of the subject property as defined in the records of the Jackson County Assessor is set forth in the below Table 2. The shape and configuration of the property is as shown on the Assessor's Plat Map at Record p. 231. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 7 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon 300 Table 2 Affected Parcels and Land Ownership Source: Jackson County Assessor Records 1000 39-1 E-09BC City of Ashland 400 39-1E-09BC City of Ashland 800 39-1 E-09BC City of Ashland 901 39-1 E-09BC City of Ashland 39-1E-09BC Oregon Shakespeare Festival Association 2. Project Boundary; Project Area; Square Footage Breakdown: The actual subject property consists of portions of the parcels depicted in the above Table 2 and is delimited on applicant's plans in Record p. 173 - 214 as the Work Limit Line. Based upon applicant's plans in Record p. 173 - 214, the project area (hereinafter the "subject property" or "project area") contains 60,700 square feet (1.39 acres). The project plans as depicted by the plan in Record p. 253 and 254, will result in the following acreage breakdown: Table 3 Acreage Breakdown Source: Thomas Hacker and Associates, Architects, Inc. Buildings 28,000 0.64 46% Plaza 9,500 0.22 16% Hardscape 14,200 0.33 23% Living Landscape 9,000 0.21 15% Total 60,700 t.39 t00% Table Notes: 1. Number rounding prevents acreage column from adding up to exactly 1.39. 2. Hardscape includes public sidewalks, driveways and crossing on South Pioneer Street. 3. The 28,000 square foot building area represents the combined footprints of the theatre and parking structure and does not represent the total square footages of the multiple-story buildings. 4. The living landscape area is also the area subject to artificial irrigation. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 8 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Applicant is required to adjust the b0~dahes of the subject property as necessary to observe required setbacks and to prevent buildings from straddling property lines or encroaching upon setback areas. Lot line adjustments are ministerial acts and the council concludes applicant cma and will meet all requirements for such adjustment. 3. Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning District: The subject property is designated Downtown on the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map. The property is within a Retail Commercial (C-i) zoning district and is subject to the City's Downtown Overlay District (D), making the overall zoning designation of the property C-1-D. The property is within Ashland's downtown Historic District. 4. Nature and Operation of the Proposed Theatre Use: Theatre patrons will travel to the subject property by automobile, bicycle or on foot. Automobile parking is located in the parking structure adjacent to the theatre building as depicted in applicant's plans at Record p. 173 - 214. There are other parking opportunities throughout Ashland's downtown. Those riding bicycles may park and secure them at the bicycle parking area that is depicted on Drawing Sheet L2.0 at Record p. 183. Patrons may purchase tickets at the box office adjoining the plaza/courtyard surrounded by the applicant's Elizabethan Theatre and Angus Bowmer Theatre. Patrons will assemble in the plaza/courtyard areas located on the subject property before entering the building to view performances. A pedestrian route, located along the northern edge of the property, extends from the new entry plaza on South Pioneer Street to the north-south alley off Hargadine Street, providing a direct link between the new theatre and the parking structure. The pedestrian route will be weIMit and wheelchair accessible in accordance with the requirements of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). See, Drawing Sheets L2.0, L2.1 and L2.2 at Record p. 183 185. The pedestrian route connects to the public sidewalk along South Pioneer Street and other public ways, including the alley stairs rising up from Main Street. Public sidewalks located upon the subject property are linked to existing sidewalks throughout downtown Ashland. The plaza/courtyard areas will also permit patrons to go outside during breaks in the performances. Following performances, patrons will exit the facility and proceed to vehicle and bicycle parking areas or to final destinations on foot. 5. Public Facilities, Services and Utilities: As shown on Drawing Sheets C1.2 and El.0 at Record p. 178 and 212 the subject property is served with a full and complete range or urban public facilities and services, including municipal water, sanitary sewer service, municipal electrical service, natural gas, underground urban storm drainage and transportation facilities which accommodate the movement of motorized vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians to and through the subject property. This conclusion of fact is based upon interviews that applicant's consulting civil engineer, Chuck Harper (Harper, Houf, Righellis, Inc.) and its consulting urban planner, Craig Stone (Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.) had with Ashland Public Works Director, Paula Brown on May 16, 2000 and June 2, 2000, respectively. A memorandum from engineer Harper to and signed by Ashland Public Works Director Brown (Record p. 224) further evidences the existence and adequacy of the municipal infrastructure. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 9 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon By its own calculations and based upon: 1) applicant's 1999 parking survey of its patrons and 2) that after construction of the new theatre, applicant has no expectation that the Black Swan Theatre will continue to be used for performances, applicant testified that the new theatre will result in an increased parking demand for only nineteen additional vehicles -- thirty-eight additional daily vehicle trips. Applicant's calculations are based upon a consideration of patrons that walk, bicycle, shuttle, or arrive in groups to the theatres, the average 2.8 persons per passenger vehicle and the projected increase in theatre capacity if the subject theatre is constructed. Moreover, theatre performances begin at 1:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. in contrast to peak hour travel periods which are typically from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Based upon existing traffic loading, the slight increases in vehicular traffic that will be produced by the proposed theatre and fact that performances do not occur during peak hours, Ashland Public Works Director, Paula Brown, expressed her opinion to applicant's agent, Craig Stone, that there is adequate street capacity and that transportation is available and will be provided to and through the subject property. Existing Land Use of the Subject Property: The subject property is largely occupied by a surface parking lot. There are existing trees within the parking lot and on other portions of the property. Existing parking lot trees and other trees located on portions of the property intended for theatre and plaza improvements are intended to be removed. Elements of the property to be demolished are depicted on Drawing Sheet L1.0 at Record p. 182. 7. Characteristics of the Subject Property and Proposed Theatre Use: Scale: The proposed theatre building has a gross floor area of 33,000 square feet and a footprint consisting of 12,730 square feet. Adjacent Carpenter Hall has footprint of 3,775 square feet and a 1,225 square foot basement. Bulk and Lot Coverage: based upon Table 3 in the findings of fact, the City Council concludes that the project has a floor area ratio of .46 because 46% of the property is occupied by buildings in proportion to the amounts occupied by plaza area, hardscape and landscaping. Building Height: Precise building height computations are contained in Drawing Sheet Al.0 at Record p. 192. These demonstrate that the new theatre building will be 45.20 feet above the established mean grade at its highest elevation which is the roof of the fly tower. Without the fly tower, the building is 38.20 feet tall (as calculated using the formula prescribed in the ALUO). ALUO 18.32.050(B) provides that structures which are greater than 40 but less than 55 feet in height are permitted as a conditional use. While some opponents seemed to argue that the building height was not appropriately or accurately calculated, the City Council concludes that the calculations on Drawing Sheet Al.0 (Record p. 192) are Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 10 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon appropriate and accurate and hav~ been verified by the Ashland Planning Department. D. Design Elements: The following design elements are graphically depicted in the various drawing sheets contained in applicant's plans in Record p. 173 - 214: · Architecture and Materials of Construction · Overall Site Planning and Streetscapes · Building Setbacks · Building Width · Building Openings · Horizontal Rhythms of Buildings · Vertical Rhythms of Buildings · Roof Forms · Awnings and Marquees · Proposed Landscaping and In'igation · Building Orientation · Off-Street Parking · On-Site Cimulation · Buffering and Screening · Lighting · Public Spaces 8. Characteristics of Surrounding Potential Impact Area: The physical characteristics of the surrounding potential impact are graphically depicted in photographs. See, Record p. 226 - 229. The heights of buildings in the surrounding area is shown at on the map at Record p. 251. 9. Recycling: Applicant operates a remote recycling center for all Oregon Shakespeare Festival facilities. The recycling center is located on land within the Ashland downtown area on property situated adjacent to applicant's production building and the Cabaret Theatre. Materials to be recycled are transported to the recycling center where they are sorted and properly recycled. 10. Design Process: Applicant Oregon Shakespeare Festival's Executive Director, Paul Nicholson, testified as follows with respect to the design process it has undertaken to date in the development of the new theatre: The designs incorporated in this application are the result of a great deal of collaborative effort, not only between Festival staffand the architect but also with many members of the Ashland comity. The Festival has been involved in discussions with neighbors, performing arts groups, the City Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 1t Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Council, a special historic preservation group and several members of the Ashland Historic Commission. In addition to these meetings, the Fe~ti{~iil ifivlted many local patrons and members to three pubhc meetings about the new theatre design. In addition, it participated in a call-in TV program and invited the public to a design presentation by the architect. This new design takes into account a great many of the suggestions, reconm~endations and concerns expressed by these groups. We particularly hope that the Planning Commission recognizes the following design elements: The new theatre is built as low as possible, and constructed to be buried into the hillside. The average height of the wall along Hargadina Street is 13 feet with the roof rising gradually behind it. With the exception of the fly tower (which is 45 feet tall) the bnilding is 38 feet above the average mean grade. This is well below the 55 foot height allowable with a Conditional Use Permit. We have focused on trying to make the building compatible not only with downtown but also with the nearby residential areas. The roof will be a dark gray composition tile and the building will have a cladding that incorporates both brick and polished face block to provide a natural and solid structure. There will also be a significant amount of natural wood to soften the building's appearance. The original design incorporated a fly loft that was nine feet above the ridge line of the roof. After talking with neighbors and others, we decided to reduce the height of the fly loft by six feet, even though this compromises theatre operations to some extent. When we fn'st started talking with our architect, Thomas Hacker & Associates, we stated that we wanted a theatre building that would reflect the edgy, challenging and sometimes dangerous work that will be on its stage. One of the elements that Thom chose to convey a sense of mystery was a large steel and wood screen near the front of the building. After discussions with the Historic Commission, we have decided to eliminate the screen. · The entrance to the new theatre is clearly delineated through the use of cohmms and trellis work, a feature that was encouraged by the Historic Commission. In front of the new theatre will be a beautifully landscaped brick courtyard that will invite patrons and visitors to sit and relax, while tying the new theatre to the brick courtyard between the Elizabethan and Angus Bowmer Theatres. For the fa'st time the Festival will have an integrated theatrical campus. The wall bordering the alley to the parking structure has been designed to be broken up into a series of three vertical panels with the middle one being somewhat recessed. In addition, a pedestrian-friendly trellis will be cons~ucted with benches and hghting to encourage pedes~ians to linger and inspect the display cases that will line the wall. · Between the theatre and Hargadine S~'eet we will create a landscaped lawn area with paths and benches, and a grove of appropriate shade trees. The top level of the new parking structure will be at the Hargadine Street elevation, with two floors below that providing parking for a total of approximately 140 vehicles. The structure will be well lit with a great deal of natural light coming in from three sides. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 12 Planning Action 2000.074 City of Ashland, Oregon · The entire area behind Starbucks, Fomnillers and the Varsity Theater properties will be upgraded with walkways, benches, bike racks and trees. V CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Ashland City Council reaches the following conclusions of law under each of the relevant substantive criteria. The conclusions of law are preceded by the criterion or criteria to which they relate and are supported by findings of fact as set forth in Section IV herein above and by the evidence as enumerated in Section II: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18) ALUO Chapter 104 Conditional Use Permits ALUO 18.104.050 Approval Criteria A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. Criterion A. 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~ Conclusions of Law: The requirements of Criterion 1 begin with a prerequisite that all plan map and zone changes must be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. In, Bennett v. City of Dallas, 17 Or LUBA 450, afffd 96 Or App 645 (1989), the court held that approval criteria requiring compliance with a comprehensive plan does not automatically transform all comprehensive plan goals and policies into decisional criteria. The court further held that a determination of whether particular plan policies are approval criteria must be based on the language used in the policies and the context in which the policies appear. The City Council concludes that only the following policies of the comprehensive plan may be properly construed as independent and relevant approval criteria under the court's holding in Bennett, supra: Policy -I-2: The Historic Commtssion shall make recommendations to the City Council and Planning c0mrmssi0n on the alteration or disposition of structures, sites, or neighborhoods within the areas of historic interest within the City. (Implemented by AMC Chapter 2.24 -- Ashland Historic Commission) Policy VHI-12: Require, where possible, that the original vegetation be retained and require the propagation of new vegetation if it is removed. (Implemented by Chapters 18.72 (Site Review); 18.88 (Performance Standards); 18.80 (Subdivisions) Policy VIII-13: Require street trees in all new residential, commercial and industrial developments. (Implemented by Chapter 18.72 (Site Review) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 13 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Policy XI-S(d): All applications for new buildings shall include the following information: * * *. (Implemented by Chapter 18.72 (Site Review) Policy XI-4(h): All new structures undergoing the City's site review procedure shall be reviewed by the Energy C6nservation Coordinator. The Energy Coordinator shall advise the developers of all new construction end cost-effective methods of energy conservation. (Implemented by Chapters 18.72 (Site Review) The City Council concludes as follows with respect to the above plan policies which it deems to function as approval criteria: For Policy I-2, it is concluded that the Historic Commission appropriately tendered its recommendations to the Planning Commission concerning the alteration of the site as proposed in these applications. For Policy VIII-12, the City Council recognizes that this policy is specifically implemented by Chapter 18.72 (Site Review). As explained in Miller v. City of Ashland, 17 Or LUBA 147, 162 (1988) and Murphy v. City of Ashland, 19 Or LUBA 182, 199 (1990) plan policies which the plan states are specifically implemented through particular sections of the city's land use ordinance, do not constitute independent approval standards for land use actions. The City Council concludes that the scope and nature of the project prevents the retention of vegetation located within the subject property project area. However, the City Council also concludes that the proposed plans provide for the installation of substantial and appropriate new landscape vegetation as the same are depicted on Drawing Sheets L2.0 through L5.2 at Record p. 183 - 191. The City Council has previously interpreted the requirements of the Site Review chapter as it pertains to existing vegetation and landscaping . That interpretation is set forth in Freedom v. City of Ashland, LUBA No, 99-030 (October 29, 1999). The City Council confirms the interpretation set forth in that case which is: the Site Review Chapter "does not require that all existing trees and shrubs be saved, but that efforts be made to save existing healthy trees and shrubs." An applicant need only strike a reasonable balance between the building site design requirements and retention of the site's significant natural features. We conclude the applicant has struck that reasonable balance as more fully set forth below. Moreover, the City Council concludes, based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law, that all requirements for site design review pursuant to ALUO 18.72 and consistent with the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards, have been satisfied. For Policy VIII-13, The City Council concludes that existing street trees have been preserved where possible. While three street trees are proposed to be removed in order to provide access to the new parking structure, a grove of 19 trees has been added just north of the Hargadine Street sidewalk. Criterion 32 (II-E-2-a) permits variation to required spacing for specific site limitations such as driveway approaches. The City Council approves an exception to other requirements of the city related to street trees because the City Council believes and concludes that, in this instance, it is more desirable to retain existing street trees than to have the existing ones removed to enable the standards to be Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page t4 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon more completely met? See, Exception 1 in Criterion 50 as contained in Section V of this document. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with Policy VI~-33 · For Policy XI-4(a), the City Council concludes that the information required by the policy has been provided by applicant. For Policy XI-4(b), the City Council concludes that the proposed structure has been appropriately reviewed by the Ashland Energy Conservation Coordinator whose comments have been incorporated into the record of this proceeding and that he has advised the applicant of all new construction and cost-effective methods of energy conservation. Conclusion: During the proceedings, some opponents raised various plan goals, policies and excerpts from the plan text in asserting violations of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has carefully reviewed all provisions of the plan that were alleged to be violated by the application and it concludes that none of the provisions cited by opponents either function as approval criteria or are violated by applicant's proposal. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent w/th the all relevant goals and policies of the comprehensive plan which, by their language and context, function as decisional criteria for the subject conditional use permit application. Cri~rion 2 B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sower, paved access to end through the development, electricity, urben storm drainage, end adequate trensportation can end will be provided to end through tho subject property. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact, Drawing Sheets C1.2 and El.0 at Record p. 178 and 212, and the memorandum at Record p. 225, the City Council concludes that City facilities (including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and transportation) have adequate capacity and can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Therefore, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 2. Criterion 3 That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area whon compared to the development of tho subject lot with the target use of tho zone. When ovaluating 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: 2 While applicant sought to retain all street trees, it will be necessary to remove three trees to accommodate vehicular access to the parking structure and vehicular access for service vehicles to the theatre, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 15 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. ALUO 18.104.020 Definitions. The following are definitions for use in this chapter. A. "Impact Area" - That area which is immediately surrounding a use, and which may be impacted by it. All land which is within the applicable notice area for a use is included in the impact area. In addition, any lot beyond the notice area, if the hearing authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use, is also included in the impact area. B. "Target Use" - The basic pemfitted use in the zone, as defined below. C-1. The ganeml retail commercial uses listed in 18.32.020 B., developed at an iutansity of.35 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance mquiremants. C-ID. The general retail commercial uses listed in 18.32.020 B., developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with alt ordinance requirements. · Conclusions of Law: Theatres are a permitted use in the C-1-D zoning district. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required to permit the new theatre building to exceed a height of 40 feet.3 Arguably, the additional building height which necessitates a CUP is not even a use in the ordinary sense of the term, and this might serve to make nearly all subparts of Criterion 3 wholly inapplicable. However, the City Council concludes that based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 3, that the conditional use permit will have no greater adverse material effect on the liveability of the impact area than the "target use of the zone", which the ordinance defines in ALUO 18.104.020(B) asa general retail commercial use developed at an:intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio (FAR). Applicant asserted that the additional 5.2 feet in building height will not produce, in comparison, a greater impact than a retail commercial use on the subject property. For the purposes of these findings, the Council finds that the impact extends no farther than the notice area. While the impact area can extend beyond the notice area as provided in the definition, the council finds that no lot beyond the notice area will be materially affected by the proposed use. 3 ALUO 18.32.050(B) provides that structures which are greater than 40 but less than 55 feet in height are permitted as a conditional use. The proposed theatre building's fly tower is 45.20 feet above the established mean grade; other than the fly tower, the building is 38.20 feet tall. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 16 Planning Action 2000-074 City of A~hland, Oregon Another way to view the conditional use, is that it is merely a larger version of the permitted theatre use. Under this reasoning, the entire theatre is treated as a conditional use, under which it is required to be compared to the "target use". Pursuant to ALUO 18.104.020(B)(5), the target use for land in the C-1-D zone is: "[t]he general retail commercial uses listed in 18.32.020(B), developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements." ALUO 18.32.020(B) lists the following retail uses: Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services, such as a department store, antique shop, artists supply store, and including a regional shopping center or element of such center, such as a major department store. The City Council concludes that theaters are a typical use found in shopping centers, especially regional shopping centers (and, as asserted by applicant, this is the case with southern Oregon's regional shopping center---the Rogue Valley Mall). Under the above ALUO 18.32.020(B), an element of a regional shopping center can be used as a target use for purposes of comparison under ALUO 18.104.050(C) and 18.104.020(B)(5). The whole poim of the target use is to provide a typical baseline permitted use to compare impacts with the proposed conditional use. Typically, the conditional use will be completely different from a permitted "target use". However, in this instance, because the conditional use permit is triggered by an increase in the height of a permitted use, the most logical way to establish the baseline target use is to use the proposed use (which is a permitted use minus the additional height added, in this instance, by the flytower). In other words, the Council finds it unnecessary to invent a hypothetical baseline target use in this instance, when them is an actual, detailed, hands on baseline target use available. What applicant has argued and what the Council concludes, is that the proposed theatre (which would be 45.2 feet in height) will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the target use -- a theatre having a height of only 40 feet (or if, as permissible for comparison, the theatre were developed at a floor to area ratio (FAR) of 1.00 rather than its proposed FAR of 0.35). Here, the flytower adds no additional seating and adds only slightly to the overall scale and bulk of the theatre and far less in those terms than a "baseline" theatre having a 1.00 FAR. In all other ways required by ALUO 18.104.050(C), the impacts produced by the proposed theatre are, significantly less than would be produced by a larger "baseline" target use theatre developed to a 1.00 FAR. Alternatively, the City Council concludes that if by using a more literal interpretation of the ordinance, the target use was a shopping center (at a 1.00 FAR) -- a use listed among those in ALUO 18.32.020(B) --and it was compared to the proposed 33,000 square foot theatre in ways required by ALUO 18.104.050(C), the proposed theatre would also have fewer adverse material effects upon the livability of the impact area. To undertake this comparison requires the Council to assume that a hypothetical shopping center would occupy an area roughly 200 by 340 feet (a 68,000 square foot footprint) and would have Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 17 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon two levels -- 136,000 square feet.4 However, based upon the explanation in Footnote 4, the Council will assume a shopping O~nte¥ having only 120,000 square feet. With these assumptions, the following conclusions of the Council flow from a comparison of the theatre with a 120,000 square foot shopping center under the seven factors set forth in 18.104.050(C): A 2-level shopping center, even in two separate buildings, will have a similar 40- foot building height. However, it will produce a much larger scale building than the proposed theatre and will have far greater bulk and coverage than the proposed buildings. As to traffic generation (as testified to by applicant at Record p. 50) according to the source reference, Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 6th Edition), shopping centers -- ITE Code 820 -- produce traffic at the rate of 42.92 average weekday trips (ADT) per each 1,000 square feet. At that rate, a shopping center having 120,000 square feet would produce 5,150 ADT.5 In comparison, the proposed 344-seat theatre will have I or 2 performances per day at 1:30 p.m. (or 2:00 p.m.) and 8:00 p.m. (or 8:30 p.m.). Even making absurd assumptions for factors that affect theatre traffic -- that every theatre patron will drive to the theatre in a separate vehicle; that every seat is filled for all performances; and, that there are 50 performers and staff that each produce 4 trips per day -- the new theatre would produce only 1,576 ADT.6 In fact, traffic produced by the theatre will be considerably less and, in comparison, there is a far lesser impact with the theatre than a shopping center. Moreover, the same conclusion holds even if the shopping center is assumed to consist of two single- story buildings, each of which would have a footprint of less than the maximum 45,000 square feet. 3. As to architectural compatibility with the impact area, it must be assumed that if a shopping center were to occupy the property, that it would be architecturally 4 A footprint of 68,000 square feet is not exactly a 1.00 FAR because minimal setbacks fi'om historic Carpenter Hall have been assumed. Further, it is recognized that the total footprint of 68,000 square feet would likely be accommodated in two structures, each not exceeding a 45,000 square foot footprint, and likely involving two story construction. Moreover, while the comparison requires a 1.00 FAR, there are conflicting provisions of the ALUO which requires public plaza space that have not been factored into this example. While plaza space might have to be factored into an actual shopping center, the ordinance does not require plaza space for the parpose of comparisun under Criterion 3. Additionally, even if plaza space in amounts required by the ALUO and Site Design and Use Standards were factored into the comparison, the Council believes that the results of the comparison would be siginficanfly different or substantially enough to reverse its overall conclusion of compliance with Criterion 3. 120 x 42.92 ~ 5,150 6 If each of the 344 seats is filled twice daily and each seat produces one trip to the theatre and on trip leaving, the theatre will produce 1,376 ADT. When 4 trips for each of 50 staff is added (200 trips), the total become 1,576 ADT. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 18 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland Oregon compatible with abutting properties and the surrounding area as required by various standards and criteria in the Ashland Site Design and Use Guidelines. However, given the nature of uses in the impact area and the absence of other shopping centem, the same would be less compatible than the proposed theatre (of which there are two or more within the impact area). It is more likely that a theatre can be made architecturally compatible (and produce fewer adverse affects) in this impact area than a shopping center. As to air quality, dust, odors and other environmental pollutants, there would be no appreciable difference between the proposed theatre and a shopping center other than air contaminant discharges from automobiles, as these would be greater for a shopping center that produces appreciably more traffic. Regarding the generation of noise, light and glare, there would also be no appreciable difference between the proposed theatre and a shopping center. While it might seem that a theatre, by its nature, would produce greater levels of noise, the enclosed nature of the building and its design (as explained by applicant's architect during the public heating) will ensure that alt noise is contained w/thin the enclosed building. Regarding the development of adjacent properties, based upon the record, neither the proposed theatre nor a shopping center would prevent the development of any adjacent property because, as evidenced by the photographs (and photo key map) at Record p. 226 - 229 and the aerial photograph at Record p. 251, all of the adjacent properties are presently developed with uses consistent with and envisioned by the comprehensive plan. In reaching this conclusion, the City Council interprets the ambiguous term "adjacent properties" to mean a lot or parcel that is touching [the subject property]. As to item 7 -- ALUO in18.104.050(C)(7) -- no other factors have been found relevant by the City Council (or Planning Commission) in reviewing the proposed applications. The City Council concludes in summary, that the proposed theatre will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject property with the target use of the zone (a shopping center) pursuant to the seven factors of liveability in ALUO inl 8.104.050(C). The City Council also concludes: The impact area -- that is, the area which is immediately surrounding the subject property -- is the area consisting of parcels which abut and which are located immediately across South Pioneer and Hargadine streets from the subject property, including property on which other facilities owned by applicant (including the Elizabethan Theatre) are located. (See Impact Area Definition) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 19 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Regarding C(1) above, and based upon the aerial photograph which depicts the proposed theatre and denotes the height of it and some other nearby buildings at Record p. 251, the proposed building height of 45 feet (for the theatre fly tower) will not serve to make it the tallest (nor will it he the shortes0 building in the immediate surrounding area. Moreover, based upon the evidence in Record p. 173 - 214 (applicant's plans and drawings), 226 - 229 (photographs and photo key map) and 251 (aerial photograph with building heights), the fly tower will also not cause the new theatre to differ in scale, bulk and coverage from other buildings in the surrounding area with which the City Council finds there to be similarity. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council also concludes that based on scale, bulk and coverage, the proposed conditional use permit will produce 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 -- general retail commercial uses listed in ALUO 18.32.020(B) developed at an intensity of L00 gross floor to area ratio and which comply with all ordinance requirements. Regarding C(2) above, the City Council concludes that the additional height of the building does not produce any material effect on the generation of traffic and its effects on surrounding streets and that no causal relationship exists, in this instance, between building height and traffic (as a factor of livability) because the additional height needed for the fly tower will not increase the seating capacity of the building. Regarding C(3) above, the City Council incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 5 through 51 and concludes, that the additional height of the building needed to accommodate the fly tower, is architecturally compatible with the surrounding impact area and will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area in comparison to the development of the subject property with the potential retail commercial uses, which are identified in Criterion 3 as the target use for the C-1-D zone. Regarding C(4) and C(5) above, the City Council concludes that:the .additional.height of the building does not produce any material effect on air quality and the generation of dust, odors, other environmental pollutants or the generation of noise, light, and glare and that no causal relationship exists, in this instance, between building height and these factors of livability because the additional height needed for the fly tower will not increase the production of air contaminant discharges, dust, odo~, noise, light, glare or any other environmental pollutants. Regarding C(6) above and based upon the record, the City Council concludes that the additional height of the building to accommodate the fly tower, will not prevent the development of any adjacent property because, as evidenced by the photographs and key map and aerial photograph (Record p. 226 - 229 and 251) all of the adjacent properties are presently developed with uses consistent with and envisioned in the comprehensive plan. In reaching this conclusion, the City Council interprets the term "adjacent properties" to mean a lot or parcel that is touching the subject property. However, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 20 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon City Council also finds and concludes that the building height will also not prevent the development of property within the impact area. This is because ail impact area parcels are also presently developed with uses consistent with and envisioned in the comprehensive plan. Regarding C(7) above, the City Council, functioning as the Heating Authority for review of the proposed Conditional Use Permit, concludes that there are no other factors it finds to be relevant under Criterion 3. While some opponents argued that view blockage is a factor under Criterion 3, the City Council had determined otherwise, although it has considered this objection below under the heading Other Objections. During the proceedings, some opponents argued that the applicant had not properly identified the impact area for the conditional use permit 'and ~had not adequately defined the neighborhood characteristics or the potential impacts thereto. ALUO 18.104.020 sets forth definitions which it states are to be used in ALUO Chapter 18.104, and defines the term impact area as follows: "Impact Area" - That area which is inmaediately surrounding a usc, and which may be impacted by it. All land which is within the applicable notice area for a use is included in the impact area. In addition, any lot beyond the notice area, if the hearing authority finds that itmay be materially affected by the proposed use, is also included in the impact area. The characteristics of the "neighborhood" are not required to be determined. The characteristics of the "impact area" (as set forth in the Section IV Findings of Fact) are evidenced by photographs in Record p. 226 - 229 and the aerial photograph at Record p. 251. As previously noted, the impact area for this proposal does not extend beyond the notice area. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3 because 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 C-1-D zone based upon the seven factors of livability set forth in Criterion 3. Therefore, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent in all respects with Criterion 3. SITE REVIEW Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter ALUO Chapter 72 Site Design and Use Standards ALUO 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 21 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Revie~v Chapter have been met or will be met, Conclusions of Law: The City Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criteria 1 through 51 which addresses and finds compliance with all relevant substantive standards and criteria in ALUO 18.72 (Site Design and Use Standards) and all other applicable ordinances of the City of Ashland. Based thereupon, the City Council concludes that the site review application is consistent with Criterion 4 because all applicable ordinances of the City of Ashland and all requirements of the Site Review Chapter and have been or will be met through required compliance with the conditions which have been imposed by the Commission. Criterion 5 C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. Conclusions of Law: The City Council incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 7 through 52 which address and fmd compliance with all relevant substantive standards and criteria in the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards which have been adopted by the City Council for the purpose of implementing ALUO 18.72 (Site Design and Use Standards). Based thereupon, the City Council concludes that the applications are consistent with Criterion 5. Criterion 6 D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to an&through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) Conclusions of Law: The City Council incorporates and adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 2 and concludes, that the application is consistent with Criterion 6 which is nearly identical to Criterion 2. With respect to improvements within the ] rights-of-way of adjacent South Pioneer and Hargadine Streets, the City Council concludes, based upon applicant's plans and drawings' at Record p. 173 - 214, that all contemplated improvements are consistent with the municipal street standards, as set forth in ALUO Chapter 18.88. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 22 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Ashland Site Design and Use Standards CITY OF ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS SECTION H APPROVAL STANDARDS AND POLICIES Criterion 7 II-A. ORDINANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS The following percentages of landscaping are required for all properties falling under the Site Design end Use Standards. Zone % Landscaping R-t-3.5 45% R-2 35% R-3 25% C-I 15% C-1-D 10% E-1 15% M-1 10% These percentages are the minimum required. At times, more landscaping is required to meet the needs of other sections of the Site Review Ordinance, such as screening of parking areas, landscaping of setback areas, and providing usable outdoor space. In general, all areas which are not used for building or parking areas are required to be landscaped. You should also be aware that, as a condition of approval of your project, you will be required to submit a site and species specific landscape plan to the Planning Division for Staff Advisor appmval. Conclusions of Law: The City Council interprets the term landscaping to mean all portions of a site not occupied by buildings, off-street parking or hardscape and which include all areas devoted to living plants and other natural features. Based upon the findings of fact, 16% of the site is devoted to plaza/courtyard and 15% of the site is devoted to living landscape. Based on Drawing Sheets L0.2, L4.0 and IA.1 at Record p. 181,187 and 188 and the findings of fact, the City Council concludes that there is substantially greater than the required 10% of the site devoted to landscaping and that all portions of the property not devoted to buildings or parking areas arc landscaped, consistent with Criterion 7. Cri~don 8 II-C-I. BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS APPROVAL STANDARD: Development in all commercial end employment zones shall conform to the following development standards: H-C-la) Orientation and Scale 1 ) Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street mther than the parking area. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 23 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon 2) Buildings that are within 30 feet of the street shall have an entrance for pedestrians directly from the street to the building interior. This entrance shall be dasigne~l to be a~active and functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. 3) These requirements may be waived if the building is not accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices, and automotive service uses such as service stations and tire stores. Conclusions of Law: The City Council reaches the following conclusions of law: Regarding #1 above and based upon the map at Record p. 231 and the Site and Topographic Survey at Record p. 175, the proposed subject property and proposed building fronts upon both South Pioneer and Hargadine Streets. The primary orientation of the new building is toward South Pioneer Street. The building does not have its primary orientation towards the parking area. The primary building entrance is oriented toward South Pioneer Street and has excellent access from the public sidewalk which exists along South Pioneer Street. The City Council concludes that the application is consistent with #1 above. · Regarding #2 above, the building is not within 30 feet of any street. Therefore, the City Council concludes that #2 is inapplicable. · Regarding #3 above, the building is intended to be accessed by pedestrians. Therefore, no waiver of the standards in #'s 1 and 2 above are sought or required. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application complies with Criterion 8. Criterion 9 II-C-lb) Street,scape One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that portion of thc development fronting the street. Conclusions of Law: The existing placement of street trees repeats a pattern of tree, tree, light standard, each 22 feet apart. The applicant has protected existing street trees and placed new trees in order to retain the existing pattern in all cases except where access to the new parking structure interrupts the rhythm. Variation in spacing of street trees is permitted by Criterion 32 (II-E-2-a) which allows for specific site limitations such as driveway approaches. The applicant has requested and the City Council approves an exception from the provisions of Criterion 9 and the same is documented as a part of Criterion 50. Based upon the exception taken under Criterion 50, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 9: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 24 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion II-C-lc) Landscaping 1 ) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90% coverage occurs after 5 years. 2) Landscaping design use a variety of low water use deeiduoas and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species. 3) Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10 feet in width, except in the Ashland Historic District. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view from adjacent public rights-of-way, except in M-I zones. Loading facilities shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land. 4) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. 5) Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible. Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: The City Council interprets the requirements of #1 to apply only to live landscaping materials. Based upon the letter from applicant's landscape arcl-dtect at Record p. 220 - 222, the proposed landscaping improvements will attain 50% coverage after one year and 90% coverage occurring after 5 years. Regarding #2 above and based upon Drawing Sheets L1.0 through L4.1 at Record p. 182 - 188, the City Council concludes that the proposed landscaping design has used a variety of low water use deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species. In further support thereof, the City Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 36. Regarding #3 above and based on the photographs and key map at Record p. 226 - 229 and Drawing Sheet L0.1 at Record p.180, loading facilities are set back from Hargadine Street a distance of 80 feet and trees obscure the entrance to the loading dock. Further, as explained more fully below, the loading facilities are not "adjacent" to residentially zoned lands and are therefor not required to be screened under this standard. Nevertheless, the City Council interprets the screening and buffeting requirement in this standard to be satisfied because of the distance from the street and the intervening trees. The City Council also concludes that there are no outdoor storage areas and the proposed building is not adjacent to any street. Moreover, the City Council concludes that there is landscape buffering 10 or more feet wide between the building and the frontages of both South Pioneer and Hargadine Streets even though the property is within the Ashland Historic District and is not required to meet this standard. Regarding #4 above, irrigation systems will be installed on the property to assure the success of landscaping that applicant proposes to install in accordance with the Landscape Irrigation Plan. See, Drawing Sheet L3.0 at Record p. 186. · Regarding #5 above mad based upon the various landscaping plans at Record p. 180 - 191, the City Council concludes that applicant intends to preserve trees and shrubs along the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 25 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon frontage of the subject property. However, utilization of the parking lot for the proposed building and parking structure will nOt permit the preservation of existing trees and shrubs centrally located within planters in the existing parking lot. Existing vegetation remains around Carpenter Hall and a grove of 19 trees between the Hargadine Street sidewalk and the new theatre and two large planters at the southwest and southeast comers of the top level of the parking structure increase the overall number of trees. The replacement of trees and shrubs within new areas will complement the new buildings and other site improvements. The City Council concludes that while efforts have been made to save as many trees and shrubs as possible, their locations on the property make saving all of them infeasible. Nevertheless, the City Council concludes that efforts at saving healthy trees and shrubs have been made and that the project is consistent with #5 above. See also the discussion of this criterion at page 14 under Policy VIlI-12. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 10. Criterion 11 II-C-ld) Parking 1 ) Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides. 2) Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential uses and screened from non- residential uses. Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1 above, the Commission finds that the front of the building is the west elevation which faces South Pioneer Street. Based upon Drawing Sheet LO. 1 at Record p. 180, there is no parking proposed to be located in front of the building. All proposed off- street parking is located to the rear and behind the theatre building. · Regarding #2 above, Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged) 2nd Ed., the term "area" means: area, a level piece of ground. 1. originally, a level sur face or piece of ground. 2. a part of the earth's sarfaea; region; tract. 3. the total outside surface of enything, as measured in square units. 4. a yard of building; areaway. 5. scope; range; extent. 6. apart~fah~use~~~t~district~~ity~etc.havingaspeci~cuse~rcharacter;as~diningarea;s~um~area. 7. pl. often areae, in biology, a limited part of the surface of an organism. The City Council finds the term area to be ambiguous with respect to whether the term parking area means a parking structure. Based upon the preceding dictionary definition of area, the City Council interprets area in the context of a parking area to apply only to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 26 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon open/surface parking that is located on an open lot or parcel and not to parking located within or upon parking structures. Also regarding #2 above, the applicant has requested and, notwithstanding the above interpretation of the term area, the City Council grants an from the provisions of Criterion 11 and the same is documented as a part of Criterion 50. During the proceedings, some opponents argued that the tema "screened" cannot be interpreted to simply require intervening vegetation between the "parking lot" and lands which are residentially zoned. Applicant argued and the City Council concurs that according to l~Vebster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged) 2na Ed., screen or screened means: "to separate or cut off from view, or to shelter or protect, with or as with a screen." Opponents urged an absolute interpretation that requires screening sufficient to make a parking lot (including, in this instance a parking structure) all but invisible. The City has consistently not interpreted its ordinance in this manner and no examples exist in the community of parking lots which are or nearly are invisible, The term screen is commonly interpreted and administered in land use ordinances in less absolute terms. In this instance, the parking lot or area -- and by that, we mean the vehicles which are parked -- will be screened by more than simply the vegetation which exists along the parking structure's frontage (in the abutting planter). The parking structure itself will screen parked vehicles. Moreover, planned vegetation will be trained on the walls and rails of the parking structure. The trailing vegetation will cover the walls of the structure and trail over the wall openings.7 On the upper level of the parking structure, there are planters on each comer of the structure that will have trees and vegetation planned in accordance with the landscape plans (Record p. 180 - 191). There will also be hedge planting within a planter strip lying between the front wall of the parking structure and the sidewalk and trees and vegetation along the planter strip that lies between the street/curb and sidewalk. Moreover, the Planning Commission and the City Council have required as a condition that there be interior planting within the parking structure. (See, Section VI). These features will make the parked vehicles within the interior of the parking structure all but invisible from nearby lands that are residentially zoned. However, Ashland is a community of diverse and steep topography and view of the upper deck of the parking structure (and any other parking area in Ashland) will be visible from vantage points above it. Some opponents argued that the screening standard should be applied in ways that would make parked vehicles on the upper deck invisible from vertical vantage points. On this, the City Council concludes 7 Applicant's representatives explained during the Planning Commission public hearing on July 1 I, 2000 that vines in planters located along the top of the parking structure walls will trail down to provide virtually complete screening. A colored architectural elevation of the parking structure entered into evidence the night of the Planning Comnnssion public hearing, illustrates applicant's screening concept and while the drawing does not illustrate vines covering openings on the walls of the parking structure, it was explained that the trailing vegetation would, in fact, cover the openings and provide a vegetative screen. From outside the parking structure, the cars will be all but invisible because the openings in the parking structure will be covered by screening vines. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 27 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon that while there is substantial screening vegetation that will obscure the view of the upper deck (including screening not proposed by applicant but required by conditions imposed by the Planning Commission mad City Council) it is impractical to require parking to be screened from vertical vantage points and the City has never made this a requirement of any parking area and it declines to do so in this instance. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the exception taken under Criterion 50 for #2 above, the Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 11. Criterion 12 II-C-lc) Designated Creek Protection 1) Designated creek protection areas shall be considered positive design elements and incorporated in the overall design ora given project. 2) Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance the creek habitat. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the evidence, the City Council concludes that no creeks or riparian plant materials exist within or adjacent to the subject property and that Criterion 12 is inapplicable. Therefore, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 12. Criterion 13 II-C-lO Noise and Glare Specific attention to glare (AMC 18.72.110) end noise (AMC 9.08.170(c) & AMC 9.08.175) shall be considered in the project design to insure compliance with these standards. Conclusions of Law: With respect to glare, the City Council concludes, based upon Drawing Sheets ALl.0 and ALiA at Record p. 213 and 214.and information on lighting at Record p. 233 -249, that the proposed lighting standards match the historic light standards currently on the property and in use throughout downtown Ashland. Outdoor lighting will bc appropriately shrouded so as not to permit the direct illumination of any residential zone. With respect to noise, the City Council finds that while some measure of noise will be produced by theatrical performances, it will occur within an enclosed building that, based upon Drawing Sheets A4.1 and A4.2 at Record p. 200 and 201, has been carefully designed for acoustical containment. There is also likely to be some noise related to the coming and going of theatre patrons. However, the City Council concludes that the general noise associated with patron travel (by automobile, bicycle and foot) are neither unnecessary, loud, disturbing, injurious nor dangerous to the comfort, repose, health, safety or peace of others. The project includes outdoor mechanical and electrical equipment which supports the operation of the new theatre. This equipment includes a cooling tower, chiller and boiler Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 28 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon enclosed in a masonry out-building within the parking structure and an on-site transformer Noise control for this equipment is being designed to meet, and we find that it will meet, the requirements of the Ashland Municipal Code.8 In all ways the City Council concludes that the activities conducted within the building and the nature of the use itself, is such that it will not violate provisions of the Ashland Municipal Code that regulate unnecessary noise -- AMC 9.08.170(c) and 9.08.175. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 13. Criterion t4 lI-C-lg) Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings 1 ) For sites which do not conform to these requirements, an equal percentage of the site must be made to comply with these standards as the percentage of building expansion, e.g., if building area is to expand by 25%, then 25% of the site must be brought up to the standards required by this document. Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that because the building is being constructed anew, thc provisions of this criterion do not apply to the subject application. Therefore, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 14. Criterion II-C-2. DETAIL SITE REVIEW Developments that are within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to complying with the standards for Basic Site Review, conform to the following standards: lI-C-2a) Orientation and Scale 1) Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio of .35 and shall not exceed a maximum Floor Area Ratio of .5 for all areas outside the Historic District. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum Floor Area Ratio. 2) Building frontages greater than 200 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building facade. 3) Any wail which is within 30 feet of the street, plaza or other public open space shall contain at least 20% of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must allow views into working areas or lobbies; pedestrian entrances or display areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40% of the length Of the building perimeter can be exempted from this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas. 4) Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances. 5) Infill of buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable. 6) Buildings shall incmporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. AMC 15.04.185 provides a maximum 45dBA at 25 feet fi.om the nearest residential structure. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 29 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law for the above Criterion 7 through 14 (incluslve) -- which are incorporated and adopted -- the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with all of the requirements for Basic Site Review. The subject property is within the Detail Site Review Zone. Moreover, the City Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for the below Criterion 15 through 34 (inclusive) in support of its conclusion that the application is consistent with all of the standards and criteria for Detail Site Review as required of land within the Detail Site Review Zone. Therefore, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 15. The City Council also concludes as follows: Regarding #I above and based upon Table 3 in the findings of fact, the City Council concludes that the project has a floor area ratio of .46 because 46% of the property is occupied by buildings in proportion to the amounts occupied by plaza and courtyard areas, hardscape and landscaping. Regarding #2 above and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199, no elevation or frontage of the new building is greater than 200 feet in length. However, the proposed building incorporates offsets, changes in material and other distinctive architectural features such as precast architectural copings, watertables and vertical reveals along the building elevations. Regarding #3 and based on Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199, 25 percent of the wall area on the west elevation is glazed. The main entrance to the theatre is a pair of 8 foot wide glass doors which face the entry plaza/courtyard and are sheltered by a covered trellis. Twelve percent of the wall area on the north elevation is glazed. In addition, display cases and benches sheltered by a continuous canopy have been incorporated into the north elevation bringing the total to grater than 20 percent. The east elevation is oriented toward the parking structure, not the street, and only 10 feet of the wall is visible from the upper deck. Ten percent of the wall area on the south elevation is glazed, and all the south elevation rests, at not less than 50 feet back from the street and this view of the building is enhanced by a grove of trees and garden area of benches between the building and the sidewalk. Regarding #4 and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199, the building has incorporated lighting and changes in mass, surface and finish and these emphasize the theatre entrance, Materials are a combination of brick, gxound face concrete block, wood and glass. A steel and wood trellis emphasizes the main entrance and provides shelter. Incandescent light fixtures will be recessed into the soffit of the covered trellis. Two historic light standards, which match those used in the existing plaza/courtyard across Pioneer Street, are proposed to be placed in the new entry plaza/courtyard. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 30 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Regarding #5 and based upon the Site Survey and Topographic Map and Drawing Sheet L0.1 (Record p. 175 and 180), the project infills an existing parking lot (which is adjacent to a public sidewalk with a new building. Regarding #6 mad based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199, the proposed building incorporates a cove. red trellis at the entry on the west elevation and a 90'-0" long canopy along the north elevation to protect pedestrians from the rain and SlJffl. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with all the requirements of Criterion 15. Criterion 16 lI-C-2b) Streetseape 1) ltardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasserete, or combinations of the above. 2) A building shall be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 25% of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk. Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1 and based upon Drawing Sheets L2.0 and L2.1 at Record p. 183 and 184, the project incorporates brick, concrete unit pavers and scored concrete as hardscape materials. Brick pavers define the lower level entry plaza/courtyard and have been selected to match those used in the plaza/courtyard across Pioneer Street. Concrete unit pavers define the main level plaza/courtyard between Carpenter Hall and the main lobby. Scored concrete defines pedestrian pathways as distinct from vehicular routes. In all cases, the paving areas designate "people" areas. Regarding #2, while the building is set back more than 20 feet from any public sidewalk, based upon Drawing Sheets L2.0 and L2.1 at Record p. 193 and 194, the area between Pioneer Street and the building is a plaza intended for the congregation of people before and after performances and during intermissions and the area between Hargadine Street and the building is a courtyard garden area, filled with benches shaded by a grove of trees, and intended for public use. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 16. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 31 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 17 II-C-2c) Parking & On-Site Circulation 1) Protected, raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of 50 or more spaces or more than 100 feet in average width or depth. 2) Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas and divided by landscaped areas or walkways at least I0 feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings. 3) Developments of one acre or more must provide a pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan for the site. On-site pedestrian walkways must be lighted to a level where the system can be used at night by employees, residents and customers. Pedestrian walkways shall be directly linked to entrances and the internal cimulation of the building. Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1 and #2 above, the applicant has requested and the City Council grants an exception from the provisions of Criterion 17 and the same is documented as part of Criterion 50. However, fewer than 50 parking spaces are proposed on the upper and middle levels of the structure and where 54 spaces are proposed for the lowest level of the structure, a raised walkway has been provided at the western edge of the parking structure. Regarding #3, based upon Drawing Sheet L0.1 at Record p. 180, the City Council concludes that there is a pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan for the property and that on-site pedestrian walkwa~ will be lighted to a level which permits the system to be used at night by people. The City Council also concludes that pedestrian walkways planned for the project, directly link building entrances and the internal circulation of the building. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 17. Criterion 18 lI-C-2d) Buffering and Screening 1) Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent tot. Those buffers can consist of either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with proposed buildings. 2) Parking lots shall be buffered from the main sheet, cross streets and screened from residentially zoned land. Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1 above, the City Council interprets the term "adjacent" to mean a lot or parcel that is touching the subject property. Based upon the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map, there are no adjacent lots or parcels which are planned or zoned differently than the subject property, which is planned Downtown and zoned C-i-D. While parcels across South Pioneer and Hargadine Streets are in Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 32 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon residential zones, these are not adjacent to the subject property because they do not touch the subject property. Regarding #2 above, the City Council concludes that the term parking lot is undefined and ambiguous in its meaning. The City Council interprets the term parking lot not to include parking structures. Therefore, the City Council concludes that #2 above is inapplicable because a parking structure is not a parking lot and there is no other off- street parking proposed to be located upon the subject property. Regarding #2 above, and notwithstanding the City Council's interpretation of the term parking lot in the preceding paragraph, based upon Drawing Sheets L0.1 and L4.1 at Record p. 180 and 188, the City Council concludes that there is landscaping that serves as a buffer from parking facilities located on the subject property adjacent to Hargadine Street. Land on the opposite side of Hargadine Street is residentially zoned R-2. The City Council finds the term "screened" as used in the above #2 to be ambiguous and interprets it to require intervening vegetation between the subject property and lands which are residentially zoned. Based upon Drawing Sheets L0.1 and L4.1 at Record p. 180 and 188, the City Council concludes there is landscaping in the form of trees and hedge shrubs which exist and are to be located both within and outside of the Hargadine fight-of-way which will screen the parking structure from residentially zoned land on the opposite side of the street. During the proceedings, some opponents argued that the tenn "screened" cannot be interpreted simply to require intervening vegetation between the "parking lot" and lands which are residentially zoned. Applicant argued and the City Council concurs that according to Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged) 2nd Ed., screen or screened means: "to separate or cut off from view, or to shelter or protect, with or as with a screen." Opponents urged an absolute interpretation that requires screening sufficient to make a parking lot (including, in this instance a parking structure) all but invisible. The City has consistently not interpreted its ordinance in this manner and no examples exist in the community of parking lots which are or nearly are invisible. The term screen is commonly interpreted and administered in land use ordinances in less absolute terms. In this instance, the parking lot or area-- that is, parked vehicles -- will be screened by more than simply the vegetation which exists along the parking structures frontage (in the abutting planter). The parking structure itself will screen parked vehicles. Moreover, planned vegetation will be trained on the walls and rails of the parking structure. The wailing vegetation will cover the walls of the structure and trail over the wall openings.9 On the upper level of the parking structure, there are planters on each 9 Applicant's representatives explained during the Planning Commission public hearing on July 11, 2000 that vines in planters located along the top of the parking structure walls will trail down to provide virtually complete screening. A colored architectural elevation of the parking structure entered into evidence the night of the planning Commission public hearing, illustrates applicant's screening concept and while the drawing does not illustrate vines covering openings on the walls of the parking structure, it was explained that the trailing vegetation would, in fact, cover the openings and provide a vegetative screen. From outside the parking Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 33 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon comer of the structure that will hav~ trees and vegetation planned in accordance with the landscape plans (Record p. 180 - 191). There will also be hedge planting within a planter strip lying between the front wall of the parking structure and the sidewalk and trees and vegetation along the planter strip that lies between the street/curb and sidewalk. Moreover, the Planning Commission and the City Council have required as a condition that there be interior planting within the parking structure. (See, Section VI). These features will make the parked vehicles within the interior of the parking structure all but invisible from nearby lands that are residentially zoned. However, Ashland is a community of diverse and steep topography and view of the upper deck of the parking structure (and any other parking area in Ashland) will be visible from vantage points above it. Some opponents argued that the screening standard should be applied in ways that would make parked vehicles on the upper deck invisible from vertical vantage points. On this, the City Council concludes that while there is substantial screening vegetation that will obscure the view of the upper deck (including screening not proposed by applicant but required by conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and City Council) it is impractical to require parking to be screened from vertical vantage points and the City has never made this a requirement of any parking area and it declines to do so in this instance. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 18. Criterion f9 ll-C-2e) Lighting 1 ) Lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians by including light standards or placements of no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian path ways. Conclusions of Law: Ashland has adopted a historic light standard and fixture that is widely used in the downtown area. See, Record p. 233 - 249. Most historic pole lighting in the downtown is 10 to 12 feet tall. Applicant has incorporated the historic lighting standard and fixture within the project area as depicted on Drawing Sheets AL1.0 and ALl.1 at Record p. 213 and 214 and based thereupon, the City Council concludes that the project includes adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians and that the light standards are not greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian path ways consistent with the requirements of Criterion 19.t° See, Section VI. structure, the cars will be all but invisible because the opetfings in the parking structure will be covered by screening vines. io As noted for other criteria which prohibits site lighting from shining directly upon nearby residential lands, the historic hghiing fixture has sufficiently low lumens such that any light that shines upon adjacent residential property produces adverse impacts that are de minims. However, applicant has agreed to stipulate, if necessary to comply with the standards of the City, that it will agree to use more conventional lighting that is capable of being shrouded to prevent the escape of direct light from the subject property. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 34 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Crite~on 20 II-C-2f) Building Materials 1) Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, fluted masonry, for at least 15% of the exterior wall area. 2) Bright or ni~on paint colors used extensively t6 attract attention to the building or use are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin. Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding # 1 and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199, changes in relief are represented, on average, over 28 percent of the total wall area. The building design incorporates precast copings, watertables, and vertical reveals in the masonry wall which differentiate the lower/entry level of the building from the upper stories. Furthem~ore, a change in the texture ora single course of brick from smooth to rough defines continuous, horizontal bands which occur vertically every 4 feet. Fenestration, carefully crafted wood panels and steel and wood screens enclose the lobby volume. Regarding #2 above, and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199, there are no bright or neon paint colors used on the proposed building and glass has not been incorporated as a majority of the building skin. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 20. Criterion II'C-3. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR LARGE SCALE PROJECTS Developments (1) involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet or a building frontage in excess of 100 feet in length, (2) located within the Detail Site Review Zone, shall, in addition to complying to the standards for Basic and Detail Site Review, shall conform to the following standards: II-C-3a) Orientation and Scale 1) Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building mass or direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces, Windows, trees, and small scale lighting. 2) No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings shall exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feel. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, and which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 35 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon 3) Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the height of the tallest building. If buildings are more than 240 feet in length, the separation shall be 60 feet. 4) All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate a streetscape which includes curbs, sidewalks, pedestrian scale light standards, and street trees, Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1 above and based upon Drawing Sheets Al.0 through A4.7 and AP2.1 through AP3.2 (Record p. 192 - 206 and 207 - 211) the proposed building has been divided into different heights and sizes which the City Council concludes relates appropriately to human scale. The features from above #1 which have been incorporated into the building include changes in building mass and direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on wall surfaces, windows, trees, and lighting that the City Council concludes to be of a small scale. The mass of the theatre block has been eroded where possible resulting in changes in the height of the exterior wall and setbacks or offsets along the wall. A sloped roof on the theatre block, rather than a flat roof, reduces its overall height, and the use of two veneer materials, brick and grotmd faced block, further divide the building mass. Display cases and benches sheltered by a continuous canopy relate to the human scale and have been incorporated into the north elevation. A garden area of benches shaded by a grove of trees relate to pedestrians walking along Hargadine Street. Furthermore, the height and mass of the lobby volume, which greets the patrons, is much lower and smaller than that of the theatre block volume. The City Council interprets the above #1 to require only that one or more of the building features be incorporated to achieve a relationship to the human scale. In this instance, the applicant has incorporated all of the recommended features. Regarding #2 above and based upon Drawing Sheet Al.0 at Record p. 192, the proposed building has a gross floor area square footage less than 45,000 and a contiguous length of less than 300 feet. During the proceeding some opponents argued that the parking structure is 46,800 square feet in gross floor area and thus violates ALUO 18.72.050(C) and Ashland Site Design and Use Standards (ASDUS) 1I-C-3-a-2 which both provide in pertinent part: No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings shall exceed a g~oss square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined comiguous building length of 300 feet. The City Council does not interpret "gross square footage of 45,000 square feet" to mean gross floor area square footage. This quoted phrase is to be interpreted as meaning 45,000 square foot footprint. It is to be distinguished from those provisions of the land use ordinance that specifically refer to gross floor area such as in section II-C~3 of the Site Design and Use Standards ("Developments (1) involving a grossfloor area in excess of 10,000 square feet..." Emphasis added.) The City Council finds that the parking structure does not exceed a footprint of 45,000 square feet. Even if the limitation were to be interpreted to mean "gross floor area" the parking structure does not exceed the maximum allowed. During the City Council public hearing, Ashland Planning Director John McLaughlin testified that his staff had carefully computed the gross floor area Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 36 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon square footage of the building and fOUrtd it to be less than 45,000 gross floor area square feet. Mr. McLaughlin attributed the deviation to measurements taken by opponents from the exterior limits of the building rather than the interior limits. He further testified that the City always computes building gross floor area square footage based upon the interior size of a building and emphasized that even without subtracting the planter areas along Hargadine Street, that the building floors were less than 45,000 square feet. _The City Council accepts and adopts the findings of its Planning Director and concludes that the parking structure does not violate the provisions of either ALUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2. As to whether the proposed buildings exceed a length of 300 feet in violation of the same provisions, the City Council concludes that conditions it has placed on these approvals require the buildings to be separated and for the parking structure to have a "fire wall" sufficient to meeting building codes for the wall of the parking structure that faces the theatre. The City Council concludes that the condition ensures that the buildings will not be connected and will not, therefore, violate provisions of ALUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2 that prohibit building or contiguous groups of buildings from exceeding 300 feet in length. The City Council also concludes that the subject buildings are not a contiguous groups of buildings because they are not contiguous. During the proceeding, there was some recognized ambiguity regarding the meaning of the term contiguous and the City Council construes contiguous to mean touching. If the parking structure and theatre do not touch, they are not contiguous and do not violate ALUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2 and the City Council concludes that they do not. Moreover, based upon conditions the Council has attached to this approval, the theatre building and parking structure cannot touch one another. Regarding #3 above, the applicant has requested and the City Council grants an exception fi.om these provisions of Criterion 21 and the same is documented as a part of Criterion 50. Based upon the exception taken under Criterion 50, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with #3 above. Regarding #4 above, the applicant has requested aud the City Council grants an exception fi.om these provisions of Criterion 21 and the same is.documented as a part of Criterion 50. Based upon the exception taken under Criterion 50, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with #4 above. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, including the exceptions taken for #'s 3 and 4 above, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 21. Criterion 22 ll-C-3b) Public Spaces 1 ) One square foot of plaza or public space shall be required for every 10 square feet of gross floor area. 2) A plaza or public space shall incorporate at least 4 of the 6 following elements: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 37 Planning Action 2000-074 Ci~ of Ashland, Oregon a) Sitting Space - at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet shall be included in the plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of 16 inches in height and 30 inches in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum depth of 30 inches. b) A mixture of areas that provide both sunlight end shade. c) Protection from wind by screens and buildings. d) Trees - provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of 1 tree per 800 square feet, at least 2 inches in diameter at breast height. e) Water features or public art. f) Outdoor eating areas or food vendors. Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding gl above, based upon Drawing Sheets L0.2, L2.0 and L2.1 at Record p. 181, 183 and 184, there is a greater than one square foot of plaza for each 10 square feet of gross floor area. · Regarding #2(a) above, there are 9,500 square feet (16% of the site) within the Plaza area. Based thereupon, there is a requirement for one seat per each 500 square feet 19 seats. Based upon Drawing Sheet L2.0 at Record p. 183, there are 200 lineal feet of bench seating which, assuming a bench length of 2.5 feet per seat, equates to 80 seats. All the ledge benches are 24 inches deep and back up to planters. The planters preclude any back to back seating which perhaps reduces the depth required for comfortable seating. Based upon the evidence, there are significantly more than the required 19 seats. Regarding #2(b) and based upon Drawing Sheets L2.0 and L2.1 at Record p. 183 and 184, plaza/courtyard areas occur on the north, west and southwest Of the building providing a mixture of sun and shade. Carefully placed trees and canopies further vary the exposures. Regarding #2(c) and based upon Drawing Sheets L2.0 and L2.1 at Record p. 183 and 184, the theatre building and Carpenter Hall protect patrons on the lower and upper plaza/courtyards from prevailing winds. Regarding #2(d) above, there are 9,500 square feet (16% of the site) within the plaza area. Based thereupon, there is a requirement for 12 trees within the plaza. Based upon the plan at Record p. 253 and 254 and Drawing Sheet L2.0 at Record p. 183, there are more than 12 trees within and adjacent to the plaza. The City Council interprets the ordinance to include trees that are adjacent to the plaza as in the numbers of trees within the plaza for the purpose of #2(d) above. The applicant has agreed to stipulate that the trees will be 2-inches diameter at breast height. See, Section VI. · Regarding #2(e) above there is no water feature or public art intended for the plaza area although the same may be added in the future. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 38 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon · Regarding #2(f) above, there are no outdoor eating areas or food vendors intended for the plaza area. During the proceedings, some opponents argued that an insufficient number of trees have been proposed in the public areas of the property because applicant has misinterpreted the ordinance. While the objecting opponents did not identify the criterion under which they object, it appears that they refer to Ashland Site Design and Use Standards II-C-3b, applicable portions of which require a plaza or public space that (among other alternatives) incorporate trees that are provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of 1 tree per 800 square feet, at least 2 inches in diameter at breast height. The plaza (courtyard) area is delineated at Record p. 253 and 254 as an area having 9,500 square feet, which requires 12 trees (at the rate of 1 per each 800 square feet). However, the standard provides that, "a plaza or public space shall incorporate" trees in the required amoUnt. While there are fewer than 12 trees within the plaza/courtyard, it is not the only area that should be considered a "public space" under the above Criterion 22. The criterion relates to plaza or public space, not exclusively plaza spaces. All portions of the property which are not occupied by buildings, including the hardscape and living landscape areas, can and should be properly regarded as "public areas" and the City Council concludes that this standard has been fully satisfied. While some opponents testified that the applicant's calculations depended upon use of the parking structure's top deck as plaza, the Council concludes that is not the case. While areas for the various site features are sometimes difficult to discern, in this instance, the various areas are clearly depicted at Record p. 253 and 254 and in the Findings of Fact. (See, Findings of Fact, Section VI.2 and Table 3) Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City CoUncil concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 22 because it is consistent with four or more of the six factors listed in #2 above. These are 2(a) through 2(d) inclusive. Cn~eHon23 II-C-3c) Transit Amenities Transit amenities, bus shelters, pullouts and designated bike lanes shall be required in accordance with the City's Transportation Plan and guidelines established by the Rogue Valley Transportation District. Conclusions of Law: No transit amenities, bus shelters or pullouts are planned for the subject property or its frontage upon either South Pioneer Street or Hargadine Street. However, applicant has participated in ongoing planning with the City of Ashland relative to the best location for transit facilities. Applicant and the City have agreed that the best location for transit facilities, including amenities, bus shelters and pullouts, will be at a nearby location but which is not within the boUndaries of the subject property or its street frontages. Applicant and the City have also agreed that pedestrian congestion in the vicinity of applicant's existing theatre and additional pedestrian activity that will be added across Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law · Page 39 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon South Pioneer Street if and when the i'i~w theatre is built, makes transit facilities in the immediate vicinity of the subject property impractical and undesirable. The City Council concludes that no guidelines established by the Rogue Valley Transportation District recommend that transit amenities, bus shelters or pullouts be located along the frontage of the subject property. Some opponents argued that the ordinance requires transit amenities, bus shelters, pullouts and designated bike lanes which applicant admitted had not been provided. Opponents misinterpret Criterion 23 by disregarding the fact that the requirement is to be, "in accordance with the City's Transportation Plan and guidelines established by the Rogue Valley Transportation District". As explained under Criterion 23, there are no transit amenities, bus shelters or pullouts planned (by the City) for the subject property or its frontage upon either South Pioneer Street or Hargadine Street. However, applicant has participated in ongoing planning with the City of Ashland relative to the best location for transit facilities. Applicant and the City have agreed that the best location for transit facilities, including amenities, bus shelters and pullouts, will be at a nearby location but which is not within the boundaries of the subject property or its street frontages. Applicant and the City agree that pedestrian congestion in the vicinity of applicant's existing theatre and additional pedestrian activity that will be added across South Pioneer Street if and when the new theatre is built, makes transit facilities in the immediate vicinity of the subject property impractical and undesirable. Moreover, there are no guidelines established by the Rogue Valley Transportation District which recommend that transit amenities, bus shelters or pullouts be located along the frontage of the subject property. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 23. Criterion 24 ll-C-3d) Recycling 1) Recycling areas shall be provided at all developments. Conclusions of Law: A description of applicant's recycling practices is contained in the findings of fact. The City Council concludes that applicant's remote recycling center is consistent with the intent and requirements of Criterion 24 because recyclable materials will be collected on-site before being transported to the recycling center for final disposition. In reaching this conclusion, the City Council finds that the intent of Criterion 24 is to encourage recycling by requiring recycling areas for developments. Applicant's central recycling facility is consistent with this intent. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 40 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 25 II-D. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STANDARDS Approval Standard: All parking lots, which for purposes of this section include areas of vehicle maneuvering, parking, and loading, shall be landscaped and screened as follows: ILD-1) Screening at Required Yards 1 ) Parking abutting a required landscaped front or exterior yard shall incorporate a sight obscuring hedge screen into the required landscaped yard. 2) The screen shall ~ow to be at least 36 inches higher than the finished grade of the parking area, except for required 3) Thc screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and plant materials. 4) Elevated parking lots shall semen both the parking and the retaining wall. Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding the above provisions that relate to parking lots, the City Council, consistent with its interpretation under Criterion 18, concludes that the term parking lot is undefined and ambiguous in its meaning. The City Council interprets the term parking lot not to include parking structures. The City's standards for parking lots are clearly designed to mitigate the impact of surface parking lots, with the assumption of ample areas for planting, and that there will be soil below the surface for planting. Parking structures are truly constructed buildings, and not surface parking lots. Therefore, the City Council concludes that the above provisions of Criterion 25 that relate to parking lots is inapplicable because a parking structure is not a parking lot and there is no other off- street parking proposed to be located upon the subject property. Regarding #'s 1 and 4 above and based upon Drawing Sheet LA.1 at Record p. 188, the City Council also concludes that the parking structure adjoins a front or exterior yard only along Hargadine Street where the structure is screened by hedge shrubs. Regarding #2 above and based upon the letter from applicant,s expert landscape architect at Record p. 220 - 222, the hedge shrubs that screen the parking structure along Hargadine Street, will attain a height of 36 inches and can and will be maintained at 36 inches or greater (except as needed to meet the City's clear vision at intersections standard). · Regarding #3 above, no earth mounding is proposed and none is required by the standard. During thc proceedings, some opponents argued that the term "screened" cannot be interpreted simply to require intervening vegetation between the "parking lot" and lands which are residentially zoned. Applicant argued and the City Council concurs that according to l~ebster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged) 2nd Ed., screen Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 41 Planning Action 2000.074 City of Ashland, Oregon or screened means: "to separate or cut off from view, or to shelter or protect, with or as with a screen." Opponents urged an absolute interpretation that requires screening sufficient to make a parking lot (including, in this instance a parking structure) all but invisible. The City has consistently not interpreted its ordinance in this manner and no examples exist in the community of parking lots which are or nearly are invisible. The term screen is commonly interpreted and administered in land use ordinances in less absolute terms. In this instance, the parking lot or area-- that is, parked vehicles -- will be screened by more than simply the vegetation which exists along the parking structures frontage (in the abutting planter). The parking structure itself will screen parked vehicles. Moreover, planned vegetation will be trained on the walls and mils of the parking structure. The trailing vegetation will cover the walls of the structure and trail over the wall openings.TM On the upper level of the parking structure, there are planters on each comer of the structure that will have trees and vegetation planned in accordance with the landscape plans (Record p. 180 - 191). There will also be hedge planting within a planter strip lying between the front wall of the parking structure and the sidewalk and trees and vegetation along the planter strip that lies between the street/curb and sidewalk. Moreover, the Planning Commission and the City Council have required as a condition that there be interior planting within the parking structure. (See, Section VI). These features will make the parked vehicles within the interior of the parking structure all but invisible from nearby lands that are residentially zoned. However, Ashland is a community of diverse and steep topography and view of the upper deck of the parking structure (and any other parking area in Ashland) will be visible from vantage points above it. Some opponents argued that the screening standard should be applied in ways that would make parked vehicles on the upper deck invisible from vertical vantage points. On this, the City Council concludes that while there is substantial screening vegetation that will obscure the view of the upper deck (including screening not proposed by applicant but required by conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and City Council) it is impractical to require parking to be screened from vertical vantage points and the City has never made this a requirement of any parking area and it declines to do so in this instance. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 25. ~l Apphcant's representatives explained during the Planning Commission public hearing on July 11, 2000 that vines in planters located along the top of the parking structure walls will trail down to provide virtually complete screening. A colored architectural elevation of the parking stmchire entered into evidence the night of the Planning Comm/ssion public hearing, illustrates applicant's screening concept and while the drawing does not illustrate vines covering openings on the walls of the parking structure, it was explained that the trailing vegetation would, in fact, cover the openings and provide a vegetative screen. From outside the parking structure, the cars will be all but invisible because the openings in the parking structure will be covered by screening vines. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 42 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Cri~Hon26 II-D-2) Screening Abutting Property Lines Parking abutting a property line shall be screened by a 5' landscaped strip. Where a buffer between zones is required, the screening shall be incorporated into the required buffer strip, and will not be an additional requirement. Conclusions of Law: The parking structure adjoins the south property line of the subject property along Hargadine Street. Along the Hargadine frontage, applicant has proposed a hedge planting strip 3 feet in width and planters in the southwest and southeast comers of the top deck of the parking structure which measure approximately 18 feet square. There are also street trees which intervene between the curb line and parking structure. The City Council concludes that the combined planting is equivalent (in area) to and greater than a single strip that is 5 feet wide because the combination of planting areas will provide for a 36-inch tall hedge, mass plantings and trees that will separate the parking structure from the street to which it is adjacent. While the planter strip could be increased in width to 5 feet, the increase would umdesirably cause the loss of the entire row of parking (6 stalls) which adjoin the south wall of the parking structure. Moreover, the City Council concludes that in this instance, that parking does not abut the property line; the parking structure abuts the property line and it has been appropriately screened in the ways above described. During the proceedings, some opponents argued that the term "screened" cannot be interpreted to simply require intervening vegetation between the "parking lot" and lands which are residentially zoned. Applicant argued and the City Council concurs that according to gVebster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged) 2nd Ed., screen or screened means: "to separate or cut off from view, or to shelter or protect, with or as with a screen." Opponents urged an absolute interpretation that requires screening sufficient to make a parking lot (including, in this instance a parking structure) all but invisible. The City has consistently not interpreted its ordinance in this manner and no examples exist in the community of parking lots which are or nearly are invisible. The term screen is commonly interpreted and administered in land use ordinances in less absolute terms. In this instance, the parking lot or area-- that is, parked vehicles -- will be screened by more than simply the vegetation which exists along the parking structures frontage (in the abutting planter). The parking structure itself will screen parked vehicles. Moreover, planned vegetation will be trained on the walls and rails of the parking structure. The trailing vegetation will cover the walls of the structure and trail over the wall openings,t2 On the upper level of the parking structure, there are planters on each comer of the structure that will have trees and vegetation ~2 Applicant's representatives explained during the Planning Commission public hearing on July 11, 2000 that vines in planters located along the top of the parking structure walls will trail down to provide virtually complete screening. A colored architectural elevation of the parking structure entered into evidence the night of the Planning Commission public hearing, illustrates applicant's screening concept and while the drawing does not illustrate vines covering openings on the walls of the parking structure, it was explained that the trailing vegetation would, in fact, cover the openings and provide a vegetative screen. From outside the parking structure, the cars will be all but invisible because the openings in the parking stmcinre will be covered by screening vines. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 43 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon planned in accordance with the landscap~ plans (Record p. 180 - 191). There will also be hedge planting within a planter strip lying between the front wall of the parking structure and the sidewalk and trees and vegetation along the planter strip that lies between the street/curb and sidewalk. Moreover, the Planning Commission and the City Council have required as a condition that there be interior planting within the parking structure. (See, Section VI). These features will make the parked vehicles within the interior of the parking structure all but invisible from nearby lands that are residentially zoned2 However, Ashland is a community of diverse and steep topography and view of the upper deck of the parking structure (and any other parking area in Ashland) will be visible from vantage points above it. Some opponents argued that the screening standard should be applied in ways that would make parked vehicles on the upper deck invisible from vertical vantage points. On this, the City Council concludes that while there is substantial screening vegetation that will obscure the view of the upper deck (including screening not proposed ;by applicant but required by conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and City Council) it is impractical to require parking to be screened from vertical vantage points and the City has never made this a requirement of any parking area and it declines to do so in this instance. Criterion 27 II-D-3) Landscape Standards I ) Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 7% of the total parking area plus a ratio of I tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect. 2) The tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be selected from the street tree list to avoid root damage to pavement and utilities, and damage from droppings to parked cars and pedestrians. 3) The tree shall be planted ina landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least 2 feet from any curb or paved area. 4) The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and/or living ground cover to assure 50% coverage within 1 year and 90% within 5 years. 5) Landscaped areas shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area and parking perimeter at the required ratio. 6) 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. Conclusions of Law: The applicant has requested and the City Council grants an exception from the same, as documented as a part of Criterion 50. Based upon the exception taken under Criterion 50, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 27. Findings of Fa~t and Conclusions of Law Page 44 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Cdterlon 28 II-D-4) Residential Screening I) Parking areas adjacent to residential dwellings shall be set hack at least 8 feet from the building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen. Conclusions of Law: Consistent with its interpretation of the term "adjacent" under Criterion 18, the City Council interprets the term "adjacent" with respect to "residential dwellings" to mean a lot or parcel (which is occupied by a residential dwelhng) that is touching the subject property. Based upon the site photographs and aerial photograph at Record p. 226 - 229 and 251, there are no residential dwellings which are located adjacent to the subject property. Therefore, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 28. Criterion 29 II-D-5) Hedge Screening The required hedge screen shall be installed as follows: 1) Evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that 50% of the desired screening is achieved within 2 years, 100% within 4 years. 2) Living groundcover in the screen strip shall be plantext such that 100% coverage is achieved within 2 years. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 29 relates to the hedge required in Criterion 28 to screen parking areas when these are located adjacent to a residential dwelling. As concluded in Criterion 28, there are no residential dwellings which are adjacent to the subject property. Therefore, no hedge or other screening is required pursuant to Criterion 28 or 29, and Criterion 29 is deemed to be inapplicable. Therefore, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 29. Critedon 30 II-D-6) Other Screening 1 ) Other screening and buffering shall be provided as follows: Refuse Container Screen: Refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall from five to eight feel in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the refuse Service Corridor Screen: When adjacent to residential uses, commercial and industrial service corridors shall be screened. Siting and design of such service areas shall reduce the adverse effects of noise, odor and visual clutter upon adjacent residential uses. Light and Glare Screen: Artificial lighting shall be so arranged and constructed as to not produce direct glare on adjacent residential properties or streets. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 45 Planning Action 2000,074 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding refuse container screening, there are no dumpsters planned or required on the subject property. Based upon the findings of fact, refuse is hauled by applicant to its remote recycling center. All refuse containers, except those within the plaza area to accommodate patrons, are internal to the theatre building and do not require screening because the building serves as the screen. Although access to the theatre loading dock is provided off Hargadine Street, the loading dock itself sits 60 feet back fi:om the street and the opening into the theatre is another 20 feet back. Trees which are proposed between the theatre and Hargadine Street will obscure the loading dock. Moreover, the City Council, consistent with its interpretation of the term "adjacent" under Criterion 18 and 28, interprets the tenn "adjacent" with respect to "residential uses" to mean residential uses located on lot or parcel that is touching the subject property. Based upon the site photographs and aerial photograph at Record p. 226 -229 and 251, there are no residential uses on lots or parcels which touch the subject property. Therefore, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of service corridor screening under Criterion 30 because the standard does not apply and if the standard does apply, the service corridor has been screened and its siting and design will reduce any adverse effects of noise, odor and visual clutter upon residential uses that are located nearby. Regarding light and glare screening, the City Council incorporates and adopts in findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 19 and based thereupon and upon the lighting infommtion at Record p. 233 - 249 and Drawing Sheets AL1.0 and ALl.1 at Record p. 213 and 214, the City Council concludes that artificial lighting has been arranged and constructed so as not to produce direct glare upon adjacent residential properties (which there are none) or streets. In reaching this conclusion, the City Council construes the term "adjacent" consistent with its interpretation under Criterion 18 and 28 and regarding service corridor screens in this Criterion 30. · Based upon the foregoing f'mdings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 30. Criterion 31 II-E. STREET TREE STANDARDS APPROVAL STANDARD: 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 found in this section. II-E-l) Location for Street Trees 1) Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a designated planting strip in the right- of-way, or the sidewalk is greater than 9 feet wide. Street trees shall include irrigation, mot barriers, and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of Community Development. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 46 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: Based upon the photographs at Record p. 226 - 229, there are existing street trees along both South Pioneer and Hargadine Streets which abut the subject property and these are shown on the Survey and Topographic Map at Record p. 175. The trees are located in cutouts within the concrete sidewalk adjacent to the curb line. No improvements to either abutting street are proposed or required to support the development of the project. The City Council concludes that for the existing street trees, the cutouts function as a designated planting strip in the fight-of-way under the meaning of Criterion 31. However, new street trees intended to replace those lost to accommodate access into the property, include the trees in the south courtyard between the theatre and Hargadine Street. The Commission also believes (and it concludes) that while the existing street trees are believed to lack irrigation, root barriers and in some ways may not conform to all standards established by the Department of Community Development, thc trees, as existing site features, are not required to conform to the current standards expressed in Criterion 31. CrimSon 32 II~E-2) Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which 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 be as follows: 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. b) Trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from thc curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than 10 feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles. 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 10 feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant. d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2-1/2 feet from the face of the curb except at intersections where it shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area. e) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not interfere with those lines. Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least l0 square feet, however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the mot system and add to the health of the tree. Space between the tree and such hard surface may be covered by pemaeable non-permanent hard surfaces such as grates, bricks on sand, or paver blocks. g) Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces. h) Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage fi.om tho development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation may be utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor. Conclusions of Law: The applicant has requested and the City Council grants an exception fi.om the provisions of(a) through (0 of Criterion 32 and the same is documented as a part of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 47 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 50. The City Council conclude~ that (g) above is purely a maintenance issue that can and will be observed. Regarding (h) above and based upon the letter from applicant's expert landscape architect at Record p. 220 - 222 and its stipulation that has been incorporated as an approval condition in Section VI, the City Council concludes that the existing street trees that are intended to remain on the property frontage, will sustain little or no damage from the development which will kill or weaken the trees which are located within cutouts in the sidewalks fronting South Pioneer Street and Hargadine Street. Based upon the exception taken under Criterion 50 for Criterion 9 and (a) through (f) of Criterion 32, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with both Criterion 9 and 32. Criterion 33 II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer 'with those from the approved street tree list. The replacement trees shall be of size and species similar to the trees that are approved by the StaffAdvisor. Conclusions of Law: Three existing street trees along Hargadine Street are proposed to be removed as part of the project in order to allow drive access to the new parking. A grove of 19 trees has been added between the building and Hargadine Street and Criterion 32 (II-E-2- a) addresses the potential for conflict between regularly spaced street trees and driveway approaches and provides relieve which, in this instance, the City Council concludes is appropriate. The first row of six trees will function as street trees and serve as the replacement trees for the ones to be removed. The City Council concludes that the planned courtyard trees satisfy the requirement to replace street trees consistent with Criterion 33. Moreover, applicant has agreed to stipulate to specifying trees within the courtyard and adjacent to the sidewalk with trees from the approved street tree list and to make these of a size and species similar to ones approved by the project's staff advisor. See, Section VI. Criterion 34 II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Drawing Sheet L2.1 at Record p. 194, the City Council concludes that one new street tree from the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission is proposed as part of the project in compliance with Criterion 34. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 48 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 35 CITY OF ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS SECTION HI WATER CONSERVING LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES AND POLICIES The City has established the following policies for use whenever water conserving landscaping is required by ordinance, by a condition of approval of a planning action, in consideration for a density bonus or other development incentive, or in consideration for reduced systems development charges. These policies have the weight of law, and landscapes installed and certified as water conserving must be maintained according to these guidelines, or will be in violation of the Municipal Code. General and Miscellaneous The combined turf or water areas (i.e. pools, ponds and fountains) shall be limited to 20% of the landscaped areas. Turf limitations do not apply to public parks, private common open space, required outdoor recreation areas, golf courses, cemeteries and school recreation areas. · A minimum of two inches of mulch (neither large nuggets nor fine bark may be used) shall be added in non-turf areas to the soil surface after planting. Non-porous material shall not be placed under the mulch. · All fountains shall be designed to recycle their water. · Tuff is restricted to slopes with less than 10% grade. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Drawing Sheets L0.1 through L5.2 at Record p. 180 - 191, the City Council concludes as follows: A small area of new turf is planned to be added to the existing turf area on the adjacent Carpenter Hall site. Based upon the Site Survey and Topographic Map and Drawing Sheet L4.0 at Record p. 180 and 187, this new turf area does not exceed a slope of 10 percent. Based upon applicant's drawing plans at Record p. 173 - 214, no new water areas are planned. The applicant has agreed to stipulate in Section VI, that not less than 2 inches of mulch will be added in all non-turf landscaped areas after plant materials are installed. Based thereupon, the City Council concludes that applicant can and will comply with the mulching requirements of Criterion 36. · There are no fountains proposed as part of the project. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 35. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 49 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 36 Plants At least 90% of plants in the non-turf areas are to be listed as drought tolerant in the Sunset Western Garden book, or be similarly well-suited for this climate of region as detenuined by the Staff Advisor. Up to 10% of the plants may be of a non-drought tolerant variety or species as long as they are grouped together and can be irrigated separately from the drought tolerant plants. · No watering within the drip line of existing native oaks, pines and madrone trees is permitted, except that a temporary drip system may be installed for maximum of two years for the establishment of dry shade tolerant plants. · Screening hedges must be planned to attain 50% coverage after two years. · Water conserving designs are not required to meet the standard of a 50% coverage within one year. However, they must meet the coverage standard for plantings of 90% after five years. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Drawing Sheets L0.1 through L5.2 at Record p. 180 - 191, the City Council concludes as follows: Regarding drought tolerant species, based upon the letter fi.om applicant's expert landscape architect at Record p. 220 - 222, the City Council concludes that 90% of plants in the non-turf areas are drought tolerant according to the descriptions of water requirements in the Sunset Western Garden book and, based upon Drawing Sheets L4.0 and L4.1 at Record p. 187 and 188, the remaining 10% of the plants which require "regular water" are appropriately grouped together and can be irrigated separately from the drought tolerant plants There are no existing native oaks, pines and madrone trees located upon the subject property in areas which are intended to be newly landscaped or irrigated and none are proposed as part of this project. · Based upon the letter from applicant's expert landscape architect at Record p. 220 - 222, new screening hedges are of a type that with the installation and irrigation to be supPlied in accordance with the landscape plan, will attain 50% coverage after two years. · Based upon the letter from applicant's expert landscape architect at Record p. 220 - 222, water conserving designs will meet the 90% coverage standard after five years. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 36. Criterion 37 Irrigation Irrigation system shall be designed so that overspray is minim/zed. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 50 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon · For sprinkler ircigated areas, perimeter sprinklers must be included in irrigation pattern. · Sprinkler heads with a precipitation rate of .85 inches per hour or less shall be used on slopes exceeding 15% to minimize runoff, or when slope exceeds 10% within 10 feet ofhardscape, · Precipitation rates are to be matched for all irrigation heads for each circuit. · The same type of irrigation heads shall be used for each circuit. · Valves and circuits shall be separated based on water use. · Drip irrigation systems are required for trees unless within lawn areas. · Serviceable check valves (or pressure compensating emitters for drip systems) are required where an elevation differential greater than 20 feet exists on any circuit. · Sprinkler head spacing shall be designed for head-to-head coverage. · The system shall be designed to minimize runoff and overapray to non-irrigated areas. · All irrigation systems shall be equipped with a controller capable of dual or multiple programmang. Controllers must have multiple cycle start capacity end a flexible calendar program. Controllers must allow seven day or greater timing cycles. Conclusions of Law: The City Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 10. The City Council also concludes, based upon Drawing Sheets L0.1 through L5.2 at Record p. 180 - 191, that the proposed irrigation system can and will comply with the standards of Criterion 38. Criterion 38 Topography No mom than 5% of landscaped area of any lot or project may be berms or raised beds higher than one foot unless there is demonstrated need for sound or safety barrier. · All plantings on berms one foot or greater in height must be drought tolerant. · Only drip irrigation is allowed on benns more than one foot in height. · If allowed, berms must be no taller than t/6 of their width. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Drawing Sheets L0.1 through L5.2 at Record p. 180 -191, the City Council concludes as follows: · No greater than 5% of the landscaped area is devoted to raised beds which are higher than one foot. While some planters are used to achieve changes in grade, these are not raised beds as this term is used in Criterion 38. · There are no berms proposed on any part of the subject property. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 51 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 38. Criterion 39 Landscape plans are required that include, in addition to the standard plan requirements, the following: · The area irrigated (in square fee0. · Precipitation rates for each valve circuit. · Monthly irrigation schedule for the plant establishment period (6-12 months) and for the first year thereafter. · A watering schedule for each cimuit from the plan must be posted inside the corresponding controller. · A grading plan with sufficient contours so that slope may be measured. · For lots with less than 5000 square feet of landscaped area no grading plan is required. Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that grading and erosion control plans have been submitted for the project as Drawing Sheets Cl.0 and Cl.1 at Record p. 176 and 177. As to the above standards in Criterion 38 which regard the irrigation system, the City Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 10 and 37. Moreover, based upon Drawing Sheets L0.1 through L5.2 at Record p. 180 -191, the proposed irrigation system complies with the standards of Criterion 39. Therefore, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 39. Criterion 40 CITY OF ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS SECTION VI DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES VI-A) Height l) Building height shall vary from adjacent buildings, using either "stepped" parapets or slightly dissimilar overall height to maintain the traditional "staggered" streetscape appearance: An exception to this standard would be buildings that have a distinctive vertical/facade treatment that "visually" separates it from adjacent buildings. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 10, Avoid 3) 2) Multi-story development is encouraged in the downtown. (Illustration: Reconmaend 1, 5, 6 & 1 O) Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1 above, as evidenced by the aerial photograph at Record p. 251, the height of the proposed building varies from that of buildings on adjacent parcels. There are no buildings which are adjacent to those proposed in the apphcation. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 52 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Regarding #2 above and as evidenced by Drawing Sheets Al.0, A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 192, 198 and 199, the development is of multi-story architecture. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 40. Criterion 4f VI-B) Setback 1) Except for arcades, alcoves, and other recessed features, buildings shall maintain a zero setback from the sidexvalk or property line (Illustration: Recommend 2, 5 & t0). Areas having public utility easements or similar restricting conditions shall be exempt from this standard. 2) Ground level entries are encouraged to be recessed from the public right-of-way to create a ,sense of entry" through design or use of materials. (Illustration: Recommend 2, 5, 6 & 10; Avoid 3). 3) Recessed or projecting balconies, verandas or other useable space above the ground level on existing end new buildings shall not be incorporated in a street facing elevation. (Illustration: Avoid 4 & 7). I~onclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding # 1 above, the applicant has requested and the City Council grants an exception from its provisions and the same is documented as a part of Criterion 50. Based upon the exception taken under Criterion 50, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with #'s 1 above. Regarding #2 above and based upon Drawing Sheets A2.1 and A3.1 at Record p. 194 and 198, the City Council concludes that the covered trellis and canopies which shelter the ground level public entries effectively recess the entries from the public right-of-way and enhance the "sense of entry" to the building. The City Council also concludes that because #2 merely encourages and does not require, that it does not function as a mandatory approval criterion. Regarding #3 above, the City Council concludes, based upon Drawing Sheets A2.2 and A3.1 at Record p. 195 and 198, that no recessed or projecting balconies, verandas or other useable space above the ground level have been incorporated in any street facing elevation of the new building. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 41. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 53 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 42 VI-C) Width 1) The width of a building shall extend from side lot line to side lot line (Illustration: Recommend 5). An exception to this standard would be an area specifically designed as plaza space, courtyard space, dining space or rear access for pedestrian walkways. 2) Lots greater than 80' in width shall respect the traditional width of buildings in the downtown area by incorporating a rhythmic division of the facade in the building's design. (Illustration: Recommend 5 & t0; Avoid 3). Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1 above which requires a building to extend from side lot line to side lot line, except under certain circumstances, the City Council concludes that the circumstances present in this instance meet the requirements of the standard. Based upon Drawing Sheets L0.2, L2.1 and L2.2 at Record p. 181, 184 and 185, the areas surrounding the buildings (theatre and parking structure) include areas devoted to plaza and landscaped courtyards (on the north and west sides of the building). The landscaped area located south of the theatre, is integrated with pedestrian paths and seating and the City Council interprets this area to be a plaza or courtyard. Also regarding #1 above and in regards to the service con'idor which exists along the east boundary of the property between the boundary and east wall of the parking structure, the City Council concludes that while this service corridor is not design for pedestrians, it can provide rear access to and for pedestrian walkways which exist along the north boundary of the property. Regarding #2 above, and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199, the City Council concludes that while the subject property is greater than 80 feet in width, the design of the project has respected the traditional width of buildings in the downtown area because rhythmic divisions in the fagade have been incorporated into the building's design. The use of two veneer materials, brick and ground faced block, and the use of vertical reveals in the masonry walls divide the facades and reveal proportions consistent with historic buildings in downtown Ashland. During the proceedings, some opponents argued that the parking structure cannot be used to meet the side lot line to side lot line standard for buildings. Opponents' objection is unclear but appears that they are arguing that the parking structure is not a building. The City Council concludes that the parking structure is a building as that term is defined at ALU0 18.08.750 as follows: Structure or building. That which is built or constructed; an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner and which requires location on, in, or above the ground or which is attached to something having a location on, in or above the ground. Structures eighteen (18) inches in height or less are exempt from the side and rear yard requirements and from half (1/2) the yard requirements for the front yard and side yard abutting a public street. (Ord. 2380, 1986) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 54 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Clearly, the parking structure is a building. As such, it does need not to be included among the items listed as an exception under Criterion 42. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion' 42. Criterion 43 VI-D) Openings 1) Ground level elevations facing a street shall maintain a consistent proportion of transparency (i.e., windows) compatible with the pattern found in the downtown area. (Illustration: Recommend 1,516 & 10). 2) Scale and proportion of altered or added building elements, such as the size and relationship of new windows, doors, entrances, columns and other building features shall be visually compatible with the original.architectural character of the building. (Illustration: Recommend 5 & 6; Avoid 4 & 9). 3) Upper floor window orientation shall primarily be vertical (height greater than width). (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 6; Avoid 8). 4) Except for transom windows, windows shall not break the front plane of the building. (Illustration: Recommend 5). 5) Ground level entry doom shall be primarily transparent. (Illustration: Recommend 10; Avoid 4). 6) Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians such as decorative columns or decorative corbeling shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. (Illustration: Reconanend 1 & 5; Avoid 4 & 7). Blank walls adjacent to a public sidewalk is prohibited. Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1 above, the applicant has requested and the City Council grants an exception from the same, as documented as a part of Criterion 50. Based upon the exception taken under Criterion 50, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with #1 above. Regarding #2 above, the City Council concludes that the standard clearly applies to existing buildings which are being altered. In this instance, there is no existing building proposed for alteration. The application is for a new building. The City Council concludes that the above #2 is inapplicable and, therefore, the application is compliant. Regarding #3 above and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p, 198 and 199, all upper story windows are primarily be vertical by virtue of the window height being greater than the width. · Regarding g4 above and based upon Drawing Sheets A4.4, A4.5 and A4.6 at Record p. 203 - 205, no windows break the front plane of the proposed building. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 55 Planning Action 2000-074 Cit~ of Ashland, Oregon · Regarding #5 above and based upon DraWing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199, the ground level entry doors are glass. Regarding #6 above the City Council interprets the term sidewalk to mean a public sidewalk which is typically adjacent to a street and curb and, for most of downtown Ashland, the public sidewalk is adjacent to downtown commercial buildings. The same is not the case for this building. Based upon Drawing Sheet L0.1 at Record p. 180, no portion of the building is adjacent to any sidewalk and the City Council concludes that the above #6 is inapplicable. The City Council also concludes, alternatively, based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1, A3.2, A4.4, A4.5 and A4.6 at Record p. 198, 199 and 203 - 205, that the walls of the proposed building incorporate features of design and materials of construction that will be of interest to pedestrians. In further support, the City Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 15 and 20. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 43. Criterior~ 44 VI-E) Horizontal Rhythms I ) Prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's streetfront shall be maintained. (Illustration: Recommend 1,5,6 & I0; Avoid 4 & 8). 2) A clear visual division shall be maintained between ground level floor and upper floors. (Illustration: Recommend l, 5,6& 10). 3) Buildings shall provide a foundation or base, typically from ground to the bottom of the lower window sills, with changes in volume or material, in order to give the building a "sense of strength". (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 10; Avoid 4 & 8). Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding # t above, the City Council believes and concludes that the standard was intended for buildings fronting Main Street and the plaza in Ashland's downtown core. While the subject property is in the "downtown," it is not contiguous to a row of existing buildings where a continuation of prominent storefront architecture is at issue. The City Council also concludes, alternatively, that the prominent horizontal lines and proportions of adjacent Carpenter Hall have been continued in the design of the proposed building. Based thereupon, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with gl of Criterion 44. Regarding #2 and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1, A3.2, A4.4, A4.5 and A4.6, the City Council concludes that a clear visual division has been malnta'med between the ground level floor and upper level floors by means of a continuous precast watertable occurring at the main level floor which divides the ground level volume from upper levels. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 56 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Furthermore, a change of material, ~ni m~0nry to wood and glass, at the main level floor distinguishes the ground level lobby from the upper level lobby. Regarding #3 and based upon Drawing Sheet A3.1 at Record p. 198, the City Council concludes that the building design incorporates a precast watertable at the elevation of the main level floor,t3 The watertable detail is designed and intended to complement the wood trim on adjacent Carpenter Hall. The detail occurs at approximately the same elevation on both buildings and in both cases serves to distinguish the base of the building from the upper floors. The City Council concludes that the precast detail caps the base of both buildings and provides a sense of strength for the new building in a way that is consistent with #3 above. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 44. Criterion 45 VI-F) Vertical Rhythms 1) New construction or storefront remodels shall reflect a vertical orientation, either through actual volumes or the use of surface deta/ls to divide large walls, so as to reflect the underlying historic property lines. (Illustration: Recommend 5 & 6; Avoid 3). 2) Storefront remolding or upper-story additions shall reflect the traditional structural system of the volume by matching the spacing and rhythm of historic openings and surface detailing. (Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 & 9). Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1 above and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199, the City Council concludes that the proposed building reflects a vertical orientation through the use of brick that has vertical and horizontal joints, windows that are taller than they are wide, columns which support a canopy along the north elevation, roof seams that nm vertically and columns along the east elevation. The City Council deems the elements which provide a vertical orientation are appropriate ~and sufficient to divide the large walls of the structure. As to reflecting underlying historic property lines, the City Council concludes that this matter is most important for traditional commercial buildings which extend from property line to property line along Ashland's traditional main street. In this instance, the building does not and is not required to extend across the entire subject property.TM As such, the building's architecture cannot denote the location of property lines. The City Council understands the term "watertablc" to mean a horizontal architectural detail strip. t4 The standard at VI-C (Criterion 42) which requires buildings to extend from side lot line to side lot line permits an exception for areas designed as plaza, courtyard or dining space or rear access for pedestrian walkways. In tiffs instance, areas between property lines and building walls are designed as plaza/courtyard spaces or spaces which provide rear access for pedestrians. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 57 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon · Regarding #2, the City Council concludes that, by its language, #2 applies exclusively to storefront remodeling or upper-story additions; the proposed project is none of these. · Therefore, based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 45. Cri~rion 46 VI-G) Roof Forms 1) Sloped or residential style roof forms are discouraged in the downtown area unless visually screened from the right-of- way by either a parapet or a false front. The false front shall incorporate a well defined cornice line or "cap" along all primary elevations. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 10; Avoid 7). Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that while Criterion 46 discourages sloped roof forms, it does not prohibit them. Based upon Drawing Sheets A2.4, A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 197 - 199, the adjacent Carpenter Hall has a sloped style roof that the Commission finds appealing, and historic. The City Council finds that the sloped roof form of the proposed theatre building is intended to be and is compatible with the mol form of Carpenter Hall. The proposed roofing material of asphalt shingles matches the material used on the Elizabethan Theatre. Moreover, the sloped roof on the theatre block, rather than a flat roof, reduces its overall height. The sloped roof style of the proposed building is also compatible with residential dwellings which are located nearby but not within the residential area. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council concludes that the application is not inconsistent with Criterion 46 because the City Council deems it not to be a mandatory decisional criterion and, if applied, would produce an undesirable result given the roof form of other nearby buildings in the surrounding area During the proceedings, some opponents argued that the requirements of Criterion 46 were impermissibly disregarded as not being a mandatory standard because it merely discourages (but does not prohibit) residential style roof lines. Opponents asserted that it is a mandatory standard. The City Council concludes that the standard is not mandatory because it is not couched in mandatory language. However, even if it is mandatory, the roof style of the proposed theatre and parking structure are not of a sloped, residential style. The only sloped roof on either the theatre or parking structure occurs only over the central portion of the theatre and serves to reduce the overall height of the building. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 58 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 47 VI-H) Materials 1) Exterior building materials shall consist of traditional building materials found in the downtown area including block, brick, painted wood, smooth stucco, or natural stone. (Illustration: Avoid 4 & 9). 2) In order to add visual interest, buildings are encouraged to incorporate complex "paneled" exteriors with columns, framed bays, transoms end windows to create multiple surface levels. (Illustration: Recommend l, 5 & 10; Avoid 7, 8 &9). Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1 and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 - 199, the City Council concludes that the exterior building materials consist of brick, ground faced concrete block, wood and glass. Brick, block and wood are listed as traditional building materials found in downtown Ashland. Regarding #2 above and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p~ 198 - 199, the City Council concludes that the lobby volume of the proposed building incorporates the layering and staggering of wall panels to create multiple surface levels. The panels are made of glass, solid wood and wood screens. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 47. Criterion48 VI-I Awnings, MarqUees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters 1) Awnings, marquees or similar pedestrian shelters shall be proportionate to the building and shall not obscure the building's architectural details. If mezzenine or transom windows exist, awning placement shall be placed below the mezzanine or transom windows where feasible. (Illustration: Recommend l, 5, 6 & 10; Avoid 4 & 9). 2) Except for marquees - similar pedestrian shelters such as awnings shall be placed between pilasters. (Illustration: Recommend I & 5; Avoid 9). 3) Storefronts with prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's streetfront shall be maintained by their respeet!ve sidewalk coverings. (Illustration: Recommend 5; Avoid 8). Conclusions of Law: Based upon applicant's plans and drawings at Record p. 173 - 214, the City Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1 and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199, the City Council concludes that the covered trellis, meant to shelter patrons at the main entrance, is in all respects proportionate to the building and does not obscure the building's architectural details. It highlights the entrance. The proposed building has no awnings or mezzanine. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 59 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon · Regarding #2 above, and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 Record p. 198 and 199, the City Council concludes that the proposed theatre has no pilasters. Regarding #3 above, the proposed building does not have a "storefront". However, as depicted on Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199, the horizontal lines of the nearby historic Carpenter Hall have been maintained in the proposed building. There are no "sidewalk coverings" to be maintained. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 48. Criterion 49 VI-J) Other 1) Non-street or alley facing elevations are less significant than street facing elevations. Rear and sidewalls ofbuildings shall therefore be fairly simple, i.e., wood, block, brick, stucco, cast stone, masonry clad, with or without windows. 2) Visual integrity of the original building shall be maintained when altering or adding build/ng elemants. This shall include such features as the vertical lines of cohmms, piers, the horizontal definition of spandrels and cornices, and other primary structural and decorative elements. (Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 & 9). 3) Restoration, rehabilitation or remodeling projects shall incorporate, whenever possible, original design elements that were previously removed, remodeled or covered over. (Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 & 9). 4) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited. (Refer to Site Design and Use Standards, Section II-D, for Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards.) An exception to this standard would be paths required for handicapped accessibility. 5) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, surface details on sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticoes, awnings, and sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible. 6) Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations, drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional Use Permits, to deny new uses, although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted. Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding #1 and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199, the City Council concludes that the non-street elevations of the proposed building are fairly simple mad consist of brick and block, both of which are found in Ashland's downtown. Regarding #2 above, the City Council interprets it to apply only to additions being made to existing buildings and concludes the standard is inapplicable to new buildings where no addition to an existing building (as in this instance) is being proposed. Regarding #3 above, the plain language of the standard clearly indicates its exclusive application to "restoration, rehabilitation or remodeling projects". The proposed project Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 60 Planning Action 2000-074 CibJ of Ashland, Oregon is a new building that does not involve restoration, rehabilitation or remodeling. Therefore, the City Council concludes that the standard is inapplicable. Regarding #4 and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199, no parking lots are proposed adjacent to the primary pedestrian path along Main Street, and a hedge separates the proposed parking from the Hargadine Street sidewalk. The property is not adjacent to Main Street or the pedestrian path along it.. Regarding #5 and based upon Drawing Sheets L2.0 and L2.1 at Record p. 183 and 184, the City Council finds that pedestrian amenities appear to have been included wherever possible. Trees, benches and exterior lighting are proposed on the north, west and south sides of the building. A sidewalk extension on the east and west side of Pioneer Street makes crossing the street safer for pedestrians and further connects the new outdoor people areas to those which exist adjacent to the Elizabethan Theatre and Angus Bowmer Theatre across South Pioneer Street. Regarding #6 above, the subject land use, a theatre, is found to not be, by nature, exclusively automotive as it is located in Ashland's downtown which is accessible by pedestrians and bicyclists as well as by automobiles. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 49. Criterion 50 VI-K) Exception to Standards An exception to the Downtown Design Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of Section 18.100 of the Ashland Municipal Code and may be granted with respect to the Downtown Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: 1 ) There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site, an existing stmcture or proposed use of the site; 2) There is demonstrable evidence that the alternative design accomplishes the purpose of the Downtown Design Standards and Downtown Plan in a manner that is equal or superior to a project designed pursuant to this standard or historical precedent. (Illustration: Recommend II). *The purpose of the Downtown Design Standards and Downtown Plan is as follows: The purpose of the Downtown Design Standards is to respect the areas unique heritage and to enhance the appearance and livability of the area as it develops and changes. Based upon common features found in the downtown, the standards provide a foundation for prospective applicants, citizens, and community decision makers to direct change in a positive and tangible way. It is not the intent of the Design Standards to freeze time and halt progress or restrict an individual property owner's creativity, but rather to guide new and remodeled proposals to be in context with their historic surroundings. Personal choice should be and can be expressed within the framework of the standards. While many communities across America are attempting to "create" or "re-create" an urban downtown of their own, the Downtown Design Standards are an attempt to preserve what Ashland already has: a "main street" historical district with diverse individual buildings that collectively create Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 61 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon 3) an organized, coordinated and ageless rhythm of buildings. As a collective group, the downtown can retain its "sense of Place", its economic base, its history attd its citizen's vision. The exception requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown Design Standards. Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that not all standards and criteria in the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards must be met if one or more properly documented exceptions are presented which substantiate compliance with each of the three standards in Criterion 50 (for each exception that is sought): In point of fact, the City Council believes that the purpose for exception process is to enable the approval of new buildings which cannot and should not look like typical downtown buildings. The city's downtown design standards were developed with m~ eye to typical Main Street buildings; not all buildings in the downtown area and subject to its design standards are located on Main Street. This applicant has requested exceptions from six of Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards (of which there are approximately 150 embodied in 44 criteria) and these are addressed by the City Council as follows: Exception 1 Exception 1 regards the standards and criteria for Criterion 9 and 32 (involving street trees) which states: II-C-lb) 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 sheet. II-E-2) Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees All tree spacing may be made-subject to special site conditions which 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 be as follows: 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 approa~es. b) Trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than I 0 feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles. 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 10 feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant. d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2-1/2 feet from the face of the curb except at intersections where it shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area. Conclusions of Law for Exception 1: The City Council concludes as follows with respect to Exception 1 as the same applies to Criterion 9 and 32: As shown on the Survey and Drawing Sheets L1.0, L2.0 and L2.1 at Record p. 175 and 182 - 184, there are existing trees of which the type and spacing are different from the requirements defined by the provisions of Criterion 9 and (a) through (f) of Criterion 32. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 62 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements related to the tree standards because the standards would require the relocation of these existing desirable, mature trees. The proposed project introduces new street trees where possible with respect to the existing pattern of street trees and light standards along Pioneer Street and Hargadine Street. The unique and unusual aspect of the site is the fact that there are desirable mature trees which now exist along the frontage of the subject property which the City Council and community would not like to have removed in favor of immature trees which would better meet present City requirements. The demonstrable difficulty related to the street tree standards is the complexity and risk associated with the relocation of existing mature trees. 3. Based upon the Survey and Drawing Sheets L1.0, L2.0, L2.1, L4.0 and L4.1 at Record p. 175, 182 - 184, and 187 - 188, the City Council concludes that the existing street trees, while conflicting with some standards, are more in context with the historic surroundings, and as such, accomplish the purpose of Ashland's Downtown Design Standards and Downtown Plan in a manner that is superior to the same if some or all existing mature street trees were removed and replaced by correctly placed, albeit immature, trees. 4. Based upon the evidence, the City Council concludes that proposed exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown Design Standards. 5. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Cotmcil concludes that the proposed Exception 1 is consistent with the criteria for an exception to the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards as these are enumerated as Criterion 50. Exception 2 Exception 2 regards one of the standards for Criterion 11 and 27, which states: lI-C-ld) Parking 2. Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential uses and screened from non- residential uses. II-D-3) Landscape Standards 1 ) Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 7% of the total parking area plus a ratio of 1 tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect. 2) The tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be selected from the street tree list to avoid root damage to pavement and utilities, and damage from droppings to parked cars and pedestrians. 3) The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least 2 feet from any curb or paved area. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 63 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon 4) 6) The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and/or living ground cover to assure 50% coverage within I year and 90% within 5 years. Landscaped areas shall be evenly distributed throughout the i~arking area and parking perimeter at the required ratio. 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 parklng stalls. Conclusions of Law for Exception 2: The Planning Commission and City Council on appeal has required applicant to supply landscaping on the top deck of the parking structure and the same will be provided. However, in granting this exception the City Council intends to only partially waive the landscaping requirements of Criterion 11 and 27 and in so doing, the City Council concludes that landscaping required by conditions attached to the approval (as set forth in Section VD can and will be provided. Based thereupon, the City Council further concludes as follows with respect to Exception 2 as the same applies to Criterion 11 and 27: 1. The proposed parking facility is a parking structure, not a parking area or parking lot. Based upon Drawing Sheets AP2.1, AP3.1 and AP3.2 at Record p. 207, 210 and 211, the structure of the building is concrete with a perimeter guardrail of cable wires framed by steel angles. Vines grow from planter strips along grade up concrete walls infilled between the structural columns. 2. The demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the above standards is related to the challenge of placing trees and other landscaping within the interior and beneath any floor of the proposed parking structure. The parking structure design is illustrated in Drawing Sheets AP2.1, AP2.2, AP2.3, AP3.1 and AP3.2 at Record p. 207 - 211. This difficulty has been demonstrated by the expert evidence coutained in a letter from applicant's landscape architect at Record p. 220 - 222 which describes the difficulty counected with placing trees and other landscaping on the interior of any floor within the proposed parking structure because: 1. On lower floors, the overhead ceiling lacks sufficient clearance to accommodate: virtually any tree. 2. Also, on lower floors, there is dense shade. The lack of natural sunlight will prevent trees from thriving or even surviving. Trees and shrubs cannot reasonably grow where there is insufficient drainage. Even on the top floor of the parking structure it would is demonstrably difficult to provide: adequate irrigation and drainage without extraordinary expense. 4. Extensive landscaping on the top level of the parking structure creates potential maintenance problems, such as leaks. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 64 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon ¸6. The City Council concludes that the demonstrable difficulty in meeting the parking area landscaping standards is due to the proposed use of the site as a parking structure rather than a parking lot. The City's standards simply have not appropriately anticipated the potential for a parking structure and no applicant proposing a multi-level parking structure should be unreasonably held to standards Of landscaping which were designed and intended for and relate specifically to, surface parking. The proposed design includes landscaping along the Hargadine Street frontage and at the southwest and southeast comers of the top level of the parking structure, where in'igafion lines can be easily extended and drainage can be provided. Vines will grow up infilled concrete walls from at grade planter strips along the north and east elevations. Neither parking lots or parking structures are "historic". The issue of whether or not trees are provided within the parking structure is not an issue of historic accuracy or compatibility, During the proceedings, applicant argued that the tack of interior landscaping in the parking structure will not appreciably threaten the downtown's sense of place, its economic base, history or community vision while some opponents argued that these qualities would be adversely affected. Based upon landscaping proposed along the edges of the parking structure, the City Council concludes that the lack of trees on the interior of the parking structure's lower floors, will not threaten (in any appreciable way) the downtown's sense of place, its economic base, history or community vision. Instead, the structure will provide needed off-street parking to accommodate Ashland's considerable and growing tourist trade in a way that is compatible with surrounding structures, land uses and activities. Even where possible the City Council also concludes that requiring extraordinary and expensive efforts to incorporate landscaping required by Criterion 11 and 27~ would necessitate the installation of raised beds within the parking area. The number and area devoted to raised beds within the parking structure would potentially violate other provisions of the design standards that specifically limit the use of raised beds taller than one foot. Raised beds over one foot would be required to support the root mass of trees and shrubs of a type and variety needed to meet the requirements of the landscaping requirements sought to be excepted. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the exception requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown Design Standards. During the proceedings, some opponents argued that the term "screened" cannot be interpreted simply to require intervening vegetation between the "parking lot" and lands which are residentially zoned. Applicant argued and the City Council concurs that according to Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged) 2na Ed., screen or screened means: "to separate or cut off from view, or to shelter or protect, with or as with a screen." Opponents urged an absolute interpretation that requires screening sufficient to make a parking lot (including, in this instance a parking structure) all but Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 65 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon invisible. The City has consistently not interpreted its ordinance in this manner and no examples exist in the community of parking lots which are or nearly are invisible. The term screen is commonly interpreter ~d administered in land use ordinances in less absolute terms. In this instance, the parking lot or area -- and by that we mean vehicles that are parked -- will be screened by more than simply the vegetation which exists along the parking structures frontage (in the abutting planter). The parking structure itself will screen parked vehicles. Moreover, planned vegetation will be trained on the walls and rails of the parking structure. The trailing vegetation will cover the walls of the structure and trail over the wall openings,ss On the upper level of the parking structure, there are planters on each comer of the structure that will have trees and vegetation planned in accordance with the landscape plans (Record p. 180 - 191). There will also be hedge planting within a planter strip lying between the front wall of the parking structure and the sidewalk and trees and vegetation along the planter strip that lies between the street/curb and sidewalk. Moreover, the Planning Commission and the City Council have required as a condition that there be interior planting within the parking structure. (See, Section VI). These features will make the parked vehicles within the interior of the parking structure all but invisible from nearby lands that are residentially zoned. However, Ashland is a community of diverse and steep topography and view of the upper deck of the parking structure (and any other parking area in Ashland) will be visible from vantage points above it. Some opponents argued that the screening standard should be applied in ways that would make parked vehicles on the upper deck invisible from vertical vantage points. On this, the City Council concludes that while there is substantial screeff~ng vegetation that will obscure the view of the upper deck (including screening not proposed by applicant but required by conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and City Council) it is impractical to require parking to be screened from vertical vantage points and the City has never made this a requirement of any parking area and it declines to do so in this instance. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the proposed Exception 2 is consistent with the criteria for an exception to the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards as these are enumerated as Criterion 50. Exception $ Exception 3 regards the two of the standards for Criterion 17, which state: ~ Applicant's representatives explained during the Planning Commission public hearing on July 11, 2000 that vines in planters located along the top of the parking structure walls will trail down to provide virtually complete screening. A colored architectural elevation of the parking structure entered into evidence the night of the Planning Commission public hearing, illustrates applicant's screening concept and while the drawing does not illustrate vines covering openings on the walls of the parking structure, it was explained that the trailing vegetation would, in fact, cover the openings and provide a vegetative screen. From outside the parking structure, the cars will be all but invisible because the openings in the parking structure will be covered by screening vines. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 66 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon II-C-2c) Parking & On-Site Circulation 1. Protected, raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of 50 or more spaces or more than 100 feet in average width or depth. 2. Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas and divided by landscaped areas or walkways at least 10 feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings. Conclusions of Law for Exception 3: The City Council concludes as follows with respect to Exception 3 as the same applies to Criterion 17: 1. The proposed parking structure provides vertical pedestrian circulation which connects the upper level to the lower level and an accessible route which connects the lower level to the theatre. The vertical circulation and pedestrian route are separated from the parking and maneuvering areas by raised curbs. 2. As evidenced by Drawing Sheets L2.0 and L2.1 at Record p. 183 and 184, the demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements related to providing raised walkways or landscaping is due to the unique and unusual circumstances connected with use of the site as a parking structure on a portion of the site that has only the minimum dimensions required to accommodate parking that meets the minimum parking stall and travel aisle standards in ALUO Chapter 18.92. The site lacks sufficient width to accommodate walkways without the loss of an entire row of parking. 3. The City Council herewith incorporates and adopts is findings of fact and conclusions of law for Exception 2. 4. The stated purpose of the Downtown Design Standards is to respect the area's unique heritage and to enhance the appearance and livability of the area as it develops and changes. Based upon the evidence, the City Council concludes that the unique heritage of downtown Ashland will not be threatened by not providing walkways or landscaping within the parking structure. The City Council concludes that the downtown,s heritage, appearance and livability will be enhanced by providing better opportunities for off-street parking which will help reduce on-street parking that now. occurs in the residential neighborhoods adjoining the downtown. In so doing, Ashland -- its downtown and nearby residential neighborhoods -- can better retain the sense of place, economic base, history and community vision. 5. Based upon the evidence, the City Conncil concludes that the requested exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown Design Standards. 6. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the proposed Exception 3 is consistent with the criteria for an exception to the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards as these are enumerated as Criterion 50. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 67 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Exception 4 Exception 4 regards two of the standards for Criterion 21, which state: ll-C-3a) Orientation and Scale 3. Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the height of the tallest building. If buildings are more than 240 feet in length, the separation shall be 60 feet. 4. All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate a streetscepe which includes curbs, sidewalks, pedestrian scale light standards, and street trees. Conclusions of Law for Exception 4: The City Council concludes as follows with respect to Exception 4 as the same applies to Criterion 21: Regarding #3 above and based upon Drawing Sheet L0.1 at Record p. 180, the City Council finds that there exists a demonstrable difficulty in meeting #3 due to the proposed use of the site as a theatre and fact that historic Carpenter Hall exists on adjacent property. If made to compIy with #3, the space available would be too small to accommodate the theatre. If the theatre and parking structure were required to be connected, it would eliminate some pedestrian access to the north plaza from Hargadine Street. Moreover, connecting the theatre building to Carpenter Hall to avoid the building separation would impermissibly impact Carpenter Hall as an important historic building. Also regarding #3 above and based upon applicant's plans and drawings in Record p. 173 - 214, the City Council concludes that the proposed design accomplishes the purpose of the Downtown Design Standards and Downtown Plan in a way that is superior from one designed pursuant to the standard because: While most buildings in the downtown along Main Street and Siskiyou Boulevard have common walls, those which are separated, frequently do not have separations in accordance with the standard. The proposed design respects the unique heritage of historic Carpenter Hall by creating appreciable setbacks from it, while enhancing the land around it with landscaped plaza/courtyard areas that improve the appearance and livability of the area and in so doing, strengthens its sense of place while enhancing the community's economic base by facilitating one of its more important economic resources, the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. The festival is important to Ashland's recent its history and to the community and its citizens as expressed in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the evidence, the City Council concludes that the exception to #3 above, is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown Design Standards. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 68 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon 4. Regarding g4 above, the City Council incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Exceptions 2 and 3 as the same applies to exceptions related to the provision of streetscape elements within the proposed parking structure (except for pedestrian scale lighting which is provided for in applicant's plans. Also regarding g4, the City Council finds and concludes that the required streetscape elements are incorporated into applicant's plans for all accesses designed and intended for pedestrians and these elements are demonstrated by Drawing Sheet L2.1 at Record p. 184. With respect to the service corridor which exists along the east boundary of the subject property, the City Council concludes that it has never applied the standard (~4 above) to corridors designed mad intended for service vehicles and it declines to do so in tlfis instance, especially as other ruutes for pedestrians (which observe the standards) adequately serve the theatre complex. The City Council interprets the phrase "on-site cimulation system" as not including service corridors. 7. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the proposed Exception 4 is consistent with the criteria for an exception to the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards as these are enumerated as Criterion 50. 8. Based upon the evidence, the City Council concludes that the requested exception to #4 above, is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown Design Standards. 9. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the proposed Exception 4 is consistent with the criteria for an exception to the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards as these are enumerated as Criterion 50. Exception $ Exception 5 regards the one of the standards for Criterion 41, which states: VI-B) Setback 1) Except for arcades, alcoves, and other recessed features, buildings shall maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or property linc (Illustration: Recommend 2, 5 & 10). Areas having public utility easements or similar restricting conditions shall be exempt from this standard. Conclusions of Law for Exception 5: The City Council concludes as follows with respect to Exception 5 as the same applies to Criterion 41: 1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements as they relate to zero setbacks. Applicant's plans and drawings at Record p. 173 - 214 illustrate that the New Theatre has been designed to complement adjacent buildings (particularly Carpenter Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 69 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Hall), reduce the impact of the theatre and stage volume on the surrounding neighborhood, and provide essential public gathering space for pre-and post-show crowds. The City Council believes that there simply must be space where people, after having purchased tickets to performances, can gather while waiting to enter the theatre, and this space must be of sufficient area to accommodate the numbers of people attending the performances. If the only place for theatre-goers to assemble is on the sidewalk, the crowds will preclude pedestrian use of the sidewalk and will inapede people attempting to cross South Pioneer Street. The ticket sales area is located on the plaza/courtyard across Pioneer Street and adjacent to the Elizabethan and Angus Bowmer Theatres. Once tickets are purchased, theatre patrons must cross South Pioneer Street and assemble in front of the new theatre. 3. In addition, the largest volume of the theatre is located at the center of the block, set back from the street, in order to diminish its impact. Plaza/courtyard and garden areas, featuring planters, trees, benches, bike racks, water fountains and canopied protection from the rain and sun, have been provided on three sides of the new building. The City Council finds that these areas will engage the pedestrian and enhance the fabric and people-friendly atmosphere of downtown Ashland. 4. If the building were to front Pioneer Street and Hargadine Street, it would crowd Carpenter Hall. The proposed design retains garden, plaza/courtyard areas on all sides of the historic building and provides outdoor rooms on the north, west and south side of the new Theatre which serve both the function of the theatre mad the activities of its community and neighbors. Drawing Sheets L0.1, L2.0 and L2.1 at Record p. 180, 183 and 184, illustrate that the theatre building has setbacks along Pioneer Street and Hargadine Street that are similar to and compatible with the historical precedent established on the property by Carpenter Hall. In the proposed design, the City Council finds that the area's unique heritage, appearance and livability have been preserved and enhanced, while retaining its "sense of place" and augmenting the community,s economic base. The Oregon Shakespeare Festival is one of Ashland's most important artistic and economic resources and is important to both Ashland's recent history and to the community and its citizens, as expressed in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the evidence, the City Council concludes that the requested exception to #5 above, is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown Design Standards. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the proposed Exception 5 is consistent with the criteria for an exception to the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards as these are enumerated as Criterion 50. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 70 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Exception 6 Exception 6 regards one of the standards for Criterion 43, which states: VI-D) Openings 2) Ground level elevations facing a street shall mo/tntain a consistent proportion of transparency (i.e., windows) compatible with the pattern found in the downtown area. (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, 6 & 10). Conclusions of Law for Exception 6: The City Council concludes as follows with respect to Exception 7 as the same applies to Criterion 43: The west and south elevations of the new Theatre face South Pioneer Street and I-Iargadine Street, respectively. As illustrated on Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199, the materials on both elevations are brick, wood and glass. The west elevation opens to the lobby and is very transparent. The transparency allows patrons to gee in and out of the lobby further connecting the New Theatre to the Festival campus and the natural beauty of Ashland. The proportions of glazed openings and carefully crafted wood screens are reminiscent of the openings in adjacent Carpenter Hall. The ground level entry doors to the New Theatre are glass and are emphasized by a covered trellis. The south elevation is primarily brick. The nature of the building as a theatre established demonstrates the need for acoustic and light enclosure around the stage periphery, resulting in a solid wall along the south elevation. In order to incorporate this, and in lieu of adding additional building square footage and program space against the south wall, the theatre was purposely set back fi.om Hargadine Street, allowing for a garden of trees and benches between the south facade and Hargadine Street.' The garden area engages the pedestrians and buffers the neighborhood from the theatre. The proportions of the south wall have been carefully considered. Precast copings, vertical reveals, inset louvers, and offsets in the wall provide visual interest and a handsome backdrop for the garden area. Based upon this evidence, the City Council finds that demonstrable evidence that applicant's alternative design has accomplished the purpose of the Downtown Design Standards and Downtown Plan in a manner that is equal or superior to a project designed pursuant to this standard or historical precedent. 4. Based upon the evidence, the City Council concludes exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown Design Standards. 5. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the proposed Exception 6 is consistent with the criteria for an exception to the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards as these are enumerated as Criterion 50. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 7t Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 51 City 01~ A$I~ANb SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS SECTION VI DOWNTOWN ASHLAND AREA STANDARDS The following criteria are adopted with this plan and shall be used as part of the land use approval process: Approval Criteria for Downtown Area Development: VI-l) Parking lots adjacent to the podestrian path are prohil0ited. VI-2) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticoes, awnings, and sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible. VI-3) Weather protection on adjacent key pedestrian paths are required by all new developments. VI-4) Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. Blank walls adjacent to sidewalks are prohibited. VI-5) Two-story development is encouraged downtown, with the second stories in commercial, residential, or parking uses. VI-6) Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations, drive-up windows, auto sales, end tire stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional Use permits, to deny new uses, although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted. Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows: Regarding VI-1 above, the City Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of Iaw for g4 in Criterion 49 and concludes that compliance has been established. Regarding VI-2 above, the City Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for #5 in Criterion 49 and concludes that compliance has been established. Regarding VI-3 above (which requires weather protection on .adjacent key pedestrian paths for new development) the City Council finds that the standard is ambiguous in that it does not define what weather protection means or what constitutes a key pedestrian path. The Commission interprets the term weather protection to mean protection from wind and the sun as well as overhead protection from rain, sleet, snow or hail. The Commission interprets the term key pedestrian path not to (necessarily) include all plaza or courtyard areas and does not include public street crossings. The City Council also believes (and it concludes by interpretation) that weather protection does not necessarily include impermeable overhead cover. Pursuant to these interpretations, the City Council concludes that the key pedestrian paths located upon the subject property, include the route through the west plaza to the building entrance, those within the south courtyard mad the route through the north plaza. For these key pedestrian paths (based upon Drawing Sheets L0.1 and L2.0 at Record p. 180 and 183) there are other buildings, trees, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 72 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon awnings and a trellis which provide, to different degrees, protection for the different types of weather conditions. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that appropriate weather protection on adjacent key pedestrian paths has been provided consistent with VI-3 above. Regarding VI-4 above, the City Council finds that the only sidewalks are those which adjoin South Pioneer and Hargadine Streets. The proposed building is not adjacent to either sidewalk. However, as evidenced by Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199, the City Council concludes that the architecture of wails that face South Pioneer and Hargadine Streets, has windows and other features of interest to pedestrians consistent with the standard. Regarding VI-5 above, the City Council concludes that the proposed building is of two- story construction. Whether theatre use on the second story is a commercial use is ambiguous. The City Council interprets the term commercial (nses)to mean any use that is permitted within a commercial zone. Theaters are a permitted use in the City's C-1-D zone pursuant to ALUO 18.32.020(D). Therefore, the City Council concludes that theatre use on the second floor of the proposed building is permissible (and encouraged) under the above VI-5. The City Council also finds, aitematively, that the above VI-5 does not operate as a mandatory approval criterion as it merely encourages but does not require two-story development in downtown Ashland. Regarding VI-6 above, the City Council herewith incorporates and adopts it findings of fact and conclusions of law for #6 in Criterion 49 and concludes that compliance has been established. · Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 51. Other Objections During the proceedings, the following issues were raised by some opponents. In some instances, the below objections relate to the approval criteria and where this is the case, the conclusions of law of the City Council below are to be considered aiong with its conclusions of law for the criteria enumerated hereinabove as Criterion 1 through 51. 1. Availability of Historic Commission and Tree Commission Recommendations: In a July 11, 2000 memorandum addressed to the Ashland Planning Commission (Record p. 263 - 270) Sharon and Philip Thormahlen contends that reports from the Ashland Historic Commission and Tree Commission were impermissibly unavailable to parties 7 days prior to the hearing and this entitled opponents Thormahlen to a continuance and such continuance should be for not less than 60 days, In support of their request for a continuance, opponents point to an incomplete citation of ORS 197.763(6)(a). The City Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 73 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Council concludes that the Planning Commission acted properly not granting a continuance at all and only leaving the record open for 7 days. ORS 197.763(3)0) provides that a copy of the staff report will be made available 7 days before the public hearing. The staff report was available seven or more days prior to the public heating. Recommendations from Ashland's Historic and Tree Conmfissions are not staff reports. Notwithstanding irrelevant arguments about the timeliness of recommendations tendered by Ashland's Historic and Tree Commissions, ORS 197.763(6)(a) provides that any party (if they request before the close of the initial evidentiary hearing) and for any reason, are entitled to either a continuance or to have the record left open for a period of at least seven days. Nothing in ORS 197.763 entitles any party to a continuance. The prerogative to leave the record open or grant a continuance is the Planning Commission's. Moreover, nothing in ORS 197.763 requires a period of 60 days for opponents to furnish additional testimony. The City Council concludes that the Planning Commission acted properly and within its authority by closing the hearing but leaving the record open for seven days. 2. Ordinance Term Definitions: Some opponents argued that the term "adjacent" cannot be interpreted to mean touching and the term "screened" cannot be interpreted only to require intervening vegetation between the parking structure and lands which are residentially zoned. The City Council concludes that the term adjacent is not defined in the ALUO. Based upon the testimony of applicant: according to Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged) 2no Ed., adjacent, used as an adjective means: "lying near or close (to something); bordering upon". The Council finds that the dictionary dethfitiun itself is ambiguous as to whether it means touching; lying near or close (to something) does not mean touching, while bordering upon does. The City is entitled to interpret its ordinance and the City Council (and Planning Commission) must routinely make interpretations of the ALUO to carry out its duties and the Council believes that it has clear authority to interpret its own ordinance. In Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508, 515, 836 P2d 710 (1992) the Oregon Supreme Court held that: "[I]n reviewing a [local government's] land use decision, [the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)] is to affirm the [local government's] interpretation of its own ordinance [that is part of an acknowledged comprehensive plan,] unless LUBA determines that the [local government's] interpretation is inconsistent with express language of the ordinance or its apparent purpose or policy. LUBA lacks authority to substitute its own interpretation of the ordinance unless the [local government's] interpretation was inconsistent with that ordinance, including its context." Moreover, ORS 197.829(1) requires LUBA to affirm the decisions of local government unless they are clearly wrong: ORS 197.829 Board to affirm certain local government interpretations. (1) The Land Use Board of Appeals shall affirm a local government's interpretation of its comprehensive plan and land use regulations, unless the board determines that the local governmenfs interpretation: (a) Is inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan or land use regulation; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 74 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon (b) Is inconsistent with the purpose for the comprehensive plan or land use regulation; (c) Is inconsistent with the underlying policy that provides the basis for the comprehensive plan or land use regulation; or (d) Is contrary to a state statute, land use goal or rule that the comprehensive plan provision or land use regulation implements. The City Council concludes that its interpretations of the terms adjacent and screened are consistent with the express language and purpose of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and relevant local land use regulations, underlying policies that provide the basis for the plan and land use regulations and with relevant state statutes, land use goals and rules that are implemented by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and related local land use regulations. 3. Approval of the Application will Cause a Loss of Trees. Opponents Swales and Lang argued that approval of the application will result in a significant loss of existing mature trees that now exist on the subject property. The City Council finds that a significant portion of the trees to be removed are located within an existing surface parking lot that is proposed to be used for the planned parking slracture. While the City Council regrets the loss of existing vegetation, the same cannot be preserved if needed parking is to be provided. The City Council can find no provision in the plan or its implementing regulations which precludes the removal of existing vegetation and it concludes that its removal is required in order to undertake the theatre and parking structure projects. 4. View Blockage; Visibility: Under Criterion 46 and elsewhere, some opponents argued that the theatre would block the view of Pompadour Bluff and Grizzly Peak and would be otherwise visible fi.om the Interstate 5 freeway. The City Council finds that view blockage is not a criterion, but if views are blocked by these buildings, it will affect only people at street level or from buildings immediately opposite the subject property on Hargadine Street. Policy VIII-14 of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan states: "Views of Pompadour Bluff, Van Dyke's Cliffs, Mt. Ashland, Grizzly Peak, and the surrounding ridges are irreplaceable assets to Ashland, and should be protected through cooperation with Jackson County." The City has always understood, and the Council so interprets, this policy to be aimed at protecting the specific geographic locations identified from degradation due to development or other intrusive activities. The City has never utilized this policy as the basis for view protection. While Pompadour Bluff and Grizzly Peak are important visual assets, there are no standards that prohibit view blockage and the City Council concludes that the blockage that occurs in this instance is de minimus. As to the building's visibility from Interstate 5, the City Council concludes that there is no evidence that the buildings would be visible or that mere visibility from the freeway would violate any substantive approval criterion and the Council concludes that it would not. 5. Exceptions: During the proceedings, some opponents argued that all standards for which applicant sought exception can be achieved and, therefore, the exceptions cannot be approved. On this objection, the City Council concludes there is no requirement that an Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 75 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon exception be for something that is impossible to achieve. The requirements are only that: 1) there is demonstrable difficulty in meeting a particular standard due to certain circumstances, 2) that there is demonstrable evidence that the alternative design accomplishes stated purposes in an equal or superior manner, and that the exception requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the standards. The City Council concludes that the exceptions sought in this instance each meet the requirements for an exception, as the same are documented hereinabove under Criterion 50. In reaching this conclusion, the City Council observes that Ashland has an extremely exacting and rigorous site design process that is especially demanding for development proposed within the downtown area where there are roughly 150 separate approval standards and criteria. It is not unexpected that conflicts will arise between the City's standards and criteria for development proposals, especially those in the downtown which are subject to the most restrictive standards and criteria. This has been anticipated by the City Council in its enactment of an exceptions process to provide a way to balance the criteria and resolve conflicts that necessarily result when the criteria are applied to a given parcel of land. Some opponents also argued that the applicant has not addressed why the exceptions requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the various standards. On this objection, the City Council concludes that its conclusions of law under Criterion 50, in each instance, describe why the exception requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the City's Downtown Design Standards. 6. Oregon Transportation Planning Rule: During the proceedings, some opponents argued that OAR 660-12 (the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule) applies but has not been addressed. The City Council finds that the objection was raised in a vague and ambiguous way. Opponents are required by ORS 197.763(5)(c), when they raise issues, to do so by, "statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue." The objection here is too vague and ambiguous to afford the City Council (and other parties) an opportunity :to respond to the issue opponents attempted to raise. The City Council also concludes that OAR 660-12 does not govern conditional use permits or site design applications. OAR 660-12-060 indicates that the rule governs only amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility. The applications now before the city are none of these. OAR 734-51: During the proceedings, some opponents argued that OAR 734-51 requires a Traffic Impact Study. Applicant argued that the property and project site does not abut a state highway based upon the project boundaries depicted at Record p. 231. However, opponents correctly point out that portions of tax lots that comprise the subject property (although not within the project boundary) abut East Main Street. As su9h, opponents contend this triggers the need for a Traffic Impact Study in accordance with OAR 734-51. The City Council takes note and the record shows that the portions of tax lots to which Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 76 Planning Action 2000-074 Ci~ofAshland, Oregon opponents refer, while abutting East Main Street, are stairs that provide access which is exclusively for pedestrians and does not and cannot serve automobiles. I In setting forth the applicability of the rule, OAR 734-51-0030 provides in pertinent part: OAR 734-051-0030 - Applicability of Rules Subject Matter. Division 51 roles apply to the location, construction, maintenance and use of approaches onto the state highway rights of way and properties under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation. Division 51 rules also govern closure of existing approaches, spacing standards, medians, deviations, appeal processes, grants of access and indentures of access. (2) When a Construction Permit is Required. A Construction Permit to construct an approach to the state highway is required for a new connection to a state highway, and is required when there is a change in use of an existing connection to a state highway (OAR 734-051-0110). Division 51 rules describe two components of approval to construct an approach: criteria for approving an :Application for an Approach (OAR 734-051-0080) which leads to a Construction Permit (OAR 734-051-0230), and the Permit to Operate, Maintain and Use an Approach (OAR 734-051-0290). Based upon the record, this project does not anticipate or require the location, construction, maintenance, use or closure of approaches onto any state highway right-of- way or other property under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The City Council concludes that OAR 734-51 does not apply to these applications. The City Council also takes note that ODOT has not requested applicant to undertake a Traffic Impact Study and, based upon the opinion of Ashland Public Works Director, Paula Brown, at Record p. 224, the City Council concludes that none is needed. 8. Comprehensive Plan Off-street Parking Policy: Ashland,s Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element contains a policy that states: 23. Off-street parking for all land uses shall be adequate, but not excessive, and shall not interfere with multi- modal street uses. During the proceedings, some opponents argued that the policy conflicts with provisions of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) which exempts land in the C-1-D zone from providing off-street parking and the conflict must be resolved in favor of the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council concludes as follows with respect to this objection: First, the cited policy was not intended to function as an approval criterion for either Conditional Use Permits or Site Design and Use Review. See, Bennett v. City of Dallas, 17 Or LUBA 450, affd 96 Or App 645 (1989). In that case the court held that an approval criterion requiring compliance with a comprehensive plan does not automatically transform all comprehensive plan goals and policies into decisional criteria. The court further held that a determination of whether particular plan policies are approval criteria must be based on the language used in the policies and the context in which the policies appear. Policy 23 is merely an aspirational statement which, by its language and context was not intended to function as an approval standard for conditional use permits or site design review applications. The Comprehensive Plan is implemented by the ALUO, in which Subsection l 8.32.050(A) provides in pertinent part: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 77 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon In all areas within the "D" Downtown Overlay District, all uses are not required to provide off-street parking or loading areas, except for hotel, motel, or hostel uses. The subject property is within the "D" Overlay District and the proposed use is not a hotel, motel, or hostel. · Second, if Policy 23 is a decisional criterion, the City Council finds that the term "adequate" (as contained in the policy) is ambiguous and requires interpretation. In all zoning districts, except lands subject to the downtown ("D" Overlay District), the City requires that off-street parking be provided for individual land uses pursuant to ALUO Chapter 18.92. However, within the downtown, parking for individual uses is exempt pursuant to the above ALUO 18.32.050(A). This is not to say that adequate parking in the downtown is not contemplated or provided for, only that the parking requirements for individual land uses has been set aside in favor of providing parking collectively for the downtown area. The City of Ashland provides public parking for downtown uses through the use of on-street parking and public parking lots. Further, the City periodically assesses the need for downtown parking through comprehensive planning. The City has done this through its Downtown Plan (a part of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan) wherein it contemplates the establishment of common parking facilities to serve all downtown uses and functions. Moreover, the City (as opponents observe) has established funding strategies to help build the downtown parking facilities. No change in the historic method of supplying downtown parking is contemplated by the Transportation Element policy cited by opponents and under it, the City Council interprets the term "adequate" (as used in the policy) to mean in ways that are carried out by the ALUO and Ashland Downtown Plan. In fact, the Ashland Downtown Plan contemplates a parking facility on the subject property that would supply 120 parking stalls. The proposed parking structure will have 138 stalls. Third and finally, even if parking is required (which applicant did not concede) the 344- seat theater is.proposed in conjunction with a parking structure which will supply 138 parking stalls. If off-street parking is required, it would be required at the rate of 1 stall per each 4 seats pursuant to ALUO 18.92.020(B)(8). Thus, 138 parking stalls would be adequate. The adequacy of parking might also be viewed in terms ofthe total increase in seating over that now provided by the Black Swan Theatre. As described in applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, applicant does not contemplate using the Black Swan for performances after the new theatre is built. By eliminating seats at the 135-seat Black Swan Theatre and replacing them with the new theatre, there will be a net increase of only 209 seats. If there is a downtown parking requirement, there is a need for only 53 new parking stalls? Applicant proposes the construction of a parking structure that will have 138 parking stalls to replace an existing surface parking lot which has 84 stalls; the proposal before the City will result in there being 54 additional off- street parking stalls. 26 ALUO 18.92.020(B)(8) requires theaters to supply parking at the rate of 1 stall per four seats (209 + 4 ~ 53) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 78 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Improper Use of Grant Money: During the proceeding some opponents argued that the subject property was acquired with grant moneys and that use of the property, in part, for a theatre, may violate the terms under which the property was acquired. The City Council concludes that the alleged violation of "grant criteria" is not an approval standard for either Conditional Use Permits or Site Design and Use Review. As such, and without conceding the correctness of the allegation~ the Council concludes that the issue is irrelevant to these proceedings. 10. Violation of Property Rights and Values: During the proceeding some opponents argued that increased commercial activity in the area will produce impacts related to on- street parking, congestion, use of public facilities and property values, and represents a factual taking of a property right that is supposed to be protected by residential zoning. The City Council concludes that the takings issue raised by opponents does not relate to any of the relevant substantive criteria that are prerequisite to acting on the, applications for Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit. As to issues connected to traffic, the City Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 3. 11. Blockage of Pedestrian Routes; Pedestrian Conflicts: During the proceeding some opponents argued that pedestrian routes fi:om Main Street through the site to Hargadine Street will be blocked or must otherwise be shared with garbage, delivery truck and emergency vehicles and other vehicles seeking access to certain levels of the planned parking structure.17 The City Council concludes that, evidenced by applicant's plans and drawings (Record p. 173 - 214) no pedestrian routes from Main to Hargadine Streets will be blocked. While the proposed theatre and parking structure will make the pedestrian route less direct than is the case now where pedestrians can traverse an open surface parking lot, it will not be blocked,ts Moreover, there are no standards or criteria that are violated even if an existing pedestrian route were "blocked" (even though this will not occur) and none that are violated by making the named pedestrian route less direct. The existing access fi:om Hargadine Street through the property to Main Street is through the existing surface parking lot. The City Council concludes that the new, albeit less direct rou. te, will not be unpleasant, unattractive or unsafe for pedestrians. During the proceeding some opponents also argued that the walkway behind Starbucks and the Varsity Theater will be shared with the Starbueks parking lot and garbage track access to dumpsters and that there is no raised/segregated walkway in this area as required. Based upon the plans and drawings in Record p. 173 - 214 and Record p. 56 - 57, the City ~7 Applicant testified at Record p. 57 that, according to Dan Murphy of Ashland Sanitary Service on July 24, 2000, sanita~ service trucks rarely conflict with pedestrians as they pick up trash before 7:00 a.m. and come only three times a week on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. 28 The City Council observes from applicant's plans and drawings, that pedestrians from the Hargadine Street sidewalk, can access the subject property's north courtyard by (from west to east): 1) the Pioneer Street sidewalk, 2) the stairs that are showa on applicants plans on Sheet L2.1, 3) between the theatre and parking structure buildings, 4) through the upper level of the parking structure, and 5) through the service drive. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 79 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon Council concludes that a 5-foot wide raised/segregated walk is proposed adjacent to vehicular circulation associated with the parking structure. The sidewalk flattens to grade and expands to 20 feet wide at the northeast comer of the building for an additional 100 feet to the back of Starbuck's property. The generous 20-foot-wide route is primarily dedicated to pedestrians and is defined by scored concrete across its entire breadth. The City Council concludes that the applicant has proposed and properly documented an exception to the standard these opponents cite in only unclear and unambiguous terms. See, Criterion 50, Exception 3. 12. Scale, Bulk and Coverage Compared to Original Buildings: During the proceeding some opponents argued that the scale, bulk and coverage of the proposed buildings are excessive in comparison to, "the original 4 homes that occupied the site, the existing open, landscaped parking area that currently occupies the site, and the adjacent residential neighborhood". The City Council concludes that there is no requirement for applicant to compare this project to original dwellings that formerly occupied the property. As to the reference to scale, bulk and coverage, refer to the City Council's Conclusions of Law for Criterion 3. 13. Size of Parking Structure: During the proceeding some opponents argued that the parking structure is 46,800 square feet and thus violates ALUO 18.72.050(C) and Ashland Site Design and Use Standards (ASDUS) II-C-3-a-2 which both provide in pcn~inent part: No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings shall exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. During the City Council public heating, Ashland Planning Director John McLaughlin testified that his:staff had carefully computed the square footage of :the building and found it to be less than 45,000 square feet. Mr. McLaughlin attributed the deviation to measurements taken by opponents fi~om the exterior limits of the building rather than the interior limits. He further testified that the City always computes building square footage based upon the interior size of a building and emphasized that even without:subtracting the planter areas along Hargadine Street, that the building was less than 45,000 square feet. The City Council accepts and adopts the findings of its Planning Director and concludes that the parking structure does not violate the provisions of either ALUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2. As to whether the proposed buildings exceed a length of 300 feet in violation of the same provisions, the City Council concludes that conditions it has placed on these approvals require the buildings to be separated and for the parking structure to have a "fire wall" sufficient to meeting building codes for the wall of the parking structure that faces the theatre. The City Council concludes that the condition ensures that the buildings will not be connected and will not, therefore, violate provisions of ALUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2 that prohibit building or contiguous groups of buildings from exceeding 300 feet in length. The City Council also concludes that the subject buildings are not a contiguous group of buildings because they are not contiguous. During the proceeding, there was some recognized ambiguity regarding the meaning of the term contiguous and the City Cotmcil construes contiguous Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 80 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon to mean touching. If the parking structure and theatre do not touch, they are not contiguous and do not violate ALUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2 and the City Council concludes that they do not and Cannot based upon conditions the Council has attached to this approval. 14. Inadequate Design for Turning Movements: During the proceeding some opponents argued that there is "inadequate turning provision at the NE comer of the parking structure to allow safe 2 way traffic" and the impact of traffic and the loading dock on Hargadine Street has not been addressed under the CUP criteria. At Record p. 57 applicant testified that in working out the design of the project, applicant's expert architect and civil engineer determined that there is adequate space for garbage and fire vehicles based upon data they collected on turning radii. The driveway width complies with provisions of the ALUO which require driveways to be 20 feet wide. The driveway cited by opponents is 20 feet in width. The City Council believes the testimony of applicant's experts and concludes that the driveway and its turning radii,are adequate and safe and fully comply with the requirements of the City. 15. Buildings Straddle Property Lines: Dttring the proceeding some opponents argued that the proposed buildings impermissibly straddle property lines. The City Council finds and concludes that the applicant agreed to stipulate (and the City Council has incorporated as a condition) that the property lines be adjusted or properties consolidated in ways that are sufficient to avoid buildings that straddle property lines or otherwise violate provisions of the ALUO or ASDUS. 16. Design Violates the Book: ,~lexander's Pattern Language: During the proceeding some opponents argued that the proposed project design violates the "Site Repair" idea of Alexander's Pattern Language which requires that the worst part of a site be developed while the best is reserved for views and sunlight. The City Council enncludes that the "Site Repair" idea of Alexander's Pattern Language, is not an approval criterion and, therefore, is irrelevant. 17. Employment and Wage Issues: During the proceeding one opponent raised issues connected with employment and fair wages and argued that applicant Oregon Shakespeare Festival did not pay its employees a living wage. This opponent did not explain how the.issues he raised related to the relevant substantive criteria and the City Council concludes that they do not. 18. Alternative Sites: During the proceeding some opponents argued that applicant had failed to consider alternative sites, especially sites that it now owns. It was not explained by these opponents how the issue of alternative sites relate to the relevant substantive criteria and the City Council concludes that applicant is not required under any approval criteria to identify or examine alternatives sites. 19. Sidewalk Improvements in the Public Right-of-Way. During the proceeding, some opponents argued that the proposed pedestrian improvements within the public fight of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 81 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon way were not in accord with the city's standards for sidewalk construction. The City Council attaches condition 14, clarifying that all sidewalk work done within the public fight-of-way shall be done to city standards, and under permit and approval of the Public Works Department. VI CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE APPROVAL In addition to the thirteen (13) conditions imposed on these applications by the Ashland Planning Commission and which were contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Planning Commission'(dated August 22, 2000), the City Council herewith imposes Conditions 14 and 15 and hereby Orders that all of the below fifteen (15) conditions are attached and made a part of this approval: That the project shall be constructed consistent with the plan and specifications submitted as part of the record, except that these may be modified by conditions attached by these conditions of approval. That prior to the issuance of building permits, all parcels, which have buildings that straddle or otherwise infringe on parcel boundary lines, or building setbacks will be consolidated or the parcel boundaries will be appropriately adjusted. The configuration of the adjusted parcels will be with the City's consent and prior approval. That all proposed refuse areas be screened with either a solid wood fence or masonry wall. Proposed screening to be provided for review and approval by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. That at the time of planting and prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, not less than two inches of mulch shall be added in all non-turf landscaped areas after the installation of living plant materials. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the inigation system plan shall be reviewed by the Tree Commission, with final approval by the Staff Advisor. The irrigation system plan shall be consistent with ALUO 18.82.060(T) and the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, all Tree Commission recommendations consistent with City Site Design and Use Standards shall be incorporated into the final landscaping plans and reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor. That temporary fencing shall be installed around the chip lines trees identified for retention prior to issuance of a building permit, grading, grubbing, notice to proceed with construction or other site improvements. In addition, the following measures shall Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 82 Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland, Oregon be incorporated and maintained in place during the project's development and until authorization bom the Staff Advisor: a. Fill within drip line to be limited to six inches in depth. Fill to consist of a sandy composition, rather than clay, to enhance drainage. b. No cuts permitted within the drip line except as noted on the engineered construction drawings. c. No fill shall be placed around the think/crown root. d. No storage of equipment or materials shall occur within the drip lines. That a utility, storm drainage and grading plan be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for review and approval by the Engineering and Planning Division. The Ashland Engineering Division Staff Advisor shall approve the design of the public alley, specifically with regards to the length and percent slope of alley landing and approach adjoining Hargadine Street. 9. That all new trees installed within perimeter plaza areas shall be no less that two inches in diameter at breast height. 10. That all modifications to and construction within adjoining City right-of-way, including but not limited to curb extensions and the location of steel bollard light fixtures along South Pioneer, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. That the proposed Gothic light fixture and post be substituted with the light standard and fixture installed within the downtown plaza and adjacent to the creek along the Winbum Bridge (not the globe fixture). The staff Advisor shall review and approve the proposed light standard fixture prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. That the structure be constructed to provide additional shading for the center parking spaces on the top level of the parking structure. Such structure to allow for shading through the use of vine plantings or other permeable, non-reflecting, shading material. Landscape planter to have a minimum soil depth of one and one-half feet (1'-6"), with plant material to consist of"Akebia" vines or similar planting. The structure shall result in the shading of the fully length of the center aisle parking spaces, and a width of 20' (10' each side). 13. That tree grates be installed on all trees located within the public plaza areas, and that tree cages be used in the high traffic areas to protect the trees during the first years of growth after planting. Tree grate and cage designs to be approved by the Staff Advisor prior to installation. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 83 Planning Action 2000-074 Ci~ofAshland, Oregon 14. That all sidewalk construction and reconstruction within the public right of way be done to the standards of the City of Ashland, with all work done under pemfit and approval of the Public Works Department. 15. That, as necessary to meet fire safety codes, there shall be a fire wall which permits a physical separation between the theatre building and parking structure. The two buildings shall be separated and not touch one another. VII ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law and evidence .contained in the whole record, the City Council finds and concludes that the application for Site Design and Use Review have satisfied all of the relevant substantive standards and criteria contained within the Ashland Municipal Code and the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards. The City Council also finds and concludes that the application for a Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of exceeding the height limitations of the C-1-D zoning district, are compliant with all the relevant ~ubstantive criteria as the same have been enumerated and addressed hereinabove. The City Council ultimately concludes, based upon the foregoing and the conditions that it herewith attaches, both of the subject land use applications (Site Design and Use Review and Conditional Use Permit) comply with all requirements of the City of Ashland and of the State of Oregon. Therefore, the City Cotmcil herewith upholds the decision of the Ashland Planning Commission approves with conditions both quasi-judicial land use applications and attaches all of the conditions set forth hereinabove in Section VI. CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON Mayor Dated: November 7, 2000 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 84 Planning Action 2000-074