HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0507 Study Session PACKETCITY OF
SHLAND
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Wednesday, May 7, 2003 at 12:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
1. Discussion regarding Big Box Ordinance Changes.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in
this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number
1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
18.72.050.C. (proposed replacement for existing section)
1. Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail
Site Review Zone shall conform with the following standards:
a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above gr~d_e shall be considered as one
building.
b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside the
exterior walls.
c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space and
outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception:
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as rooftop parking and under-
structure parking, shall not count toward the total gross floor area.
d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet.
e. Any building or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in
1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. The building footprint area, gross floor
area, or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section shall not be subject to any variance authorized in
the Land Use Ordinance.
2. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed
a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft., with the following exceptions:
a. Gross floor area associated with non-ground level residential uses shall not count toward the total gross
floor area.
b. Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as rooftop parking and under-
structure parking, shall not count toward the total gross floor area.
These changes address the specific concerns raised by the Council, plus also address the issues raised by the
Planning Commission regarding setting the maximum building size at 45,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
In addition, the following site design standards regarding Orientation and Scale are recommended as well:
Section 1I-C.1a) Orientation and Scale
1 ) Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building entrances
shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Where buildings are located on a
corner lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot comer at the intersection of
the streets. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Buildings shall be
located as close to the intersection corner as practicable.
2) Building entrances shall be located within 10 feet of the public right of way to which they are required to
be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs where a greater
setback results in an Improved access or for sites with multiple buildings, such as sbopplng-centers, where this
standard Is met by other buildings. Buildings that are within 30 foet of the street shall have an entranoe for pedestrians
directly fr-om the streot to the building interior. This entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible, attractive and
functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours.
II-C-2b) StreetscaDe
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. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner lots. Jf
more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 26% 65% of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 20 feet
of the sidewalk.
r.l'
These modifications are intended to ensure that new buildings on comer lots are oriented toward.. the street on
both frontages, and that an entrance is oriented to the major street or to the intersection"
Conclusion: The proposed amendments specifically addresses the maximum size of buildings (45,000 sq. ft.
of gross floor area), addresses the provision of housing in the downtown, and underground or rooftop parking.
Specifically, if the 45,000 sq. ft. standard is applied without consideration of housing, there will be no
opportunity for an additional level of housing on the existing parking structure downtown. This should be
carefully considered by the Council.
Some discussion has been raised about reducing the maximum size (45,000 sq. ft.), especially in the downtown.
Given the existing development patterns, currently adopted design standards, we believe that the downtown is
adequately covered by regulations. Further, no variances are allowed for any structures larger than 45,000 sq.
ft. If a smaller size is considered, there will likely be instances where a larger building is warranted. The most
recent example outside of the downtown was the YMCA expansion.
Staff looks forward to the Council's comments.
r.,
Another study session was held with Planning Commission on August 27,2002 at which
time proposed ordinance amendments were presented. An option for larger buildings if
affordable housing was provided was also included. These amendments were generally
well received, with recommendations to clarify some of the language.
A final study session was held on September 24, 2002 to bring back the final versions of
the ordinance based on the input from the August meeting. -' ~
t!
A public hearing was scheduled with the Planning Commission for review of the
ordinance amendments on January 14, 2003. However, due to a full agenda, the item
was continued to the February 11, 2003 meeting.
At the February meeting, the Planning Commission took testimony on the proposed
amendments and ended up recommending that no amendments to the ordinance be
adopted. Further, they recommended that the Council change their interpretation
regarding the 45,000 sq. ft. limit from applying to footprint. Rather, they recommended
that the Council re-interpret the ordinance such that the 45,000 sq. ft. applies to the gross
floor area of the entire structure. (Minutes of 2/11 meeting attached)
Discussion:
The Planning Commission's recommendation provides direction for how the 45,000 sq.
ft. limit should be applied. However, it fails to address the other issues requested by the
Council. Specifically, issues related to contiguous buildings remains unclear, and how
the size limits relate to downtown. Further, other issues related to site design associated
with the detail site review zone also came up during this process and were not addressed
as well.
Staff is looking for direction from the City Council as to how best to address the initial
issues raised by the Council, while also bringing forward the recommendation of the
Planning Commission regarding the 45,000 sq. ft. limit.
Recommendation: While Staff is looking for direction, we believe that from the past meetings and
discussions, we can provide some recommendations:
The ordinance still needs to be modified to clarify existing language. Merely interpreting
the ordinance as requested by the Planning Commission is only part of the answer.
It appears that the proposal for buildings larger than 45,000 sq. ft. if affordable housing
was provided was not necessarily well received by the public or the commission.
Therefore, we recommend that the conditional use process proposed to allow buildings
up to 75,000 sq. ft. be scrapped.
However, without changes to the ordinance, confusion regarding application of the
ordinance is still likely. Given that the Commission recommended that the limit be
45,000 sq. ft of gross floor area, we believe the ordinance should be specifically modified
to clarify that limit.
We would recommend the following language addressing contiguous buildings, and the
downtown design standards overlay zone:
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Synopsis:
Study Session - Discussion of Big Box Ordinance Amendments
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
May 7, 2003 ~
John McLaughlin, Director ofComm~y Development ~
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator ~
In 1992, the City adopted new Commercial Development Standards including specific
limitations on the size of the buildings in the Detail Site Review zone. A limitation of
45,000 sq. ft. was imposed. These standards were developed through an intense and
highly publicized public process.
In 2000, the City Council approved an application by the Oregon Shakespeare Festival
that ended up interpreting the 45,000 sq. ft. limit of the ordinance as applying only to the
footprint of a structure, and not to the gross floor area square footage.
After that decision, the City Council directed staff to modify the ordinance language to
clearly reflect their interpretation.
A hearing was held in front of the Planning Commission on August 14, 2001 at which
time revised language was presented regarding the 45,000 sq. ft. footprint, that the
measurements were made inside the exterior walls, and that the size limitations did not
apply to the Downtown Design Standards overlay zone. The Planning Commission
recommended adoption of the changes, based on the direction from the City Council.
On September 4,2001, a hearing was held in front of the City Council where the
proposed changes as recommended by the Planning Commission were presented. The
Council, after taking public testimony, determined that additional review and public
comment was necessary.
After difficulty in finding a suitable date for a study session, one was finally scheduled
for June 25, 2002. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare ordinance
amendments addressing the following items:
1. Clarification as to how to measure the 45,000 sq. ft. limit referenced by
the ordinance.
2. How to clarify the definition of a contiguous building.
3. How the ordinance amendments would be applied and impact the
downtown commercial area.
r:.,
,P~g~ 21
l?ll~?IJ. Y?!~~:J:3!g~o~",~? ..:~llgg~sti()n~
such as the Ashland Springs hotel and the Elks building and still encourage compatible architecture.
4 )Automobile parking
While Staffs idea to ignore basement and rooftop parking in the floor area seems at first glace to be a
good idea, it does little to control overall bulk and scale.
It would render the Hargadine Parking lot completely invisible which is hardly the case!
Until we have strict design guidelines for in-structure Parking, in order to make them street friendly, ( there
are no guidelines at present) this exception should not be allowed.
5) Floor Area Ratios ( FAR)
It would seem that due to pressure from developers, Staff has also (separately) proposed removing the
upper limit on allowable FAR ( presently 0.5 outside the historic districts but within the Detail Site Review
Zone)
This could severely increase the allowable floor areas in these highly visible DSRZ districts, especially on
the larger lots. This FAR discussion needs to be fully addressed as part of the "Big Box" ordinance with
perhaps a sliding scale (as is currently being worked out for maximum house sizes in Historic districts.)
Only then can we control overly large development and maintain the uniqueness of our Historic Areas.
6) Variances
Variances have quite strict rules with regard to their granting. Perhaps we should consider allowing them
as part of this ordinance to deal with genuinely "unique and unusual circumstances" . (Presently no
variances are allowed)
Thanks for your consideration of these matters
Colin Swales
cc: "Bill Street" <bill.street@ashland.k12.or.us>, "Bryan Holley" <holley@opendoor.com>,
"Myles Murphy" <Mmurphy@dailytidings.com>, "Tony Boom" <tboom@mailtribune.com>
From: "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net>
To: "Ashland City Council" <Council@ashland.or.us>, "Susan Yates"
<yatess@ashland.or.us>
Date: 5/7/03 9:42AM
Subject: Big Box SS - suggestions
( Sue, Please could you make sure a hard copy of this email is made available to all City Councilors at
today's study session as I might not be able to attend. ) .
Mayor and City Council,
I am writing, as a citizen, to share with you my suggestions regarding this afternoon's Big Box discussion. I
would very much like to be there in person but noon meetings are not very convenient for working people.
It is now 2 1/2 years since the council opened the "barn door' on huge 'big box' commercial buildings
anywhere in town and I urge you to follow the unanimous vote of your Planning Commission and at least
close it again - until acceptable details can be worked out.
It is a shame that after all this time, concerned citizens have had only 2 days to review the Staff Report
which was posted online last Monday. (The public Library being closed)
These are my suggestions:
1) Objective criteria
Ex-councilor Hanson, when referring to the original "interpretation" stated that "footprint" was thrown in to
the get the project approved.
Could this Council vow in future to use the existing rules for interpretation:
( AMC 18.1 08.160.....Any interpretation of the land Use Ordinance shall be based on the following
considerations:
1. The comprehensive plan;
2. The purpose and intent of the land Use Ordinance as applied to the particular section in question; and
3. The opinion of the City Attorney.
These criteria would give a far more objective basis on which to make decisions rather than the nature of
the applicant.
2) Definition of contiguity.
The staffs suggestion "Outside the Downtown .....Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls
touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building." Does little to address the problem. large
lots downtown could be subdivided and each have a very large building.
Contiguous groups of buildings could share utilities and access at a basement level providing a
underground "shopping mall" type of development that the ordinance was designed to discourage. This is
especially relevant with our sloping sites that often have a daylight basement story .
Perhaps a more useful definition would be:
For the purposes of this ordinance, buildings shall not be considered "contiguous" if they are located within
the historic districts ( e.g. Downtown and "A" St.) and yet are structurally independent and also share no
mutual pedestrian access or utility services.
That would allow buildings to touch (as is common with our historic structures) yet still be individual
buildings for the purposes of floor area calculations and 300 ft overall length. (BTW ...Is 300 ft also too
long? ).
3) Smaller Limit Downtown
The Planning Commission seemed to favor the idea of a limit for downtown a lot less than 45,000 sf floor
area (the size of the Ashland Springs Hotel). Perhaps we should get some input from the Historic
Commission on what would be a suitable limit so as not to diminish the importance of our historic buildings
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 11, 2003
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair Russ Chapman at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Mike Morris,
Marilyn Briggs, Ray Kistler, Kerry KenCairn, John Fields, Colin Swales, and newly appointed Commissioner Cameron
Hanson. Dave Dotterrer was absent. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Maria Harris, Brandon Goldman, and
Sue Yates.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Swales moved to approve the Planning Commission minutes of the January 14,2003 meeting. Briggs seconded the motion and
the minutes were approved.
Planning Action 2002-062 Findings - 631 Clay Street - Kistler moved to approve, the motion was seconded and the Findings
were approved.
Planning Action 2002-153 Findings - 648 North Main Street - KenCaim moved to approve, the motion was seconded and the
Findings were approved.
PUBLIC FORUM - Non one came forth to speak.
TYPE III PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 2002-134
REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDNIG CHAPTER 18.72 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE (LAND USE ORDINANCE) AND
THE CITY OF ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS RELATING TO MAXIMUM BUILDING FOOTPRINT, MAXIMUM GROSS
FLOOR AREA AND BUILDING ORIENTATION AND SCALE REQUIREMENTS.
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin said this ordinance (big box ordinance) was originally developed in 1992. It began with citizens' concerns that
new developments could occur in Ashland that would not be in scale with the community. Specifically, Wal-Mart and factory
outlet stores were looking at expanding into the Rogue Valley. Prior to 1992, there were no maximum building size limits.
The Mayor appointed a committee that did an extensive amount of work and came up with a balanced approach allowing for
larger buildings but not excessively large buildings in the community.
The ordinance has worked well since 1992. However, the City Council directed Staff to prepare amendments to the ordinance
after their decision on the new Shakespeare theater. The Council asked Staff to clarify how to measure 45,000 square feet and
clear up any ambiguity. Secondly, clarify the meaning of contiguous buildings, and thirdly, clarify how the ordinance would
apply in the downtown.
The Council's current interpretation for the maximum area is to apply it to the footprint of the building, not the total floor area.
The language does not say interior floor space. In the case of the Shakespeare space, the 45,000 square foot limit only applied
to the footprint. With that interpretation, someone could build a 45,000 square foot building on the first floor and also build a
second story.
Contained within the Site Design and Use Standards are Large Scale Development Standards. Large scale development is
anything with a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet, building frontage in excess of 100 feet in length and developed
within the Detailed Site Review Zone. McLaughlin showed several slides showing examples of various building sizes. He
noted, for example, that the Plaza block consists of contiguous groups of buildings, each structurally separate. The ground
floor area of the Plaza block is 37,000 square feet and the total floor area is 70,000 square feet. Do we want to separate
buildings in the downtown when the historic pattern is a connected type of look? The new Shakespeare theater is over. 12,000
square feet on the ground floor and the parking structure next door is 15,000 square feet separated by a walkway. The Council
found these are two separate buildings.
The proposed amendments addressing contiguous buildings outside the downtown would read: Buildings sharing a common
wall or having walls touching, at or above grade, shall be considered as one building. With regard to size limits, the language
would read that the footprint won't exceed 45,000 square feet. All interior floor space and outdoor retail and storage areas that
are linked to the use of the building shall not exceed 45,000 square feet. Non-ground level residential does not count so
apartments above would be allowed. Auto parking, either rooftop or underneath the footprint of the building would not count
toward total square footage.
Staff is trying to look at innovative ways that may address affordable housing and a provision has been made in the proposed
amendment. Another 30,000 square feet could be added, but for each 1500 square feet beyond the base 45,000 square feet, an
affordable housing unit would have to be provided on-site. The maximum footprint size still applies. If someone wanted to
build a 75,000 square foot building, they would have to provide 20 affordable housing units on-site.
An additional amendment concerns orientation of the entrance on a comer lot. The entrance would be toward the higher order
street or to the comer. Entrances shall be located close to the street. Buildings shall orient close to both streets (frame the
street with the structure). Multiple building sites shall have the majority of the building frontage up on the street.
McLaughlin said the Commission can recommend approval of the amendments, modify the amendments, recommend denial of
the amendments, or modify the process to allow a wider scope.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
MORT SMITH, 129 Fifth Street, wondered if a the Commission has figured out how to keep affordable housing affordable.
He believes the affordable housing should be kept separate from large scale development What advantage is it to Ashland to
have 45,000 square foot buildings? He is concerned the larger buildings would change the character of the community. He is
concerned about "contiguous" buildings. It sounds like you could have a very large building and as long as there is a walkway
between it, there could end up being a 90,000 square foot building.
McLaughlin clarified that outside the downtown, buildings have to be separated based on the height of the structure.
FRED CARUSO, 102 Garfield, #15, believes quality is more important than quantity. He does not see a need for a 45,000
square foot building, however, in a particular situation if it is necessary and important for the health of the community, perhaps
it is something we should have. He favors affordable housing. However, would the proposed housing option mean that we are
going to start putting housing in between taverns? He" believes each neighborhood should be looked at individually.
SUSAN MARSDEN, 1617 Parker Street, said there is another Ashland-out Ashland Street with the mall, the cinema and
Albertson's. To shift this so buildings as big as 75,000 square feet can be built out there, we are creating "the burbs". The
buildings now are built in the context of neighborhood housing and buildings of smaller scale. She doesn't want to ruin the
balance. She believes that 45,000 square feet should be the limit She appreciates that creative ways being looked at for
affordable housing, but sees this as a separate issue. It is dangerous to use affordable housing as a wedge issue to create
buildings as large as 75,000 square feet.
BRYAN HOLLEY, 324 Liberty Street, said he recommended thinking outside the box and taking this to a wider group through
outreach and education.
MARY-KAY MICHELSEN, 2810 Diane Street, believes 45,000 square feet is excessive and out of scale with the community.
She likes the clarification of Section I B. She is assuming Section I C 2 is consistent with the rest of the City. In Section I C 3,
the 75,000 square feet is much too large for a small town. Low cost housing is unrelated to this ordinance. She said removing
Section I C 3 would negate the necessity for Section I C 4.
ERIC NAVICKAS, 711 Faith Avenue, asked how far Staff is taking this away from the initial request from the Council. If
Shakespeare were to go forward with another project, it could still be appealed under this ordinance. The proposed amendment
is not addressing the issues that began these changes. This exemption makes the ordinance completely ambiguous. It states
under the first exemption that gross floor area associated with on-ground level residential uses do not count toward the total
gross floor area. We are already saying a building can be 75,000 square but residential above the ground floor doesn't count
towards that anyway so that could be extended indefinitely with no limit. The second exemption relating to automobile
parking means a parking garage could become indefInitely large. The affordable housing exemption seems to be an after-
thought. The changes are completely unnecessary. The ordinance originally was perfectly clear, strictly limiting a gross
ASHlAND PlANNING COMMISSION 2
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 11,2003
square footage of 45,000 square feet. He believes the 45,000 square foot limit should be reduced in the downtown. If
anything, we need to send the Council a decision that the original ordinance is well-written.
Chapman noted that outside the downtown there are parking requirements and height requirements.
Swales said the only areas we are discussing are the areas of high visibility.
McLaughlin said there are some areas that are excluded.
Chapman read a letter from Stan Druben, 125 Brooks Lane.
BILL STREET, 180 Mead Street, said the Council made the interpretation that would allow a 45,000 square foot footprint plus
a second floor of 45,000 square feet, plus a third floor of 45,000 square feet in the downtown. That would be a total of 135,000
square feet in the downtown. Everyone here tonight agrees that is too big. Street said it confuses the matter when the Plaza is
talked about as one building. People are not drawn to that area thinking it is one building. They see lots of little buildings with
very short fronts. That is much different than the 300 foot limit.
Street referred to the Addendum I Staff Report, page 1, stating 300 feet is the length limit. That is 100 yards. How could that
be a limit? It sounds more like an invitation to a builder. He asked the Commissioners to reconsider that limit. With reference
to page 3, #4 (no building should exceed 75,000 square feet), most people feel that is too big. Outside the downtown, you can
have a 75,000 square foot building consisting of commercial space and then you could add up to four stories with a 45,000
square foot footprint with residential units. This would be 180,000 square feet.
Street believes we need to modify this process and open it up wider. The numbers are incredibly large for this town. There is
some urgency. By the Council's interpretation, we are allowing 135,000 square feet. What does the Commission want this
town to look liked in 20 to 40 years? He proposed 150 foot length for downtown and a total maximum gross floor area of
30,000 square feet and a 10,000 square foot footprint. The Elks building has a 7,000 square foot footprint.
Chapman read an e-mail from WENDY EPPINGER
CHUCK. LAURENSON, 607 Forest Street, thought we needed to spend more time talking about the way we think about our
community values. A key value he hears people talking about is aesthetic value.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Swales said following closely on the heels of this proposed amendment is the proposed changes to the floor-area-ratio (FAR).
The floor area of the building cannot be more than half the square footage it sits on. The proposal would be to eliminate that.
He feels the FAR ratio should be part of the discussion, not separate. Swales is also concerned that the public was involved in
two charrettes, the downtown design charrette and the railroad property charrette. We've had the draft plans but they have
never been discussed. Both of these plans included large pieces of property that could potentially be developed. It seems all of
these issues need to be brought in when discussing the "big box".
Fields said he was involved in the original push to get the flISt ordinance passed. It took many hours of committee meetings
with the committee taking a lot of input and a lot discussion and then ending up with 45,000 square feet. He sees how this is a
much larger scale than there is today. He sees the parking structure and the theater as two separate structures. The actual size
of the tax lot and its coverage determines the pattern. He noted that at one time, the block from First to Second Streets was all
interconnected. 'It used to be a mall. We try to create an ordinance that captures all our concerns and the community may want
something that won't fit and it has to be denied because the ordinance won't allow it or a loophole is found and something is
built that no one likes. Fields said the thought is that maybe we can use commercial and large scale development to leverage us
into affordability. It is an urban affordability. He has been to places with a very dynamic commercial area and there are open
space and parks within multiple buildings. He would like to try and craft this ordinance in a bigger way. He doesn't see it as
fixing a mistake we made before. It was a reasonable interpretation and the political will was there regarding Shakespeare.
KenCairn said there is a discontinuity in the draft Railroad Plan and the FAR. Under the current planning ordinances,
buildings can't be built in the Railroad District that were conceptualized. There aren't any lots in the downtown that would
allow for 45,000 square feet ground floor. Can we come up with a differ~nt number for the downtown? With regard to
affordable housing, it seems like 45,000 limit on the ground floor and commercial should be set and if anything is over 45,000,
ASHlAND PlANNING COMMISSION 3
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 11, 2003
it needs to be residential with a certain percentage affordable.
Kistler agrees that he does not want to see "big box" stores coming into Ashland. However, he is not as fearful of what might
happen as he is of what we might lose. He uses the YMCA a few times a week. It seems the community uses the larger
projects the most. He sees his neighbors and friends at Bi-Mart and Shop 'N Kart. What is the harm to the community with
these projects?
Morris probably disagrees with the affordable housing piece. He would like to see affordable housing, but doubts from an
economic standpoint that it would be built. With regard to square footage, 75,000 seems excessive. Forty-five thousand does
not sound like that much. Three hundred feet is a long distance, but he believes the Design Standards would require breaking
up of that length.
Hanson did not see any reason to change the ordinance in the frrst place. He said "footprint" was thrown in to the get the
project approved. Seventy-five thousand square feet of building is atrocious. He believes the proposed ordinance is a waste of
time. He does not see anything in the range of 45,000 square feet happening in the downtown. There are places on Ashland
Street and in that area where larger buildings can be placed. He doesn't see having to regulate a 45,000 square foot footprint
downtown or in anyplace in the Site Review Zone. He believes it should be what the original ordinance said--45,000 square
feet gross.
Briggs liked what Swales said about tying it into the FAR. She never agreed that gross square footage meant footprint. She is
willing to stay with that. As much as she wants affordable housing, she would not want to see anything get any bigger than
45,000 square feet. She can see where parking doesn't necessarily have to count if it is underground. If it is on the roof there
would have to be parapet walls, etc. and that could change it a lot.
Hanson asked McLaughlin why we are put in the position of having to change the ordinance. Is it because those on the
Council (Hanson included) made that defmition of square footage? McLaughlin said the only reason it is before the
Commission is because the Council has said they want the ordinance clarified explicitly so there wouldn't just be an
interpretation.
Fields said there are times when we want buildings more than 45,000 square feet. How do you create a conditional use permit
based on who you like and what you need? You can't hold the YMCA or Shakespeare to a different standard than Wal-Mart.
There may be a time when 30,000 square feet of affordable housing would work. Hanson agreed there is a place for it.
KenCairn believes that in some cases the larger buildings with affordable housing are appropriate in the Detailed Site Review
Zone. You want that density of housing to be among those uses. Allowing it to be outside does set up the suburbia issue.
Chapman said he does not believe there is an emergency to this issue. Our ordinance has done a good job of protecting us from
the danger to locally owned businesses. He would like to get the opinion of those in commercial/retail businesses. He is
leaning towards going to the Council and say we need to focus this discussion on what we want to do with the downtown and
what we want to do with the Detailed Site Review Zone. Form a focus group for each area, meet again with the Council and
Planning Commission, and have more discussion before making a decision.
Swales suggested making a motion for Council to interpret the ordinance to say that gross square footage means gross floor
area, not footprint. At least that gives us a placeholder until we can hash out the details.
McLaughlin said he would check with the City Attorney and he will forward the recommendation.
Swales moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the Council interpret the existing "big box" ordinance with the
45,000 square foot gross square footage to mean gross floor area of all spaces. KenCairn seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 11, 2003
4
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
ADDENDUM I
January 14, 2003
PLANNING ACTION: 2001-069
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170
Legislative Amendments
REQUEST: Amendment of Chapter 18.72.050.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and
Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards regarding standards for large
buildings.
I. Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application:
In 1992, the City adopted new Commercial Development Standards including specific
limitations on the size of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone. A limitation of
45,000 sq. ft. was imposed.
In 2000, the City approved an application by the Oregon Shakespeare Festival that
involved a new theater and parking structure in downtown Ashland. Questions arose
about the application of the building size standards adopted in 1992. Specifically,
questions arose as to the application of the 45,000 sq. ft. standard and how it is measured,
, and is it appropriate to apply the standards downtown since so many buildings are
contiguous and possibly exceeding the standards already.
The Council ultimately interpreted the 45,000 sq. ft. requirement as applying to the
building footprint, making the following finding:
Condusions of Law: The City Council condudes as follows:
*****
~ Regarding #2 above and based upon Drawing Sheet A 1.0 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:
Planning Application 2001-069
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
January 14, 2003
Page 1
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.
The City Council does not interoret "aross SQuare footaQe of 45.000 SQuare feet" to mean
cross floor area SQuare footaae. This Quoted ohrase is to be interoreted as meanina 45.000
SQuare foot footorint. It is to be distinguished from those provisions of the land use ordinance that
specifically refer to gross floor area such as in section 1I-C-3 of the Site Design and Use
Standards ("Developments (1) involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,900 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 square footage of the building and found 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 1I-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 1I-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.
After the asp application, the Council directed the Staff to prepare amendments to the ordinance
that would reflect their interpretation of the ordinance, and to address the issue of the application
of the size standards within the downtown area.
Staff prepared those changes, but concerns were rai.sed that more discussion with the commWlity
was necessary to ensure that the changes proposed were in the best interest of future development
and community values. A study session was held with the Planning Commission and City
Council on June 25, 2002. That meeting provided the parameters for the ordinance amendments.
The issues to be addressed were:
1. Clarification as to how to measure the 45,000 sq. ft. referenced by the ordinance.
2. How to clarify the definition of a contiguous building.
3. How the ordinance amendments would be applied and impact the downtown
commercial area.
Planning Application 2001-069
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
January 14, 2003
Page 2
Proposed ordinance amendments were prepared and presented to the Planning Commission at a
study session on August 27, which included an option for larger buildings if affordable housing
was included. The proposed changes were generally well received, with recommendations for
clarifying some of the language.
Another study session was held on September 24, 2002 to bring back the final versions based on
the recommendations from the previous study session. The proposed ordinance amendments
presented in this report are based upon these previous meetings.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
The existing ordinance reads as follows:
Section 18.72.0SO.C. of the Ashland land Use Ordinance:
No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a gross
square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet Any building or
contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may
expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the gross square footage or
combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section shall be subject to any variance authorized
in the land Use Ordinance.
18.72.050.C. (proposed replacement for existing section)
1. Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings
in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform with the following standards:
a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be
considered as one building.
b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured
outside the exterior walls.
c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior
floor space and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following.exceptions:
1) Gross floor area associated with non-ground level residential uses shall not count
toward the total gross floor area.
2) Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, s'uch as rooftop
parking and under-structure parking, shall not count toward the total gross floor area.
3) Buildings larger than 45,000 sq. ft. but not ex~ing 75,000 sq. ft may be
approved through the Conditional Use Permit process, provided that in addition to complying with the
criteria for approval of a CUP, for each 1,500 sq. ft. of additional gross floor area beyond 45,000, a
residential unit is provided on-site for affordable housing at 80% median income in compliance with the
City's affordable housing requirements.
4) No building shall exceed 75,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, excluding non-ground
level residential square footage.
d. . Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet.
e. Any building or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed these limitations" which were
in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. The
building footprint area, gross floor area, or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section
Planning Application 200 1-069 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland January 14, 2003
Page 3
shall not be subject to any variance authorized in the land Use Ordinance.
2. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings
shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft.
Section 1 is set up to provide for specific standards for maximum building sizes outside of the
Downtown Design Standards zone, explicitly defines what constitutes cOntiguous buildings,
defines that measurements for 45,000 sq. ft. footprint are from outside the exterior walls, sets the
maximum gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft. with the exceptions for residential and parking areas.
A Conditional Use Process is provided for larger buildings up to 75,000 sq. ft., but still with only
a 45,000 sq. ft. footprint, but only if affordable housing is provided on site.
The affordable housing provision is included here as an option for developers. It is not
mandatory, but is provided under the reasoning that should someone want to construct a larger
building than normally allowed within Ashland, affordable housing should be provided for the
additional employees/workers that will be generated by the use.
Section 2 applies only to the Downtown Design Standards Zone, and limits buildings to 45,000
sq. ft., but does not require that the buildings be separated. They may continue to follow the
pattern established of common walVtouching wall buildings throughout downtown.
Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards currently reads:
No new buildings or contiguous groups of shall exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet or a
combined contiguous building. length of 300 feet. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which
exceed these limitations, and which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 150/0 in area or length
beyond their 1992 area or length.
The proposed changes to this standard is as follows:
Section 1I-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards is proposed to be replaced as follows:
Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the
Detail Site Review Zone shall conform with the following standards:
a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be
considered as one building.
b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured
outside the exterior walls.
c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior
floor space and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exceptions:
1) Gross floor area associated with non-ground level residential uses shall not count
toward the total gross floor area.
2) Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as rooftop
parking and under-structure parking, shall not count toward the total gross floor area.
3) Buildings larger than 45,000 sq. ft. but not exceeding 75,000 sq. ft may be
approved through the Conditional Use Permit process, provided that in addition to complying with the
Planning Application 2001-069
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
January 14, 2003
Page 4
criteria for approval of a CUP, for each 1,500 sq. ft. of additional gross floor area beyond 45,000, a
residential unit is provided on-site for affordable housing at 80% median income in compliance with the
City's affordable housing requirements.
4) No building shall exceed 75,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, excluding non-ground
level residential square footage.
d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet.
e. Any building or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed thes_eJimitations, which were
in existence in 1 ~2, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. The
building footprint area, gross floor area, or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section
shall not be subject to any vanance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance.
Inside the Downtown ~sign Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not
exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft.
The language proposed for the Site Design and Use Standards is essentially the same as proposed
in the new ordinance to ensure consistency.
And additional change to the Site Design and Use Standards is proposed regarding the location of
buildings on comer lots.
Section 1I-C-1 a) Orientation and Scale
1) Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area.
Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk.
Where buildings are located on a comer lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher
order street or to the lot comer at the intersection of the streets. Public sidewalks shall be provided
adjacent to a public street along the street frontage.
2) Building entrances shall be located within 10 feet of the public right of way to which they
are required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographic constraints, lot
configuration, designs where a greater setback results In an Improved access or for sites with
multiple buildings, such as shopping centers, where this standard Is met by other buildings.
BlIilc;lings that ar-o within 30 foot of the 6tr-OOt shall hQt.~e an cntr-anoo for pedostrians directly from the street
to tho builc;ling interior. This entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible, attractive and functional,
and shall be open to the public during all business hours.
1I-C-2b) StreetscaDe
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. This standard shall apply to both
street frontages on comer lots. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 2&9fo 65% of
the aggregate building frontage shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk.
These modifications are intended to ensure that new buildings on comer lots are oriented towards
the street on both frontages, and that an entrance is oriented to the major street or to the
intersection..
Planning Application 2001-069
Applicant: City of Ashland '.
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
January 14, 2003
Page 5
II. Project Impact
The impact of these changes is to amend the ordinance to be consistent with the direction given
to staff through the study sessions on this topic.
We believe that these changes will clarify the issues involved with the implementation of the
large scale development standards with new large buildings. It also clarifies- the role of the
ordinances in addressing development in the downtown, ensuring that new structures are
compatible with the existing development pattern.
Further, we have provided an option for larger buildings as a conditional use, if affordable
housing is provided concurrently with the development of the commercial building. As stated in
the ordinance, for each 1500 sq. ft. of floor area in excess of 45,000 sq. ft., an affordable housing
unit on-site would be required.
Should the Commission determine that no buildings should be allowed within Ashland's Detail
Site Review Zone larger than 45,000 sq. ft., this portion of the code can be easily modified.
ITI. Procedural- Reauired Burden of Proof
Chapter 18.108.140 of the Procedures Chapter regarding Legislative Amendments states
the following:
It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the land Use Ordinance or make
other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other
changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely
within the authority of the Council.
The City Council has directed the staff to provide amendments to the ordinance to clarify the
specific issues related to big box development.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendments as presented.
Planning Application 2001-069
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
January 14, 2003
Page 6
..
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
September 24, 2002
Planning Commissioners
John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
Proposed ~rdinance Amendments - Big Box Ordinance
Based upon discussions at the August 27 study session, we have prepared amendments to the proposed
changes in the Big Box ordinance:
18.72.050.C. (proposed replacement for existing section)
1. Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings In
the Detail Site Review Zone, 9XQoptiRg tho D9'flf\tQ'NA. D9GigR Standardt ZORe, shall confonn with the following
standards:
a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be
considered as one building.'
b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside
. ~ the exterior wall$.
c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet. including all interior floor
space and outdoor retan and storage areas, with the following exceptions:
1) Gross floor area associated with non-ground level residential uses shall not count
toward the total gross floor area. .
2) Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as rooftop
parking and under-structure parking, shall not count toward the total gross floor area.
, 3). Buildings larger than 45,000 sq. fl but not exceeding 75,000 sq. It may be approved
th~ough the Conditional Use Permit process, provided that in addition to complying with the criteria for approval
Qt. a CUP. for each' ~,500 sq. fl of additional gross .floor area beyond 45,000, a residential unit Is provided on-site
for aff~rdable housing at SOO.4 medi~ lOcome in compliance with the City's affordable h~ing requirements.
4) No building shall exceed 75,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, excluding non-ground level
residential squ~re footage.
d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feel
8. Any building or contiguous groups of buildings whfch exceed tf:aese limitations, which were in
existenCe In 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. The building
footprint area, gross floor area. or combined contiguous building length as set forth in th.is section shall not be'
. , subject to ~y vari8nce authorized in the land Use Ordlnance~
2.' , ~, . Inside. the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expa~ions of existing lnlUdiAQs iR the
'DG~Jnte'NA. D9aiQ~ Standards 'Z.QRQ shall not exceed a buildina footorint area of 45.000 sa. fl or a aross floor'
DEPARTMENT OF COUMUtITY DEVELOPMENT '
Plannkl8~ . , . Tel:641~
20 East Man Str8et Fax: 64100i88-6311
~,0nJg0n 8t62O 11Y: 800-735-2900
wwW.ashIInd.Or.us
~.l"
.
Section II-C-la) Orientation and Scale
1) Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building
entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Where buildings are
located on a comer lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot Comer at
the Intersection of the streets. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street
frontage. .
2) Building entrances shall be located within 10 feet of the public right of way to which they are
required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs
where a greater setback results In an improved access. or for sites with multiple buildings, such as
shopping centers, where this standard Is met by other buildings. Buildinga that aro within 30 foot of tho ttmot
shall havo an entranco for pedoGtriana directly from the atroet to the building intorior. This entrance shall be
designed to be clearly visible, attractive and functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours.
Conclusion:
It is Staff's opinion that the proposed modifications to the ordinance address the issues that have been raised
previously regarding the big box ordinance.
.........'.
::-t' ...
. It maintains a maximum footprint of 45,000 sq. ft.
. "ContiguoUs" has been replaced by common wall or walls that touch
. The Downtown, the "AU Street area, and other areas in the future that will have specific design standards
have been ~xcluded from the separation between buildings requirement, to ensure compatibility of new
structures with the historic patterns.
. An option for affordable housing has been provided.
. .,~....,
DEPARTMENT OF CC>>ttMUNITY DEVEL~M~
Planning DIvIsion let 641~
20 East Man Shet Fax: 641-488-6311
Ashland. Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.aShlandJJf.U8
r~'
-.-
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
August 27, 2002
Planning Commissioners ~
John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development ~
Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Big Box Ordinance
Based upon comments from the initial meeting regarding this topic on June 25, Staffhas prepared some
proposed ordinance amendments for the Commission to consider. While we believe that these address
the concerns raised, they are presented here in the hopes of generating discussion as well as solutions to
the concerns of the community.
1. How to measure the size of a building subject to Large Scale Development standards?
18.72.050.C. (proposed replacement for existing section)
1. New buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone, excepting the
Downtown Design Standards Zone, shall conform with the following standards:
a.
b.
exterior walls.
c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor
space and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exceptions:
Buildings sharing a common wall shall be considered as one building. .
Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured inside the
1) Gross floor area associated with non-ground level residential uses shall not count
toward the total gross floor area.
2) Buildings larger than 45,000 sq. ft. but not exceeding 75,000 sq. ft may be approved
through the Conditional Use Permit process, provided that in addition to complying with the criteria for approval
of a CUP, for each 1,500 sq. ft.' of additional gross floor area beyond 45,000, a residential unit is provided on-site
for affordable housing at 80% median income in compliance with the City's affordable housing requirements.'
3) No building shall exceed 75,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, excluding non-ground level
residential square footage.
d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet.
e. Any building or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in
exi~tence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. The building
footprint area, gross floor area, or ,combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section shall not be
subject to any variance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance.
2. New buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Downtown Design Standards Zone shall not
exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVElOPMENT
Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Mail Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TN: 800-735-2900
www.ashIand.or.us
r.l'
~
As shown, we are proposing a two-step approach in addressing this issue. We believe that there needs to
be a footprint standard that sets the maximum size of a single story building, and a gross floor area
standard that sets the maximum size of a multi-story building, but with a couple of twists: While the
standard limit on gross floor area would be 45,000 sq. ft., it could be increased, up to 75,000 sq. ft. if
affordable housing is also provided. This would be done through a conditional use permit process.
As a maximum example, if an applicant proposed a 45,000 sq. ft. footprint building, but wanted to add
30,000 sq. ft. of second floor area, they would have to provide 20 affordable units on site (I unit/I500
sq. ft. added beyond 45,000). Assuming that the residential units averaged 750 sq. ft., an additional
15,000 sq. ft. of area could be added to the building. This could end up being a 90,000 sq. ft. building,
or a two-story 45,000 sq. ft. building. Of course, the applicant could provide the affordable housing in a
separate building on the property, limiting the total size of the larger structure.
Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards would be modified to be consistent with the
ordinance amendment proposed.
2. Contiguous buildings.
We've attempted to remove the ambiguity associated with "contiguous buildings" by explicitly saying
that buildings connected by a common wall shall be considered as one building. Therefore, any
common wall buildings shall be weighed against all the standards as if they were one building. Further,
the standard -requiring that buildings be separated by the height of the tallest building or 60 feet is
recommended to not apply in the Downtown.
Section II-C-3a)3) of the Site Design and Use Standards:
For the purposes of this standard, buildings connected by a common wall shall be considered one
building. Buildings Rot ooRRecteGt by G cammOR 'Nail 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. This
standard shall not apply to new or existing structures in the Downtown Design Standards Zone.
3. Additional Changes
Staff has recommended that the standard regarding orientation be modified to clarify the standard if the
development is occurring on a comer lot. The intent of this standard was to get new buildings to have their
entrances toward the street. In staff' sopinion, when there is a comer lot, the entrance should be oriented towar(
the higher order street (arterial or collector) rather than a lower order side street, or that the entrance be oriented
toward the comer of the lot at the intersection.
DEPARTMENTOFCOMMUNnYD~OPMENT
Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Mail S1reet Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
WYtW.ashlancl.or.us
r~l
.
Section IT-C-!a) Orientation and Scale
1) Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building
entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Where buildings are
located on a comer lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot comer at
the Intersection of the streets. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street
frontage. .
2) Building entrances shall be located within 1 0 feet of the public right of way. Exceptions may be
granted for topographic constraints or for sites with multiple buildings, such as shopping centers, where
this standard is met by other buildings. 8uildiAgs that ar-e within 39 feet ef tRe street sl:lalll:lave an entr3Rce fer
pedestrion& Efireetly frem tl:le street to the l;n:.i1diRg inteFior. This entrance shall be designed to be attractive and
functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours.
Commission Discussion Points:
I. Maximum Building Size:
A. Staff is proposing 45,000 sq. ft. footprint. Is this appropriate?
B. Staff is proposing 45,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, with the possibility to expand to 75,000 sq. ft. if
affordable housing is provided. Is this the appropriate approach? The Commission may wish to
consider the concept of expanding gross floor area with an incentive for affordable housing further.
C. Maintaining the 300 foot length limit for the face of a building. Is this still considered an
appropriate limit?
D. The Downtown area is specifically separated in the standards, with limits on building footprint
(45,000 sq. ft.) and gross floor area (45,000 sq. ft.). It is exempt from the requirements for
separation of buildings, encouraging a pattern'similar to what has been established historically. The
proposed ordinance for the Downtown doesn't allow for the buildings larger than 45,000 sq. ft. of
gross floor area, even with residential incentives. Is this an appropriate approach?
n. Contiguous Buildings
A. We have explicitly stated that buildings connected by a common wall will be considered as one
building, except in the Downtown. Is this appropriate?
Ill. Orientation
A. Staff is propos~g to clarify issues related to building orientation based upon ambiguities discovered
in past applications. We are recommending that if the development is occurring on a comer lot, that the
entrance be located on the higher order street. Further, we're proposing that the ordinance explicitly
state that entrances be located within 10' of the right of way, unless there are subs~tial reasons to the
contrary. Is this appropriate?
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division Tel: 541~
20 East Man Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
r.l'
sr14" ~tfl)T s-"/
~ ..{>-. ~ ~.
~~ sl!:.
, i
\: i ~
! 10 6i ~~
~ ~ r-.~
,~~o
~ Z'"
8~
~lO
,
\
.\
i
\:
~ \
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
June 25, 2002
Honorable Mayor, City Council members, and Planning Commissioners
John McLaugWin, Director of Community Development
Initial Meeting - Big Box Ordinance Amendment Process
Enclosed you will find a packet of information on the City's current ordinances regulating commercial
, development, and more specifically large scale development (commonly known as the "big box"
ordinance). The joint study session scheduled for June 25 is the kickoff meeting for the revision of this
ordinance based on concerns rais(~d during the OSF New TheaterlParking Structure application.
BACKGROUND:
In 1992, the City adopted revised commercial development standards for all levels of commercial
development, from' small light industrial buildings to large retail commercial outlets. Part of the impetus
for this process was concern over informal proposals for anew Wal-Mart and a factory outlet shopping
center. As part of that process, specific standards were developed for large scale development. Large
scale development is defined as d1evelopment greater than 10,000 sq. ft. in size or is longer than 100' in
length or width, and located in th(~ Detail Site Review Zone. Further, the ordinance provided the
following maximum limits:
"No new buildings or contiguolLls groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall
exceed a gross square footage of.45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length
of 300 feel Any building or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed these limitations,
which were In existence In 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area
or length. Neither the gross sq[uare' footage or combined contiguous building length as set
forth In this section shall be subject to any variance auth~rized In the Land Use Ordinance."
Several issues arose during the OSF application regarding the application of the ordinance.
Item 1. How is the 45,000 sq. ft. maximum measured?
The current ordinance refe~rs to "gross square footage" but does not define the term. The City
Council interpreted that language to mean "footprint" and not gross floor area of a structure as part of
the OSF approval. That interpretation has been questioned by community members 8D:d by newer
members of the Council that were not part of that decision.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 91520 nY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us .
r.l
Item 2. What does "contiguous groups of buildings" mean?
The word "contiguous" was discussed during the OSF application, and there was some confusion
over the word. The City C9uncil ultimately interpreted it to mean "tOlLlChing", which is a common
definition. The first definition for contiguous in Websters New Riverside University is: 1. Sharing a
boundary or edge: touching. This is the defmition that Staff has used since adoption of the ordinance.
Item 3. Does the ordinance apply in the Downtown Overlay district?
The standards were applied to the OSF application, since the ordinance didn't exclude the
Downtown area. However, it was Staff's opinion that the original ordinance intended to exclude the
downtown, since it is made up of large "contiguous groups of buildings" that sometimes exceed the
current standards (the contiguous Plaza buildings exceed 300' in length, for example) and could
therefore be determined to be non-conforming. Further, it was Staff's: opinion that the specific
Downtown Design Standards, which are applied in addition to the bas:ic and detail site design standards
provide specific requirements for new development that will ensure appropriate scale and style of
development.
After ~e OSF application approval, the City Council members in offi,ce at the time directed Staff to
bring back ordinance amendments which clarified that the 45,000 sq. ft. limit applied to a building
footprint, and that the large scale development standards didn't apply in the Downtown Design
Standards zone. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the
changes at their August 14,2001 meeting. The Council started the he:aring process in September, 2001,
b~ delayed to consider other testimony. That has lead to the current process.
Staff Recommendation: At the joint study session on June 25, 2002, Staff will have a presentation on
the current Site Design and Use Standards and how they are and have been applied to projects within
Ashland. Also, we will explain the aspects related to large scale development.
We recommend that after the presentation, the Council and Planning Commission consider the following
items:
1. Are the size limits of the current ordinance appropriate? Footprint vs. gross floor area?
,2. Do the design standar~ address the relevant and important issues associated with commercial
and industrial development?
3. Should the maximum size limits apply within the downtoVtrn design standards zone?
4. Are there other items that should be considered as part of this process?
DEPART~ OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division Tel: 541-488-6305
20 EastMakl Sfreet Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us .
rj.'
mc~oo~~moooo~~~oz~~o
T~U~O~~~mo~~~~~~~~
~~~i~~2~~c~2a~~2~~
~Q~x-o~a~~~~~~~~~~%!
~oo ~o~(I) e;: ~"=::T~~3
~~~ ~~~i ~Wiiiig~l
_Q -g~~ sa =~~oo
~ ~ -, 3 - c: ~ ~ - :i; -tt
A3 ~2~g i~~~ 02~
bf- mooQOl CD ~c % S.
~W ~~~~ -- ~me
o ~O~CD ~ ~C~
: _,"0 0' ~ - =: <
, . ~ "2, 5' ~ 6" e: ~
o ~ 5' (I) ~ <5 2:
,..... - 00 0
0.... QO r;t CD
~ U I\) (I) (I)
~ ~ ~ ~
CD 5' ~ ~
~CDoo
~fit
CD"':-
(I)
0) (11 ~ ~ w W W I\) I\) I\) ~ ~.~ ~ ~
ON~O~N-~O)I\)~~~WN~WW
bmb~bbbbbbb~wm~m~~
oooooooooooomO)wo~o
ooooooooooo~moooO)m
o)01~~~WW~No)W~~NW~
ON~00N~(10)0100)~~WW~W
bmb~bbbbbbb~wwbb~~
ooooooooooowmNOOOO
OOOOOoOQooommoooom
W~I\)NWWNW~~~~~I\)~~~
mO~~~01~om01NmO~WN~o)
000010000000010001000
OJ
c
-.
-
Q.
-.
=
(Q
en
F:r
CD
UI
:E
~
::r
-.
=
)>
UI
::r
ii)
=
Q.
-
~
3
CD
~
f/)
c
OJ
3
CD
~
-
m
~
"C
a
x
3'
D)
-
CD
-
l"TIcnoz-i<cnozm::o<
~r+S>>(i)OCU;rifOOcu8~
9-g~3 9:~ E ~8 9:a-~=
cg. = .... 0 cu3 z 0-- CU 2. m ::J == O.
o -. "::J 3::J. - ~
::J~!I>r-c3:.?'. Oi3:~P.
.. z"TIg zzO. 03:3:
~ 8 3: I .? -< :c g z-< c)>'
~ ::J
~
N...a. ...a.
0)...a.0) N W ...a. ...a.~N
OClONCOClO~OO)o)ClO...a."""O
u.mN.wco................~~m........~........
...a. 01 0 W ...... 0 0) 01 N 0) 0 ClO.01
NNWWClOO~c.nO...a.ClOClO~
O1I\)W NW I\)
0010 PP 91
bbb 00 0 00
000 00 0 00
0000000000000
(i)(i)(i)(i) (i)(i)(i)(i) ~(i)(i)
aaaacnaaaa"oaa
UJUJUJUJ-CUJUJUJUJ6"=UJUJ
UJUJUJtncUJUJUJUJo UJUJ
:!!:!!:!!:!!~:!!:!!:!!:!!.,6':!!:!!
0800CDOOOO2;'000
o 00....0000_-,00
.., .., .., .., cO' .., .., .., .., m 2;- ., .,
~~~~!a~~~~+CD~~
lUlU lUlU CUQ)CU~ :CUQ)
-<(I) -<(I) -< -, -< -< -< -, -, -, -< -< -<
(I) ~ CD ro ro ~ ~ ~ (I) ro ro
UJ UJ UJ UJ en UJ ~ en en
-
-
~
G)
OJ
o
~
o
.,
Q.
--
::s
m
::s
(')
CD
o
-It
.,
o
3
Q.
~
CiJ
::s
r+
o
;:;
CD-
!'>>
.
.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
JOINT STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
JUNE 25, 2002
CALL TO ORDER - Planning Commission Chair Mike Gardiner called the meeting to order at 7: 10 p.m. Other Commissioners
present were Mike Morris, Ray Kistler, Russ Chapman, Kerry KenCaim, Alex Amarotico, Marilyn Briggs, Colin Swales, and
John Fields. Mayor Alan DeBoer was present along with Councilors Don Laws, Susan Reid, Chris Hearn, John Morrison,
Kate Jackson and Cate Hartzell. There were no absent members. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark
Knox, Maria Harris and Sue Yates.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE BIG BOX ORDINANCE - McLaughlin said after reviewing the OSF application, the Council
directed Staff to come back with some ordinance amendments to clarify the ordinance to match up with what the Council had
as their interpretation. When it got back to the Council there were some concerns raised that needed to be looked at more in
depth.
McLaughlin has outlined the process in the packet of materials sent to the Commission and Council. This is the frrst meeting
in the process. We will be trying to identify what the issues are that everyone is concerned with. Based on tonight's
discussion, Staff will take the suggestions tonight and come back in August for another study session. There will be a fmal
joint study session in September. The hearing before the Planning Commission will be scheduled for November and the City
Council in December.
McLaughlin gave a Power Point presentation showing various photos of buildings reflecting how the words in the Site Design
and Use Standards apply to what gets built on the ground. He gave square footages of buildings to help the Commission and
Council visualize the size of buildings.
McLaughlin said currently the ordinances that apply are primarily in the Site Design and Use Standards governing new
commercial and light industrial developm.ent. There are basic Site Review standards that apply to all development. The
Detailed Site Review standards apply within specific Detailed Site Review Zones. The zones are primarily along the
commercial corridors and the railroad property. It is a higher level of review generally with building design and orientation
and layout. The next level is Large Scale Development Standards. There is also a large section of the Site Design and Use
Standards .outlining specific standards to the Downtown.
The key part of the big box ordinance reads: "No new building or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detailed Site Review
Zone shall exceed a gross square footage of 45;000 square feet or combined contiguous building length of 300 feet". Neither
are subject to variances.
What is gross square footage? The Council has interpreted that to mean the footprint of the building. Gross floor area is the
sum of the different floors of the building.
The Plaza buildings from the Parkview building to the lower end of the Plaza are contiguous; they are touching. The Council
interpreted that contiguous means "touching". Those buildings have 37,000 square feet offootprint. There is about 70,000
square feet of floor area. Under today's standards, this would be allowable because it would be under 45,000 square feet. The
frontage, however, is 370 feet so it is longer than allowed. .
Most cities use gross floor area as a measurement. Some measure outdoor storage too. In some communities they were
looking at bulk and scale. How does it relate to the urban fabric around it?
McLaughlin said the 45,000 square feet slooms to be a big question: footprint or gross floor area. Is there some other limit that
should apply? Are there additional standards necessary? What about the downtown? His recollection from talks several years
ago is that the downtown was excluded. He believes we have adequate standards throughout the downtown to handle new
development.
Jackson asked what the height limitations are. McLaughlin said 40 feet in commercial and 35 feet in the downtown. Gardiner
asked how height relates to slope. McLaughlin said it's the average grade.
r
Swales wondered what the difference would be if a property is in the Historic District McLaughlin said the floor area ratios
are a minimum of .35 in a commercial zone and a maximum of .5 except in the Historic District because the pattern tends to be
more intense in the Historic District.
McLaughlin reiterated the Council has interpreted contiguous to mean touching. The ordinance requires that contiguous
buildings can be 45,000 square feet. If they are not contiguous, you have to be separated by the height of the tallest building.
If the front of the building is 240 feet, it is separated by at least 60 feet. The idea is that you create buildings with a rhythm that
is similar to what you see in commercial blocks.
Hartzell asked about the Staff Exhibit S-2, page 22, Staff Draft #1. McLaughlin said this was the draft of the original. Some
changes were made to it. He inserted this because he wanted to show the Council that they were excepting the C-I-D standards
originally. He thinks excepting C-l-D was inadvertently dropped during the revisions that took place.
Reid confmned McLaughlin's memory. After working on this for over a year, everyone knew they weren't talking about the
downtown because the downtown plan was the guiding principle for the downtown. This ordinance was for those commercial
areas outside the downtown.
Jackson thought if we don't exclude the downtown from the footprint square foot limit, we won't have the flexibility
downtown that we want.
KenCairn said that one of the questions they are being asked is if we are going to do this according to footprint or according to
gross area. If you combine the footprints of the New Theater and the parking structure, it is less than 45,000 square feet. Why
was there a requirement to put in the walkway? Was it because it was undefmed whether it was footprint or gross area? Is
Staffnow suggesting it should be footprint? McLaughlin said it was the-Council's interpretation.
Hartzell said what if, for example,. there is a square block. How deep could the buildings be if there was an open space in the
middle'and still stay within 45,000 square feet? Amarotico said 45 feet. It could probably be three stories 'high.
Briggs believes the ability to expand 15 percent in area or length beyond 1992, is language that leaves it wide open.
McLaughlin said that language was in because ofBi-Mart. That was our local business we all liked. We didn't want to
preclude them from being able to do a little to bit in order to maintain their position in the community and their competitive
spot. A building can expand 15 percent beyond their 1992 area or length. They only get that.
Laws' inclination is to go along with the intent of the big box ordinance that was to apply to other than the downtown. Refme
, it as appropriate for the areas outside the downtown. A second step we might want to do is to review the site patterns that
apply for downtown only and see if there is anything in our big box ordinance that we have developed that we would want to
add to the site review for downtown. We may also want to review tightening up the variance procedure.
Heam said the kind of projects .that people think of discouraging seem to require a sea of parking. The design standards that
are currently in effect downtown, coupled with the necessity of the sea of parking, make it impossible to do a reprehensible
project downtown.
The problem Swales has is with the new parking structure in the downtown. It was exempt from any downtown design
standards and not classified as a parking lot and got away from the landscaping requirements. Parking structures can be as big
as one likes. Now we want to exempt them from any size limits providing they meet the requirements of bulk and scale. It
seems like a hole in the ordinance.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
DAVID LANE said he was very much a part of the discussions in working on the current ordinance in 1991 and 1992. At that
time, there was a strong intent to maintain a hannony of development within Ashland. There was a great <;leal of concern Wal-
Mart would come here. The term "gross square footage", to the best of his memory, did in fact refer not to the footprint butto
the total of the floor areas. That would seem to be in keeping with the other communities. He said if the Commission and
Council use the term "footprint", it makes it difficult to decide what is part of the building and what is not.
Lane believes with regard to measuring interior space vs. exterior space, it is easier to measure exterior space.
JOINT STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
ASHLAND COY COUNCIL
MINUTES
JULY 9, 2002
2
ERIC NA VIKAS noticed that McLaughlin consistently avoided the term "gross square footage" in his presentation and
inserted the word "total". The ordinance is very clear. It states "gross square footage". This shows we are clearly trying to
manipulate language to distort the ordinance to promote larger scale development in the city. He believes this ordinance allows
buildings to be contiguous. The downtown is the most important in considering overscaled buildings. OSF set a precedent that
we will accept parking garages. Large scale parking garages and hotels can destroy the character of the downtown because
they become the dominant building type. He believes this ordinance prevents that. It tries to work toward small-scale
buildings.
PHILIP LANG, 758 B Street, said there has been a violation of the ordinances by the Planning Commission and City Council.
The ordinance clearly states 45,000 square feet is allowed for new buildings, not footprints. When OSF was built, there was a
reinterpretation of the ordinance. It is a clear ordinance and a good ordinance that needs enforcement.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL AND COMMISSION
Reid again stated the big box ordinance was not intended to apply to the downtown. She would like to separate the downtown
from the rest the ordinances; one for the downtown and one for the rest of the community.
Swales agrees with Reid. It seems that even though the big box ordinance is not the way to deal with the downtown, to exempt
the downtown from 45,000 square feet seems completely insane. It seems that many of the downtown design standards and the
big box ordinance apply to the downtown.
, Fields wondered what this ordinance even means. He believes it has been basically overruled since it was brought before them.
KenCairn said if you calculate a footprint and calculate a gross floor area, then the problem is solved.
Knox thinks every block in the downtown now would be somewhat non-conforming. What if Ashland Camera wanted to add a
second story? Do we want to preclude that? Don't forget to look at the Downtown Design Standards adopted a few years ago.
Buildings designed from lot line to lot line require a lot of vertical and horizontal deviations very similar to the other buildings
in the downtown.
McLaughlin~said the downtown standards are almost entirely focused on creating a storefront look and designed around retail
and second story spaces. What do you do when you come up with a use such as a theater? You don't make a theater look like a
store. You have to have a relief valve. Some things don't fit, but is important in the mix of the downtown. Parking is an
important issue in the downtown. The city has taken on the burden of providing for our downtown so we can get a good
,commercial environment along our streets. All the standards don't apply perfectly. As KenCaim said, do we look at gross
floor area, do we look at a footprint, or look at a combination. What do you want to accomplish? Some uses will require
looking at a footprint. Grocery stores are single level uses and they are hDportant to our community. There is a balance where
basic services are not excluded where we all end up driving to Medford for those services.
Laws suggested looking at all the buildings that have confonned. There are far more that have conformed than have gotten
exceptions. We need to get down to the basic issues of what we want for the future of Ashland. Let's draw up changes in the
standards as clear an unequivocal as possible with clear. guidelines. What do we mean by contiguous buildings? Do we want
contiguous buildings? Do we want them in the downtown? Do we want to stick with 45,000 square feet? Do we want to
count the footprint or square footage of the whole building? Do we want to apply both to the downtown and other zones?
Swales said there has been a lot of confusion with contiguous groups of buildings with regard to downtown. All we need to
sort this out is where it says "no new buildings or contiguous buildings", to make it especially clear by saying "no new
buildings or new contiguous groups of buildings". That would get around the fact that the downtown buildings under separate
ownership built at different times aren't contiguous buildings but separate buildings. The only other thing is to redefmegross
square footage as gross floor area at 45,000 square feet. That can be done either in a smaller footprint on multi-stories or a
large 45,000 footprint on one story.
McLaughlin said Staff can put something together from the comments tonight for the next meeting. He understands the variety
of issues.
JOINT STUDY SESSION
ASHlAND PlANNING COMMISSION
ASHlAND CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
JULY 9,2002
3
"
Fields said he thinks we need a redo of what 1>u1" parkmg structure solutions are going to be.
ZONE CHANGE AND ANNEXATION CHANGES RELATED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING - Molnar said the Housing Commission has,
over the past several months, been looking at changes to the approval standards that currently apply to zone changes and
annexations. The stimulus came from the request to rezone the Croman mill site (65 ac. industrial site). There was a zone
change request that would rezone about 60 percent residential. The applicant met with the Housing Commission a number of
times to discuss an interest of providing affordable housing in the project. There was a difference in opinion what Staff and the
Housing Commission felt affordable housing meant for the project versus what the applicant thought it meant. It seemed there
was a necessity to clarify that in the ordinance.
The housing needs analysis was recently completed. The study solidified what was felt to be an affordable housing crisis in
Ashland. The Action Plan is due to be completed in September of2002.
Tonight we are looking at a land use strategy or code provisions that encourage developers to produce affordable housing.
Generally, the provisions are voluntary. The state legislature about three years ago passed a rule prohibiting inclusionary
zoning.
The ordinance focuses on zone changes. The intended results of the proposed amendments would make the public need for
affordable housing explicit in the zone change criteria. Currently, it is fairly subjective. If an applicant is specifically
requesting a zone change based on providing affordable housing, let's defme what that is. It would make it easier for an
applicant to receive approval for an application for a zone change that has a positive impact on affordable housing. It sets
specific affordable targets for applications. A new provision is that the affordable housing that is provided is required to be
guaranteed by a deed restriction for a period of 60 years.
Where would these amendments apply? A zone change application involving an increafle in residential density from one
residential zoning designation to another. It would apply in certain commercial zones through the provision of a residential
overlay. Molnar gave the exampie Tara Labs requested as part of their application to build their building on Clover Lane, a
zone change for a residential overlay so they could anticipate building around six or seven units,at the back of the property
potentially for employees and increased security at night.
Where are the code language specifics? Twenty-five percent of the units would be available to renters or buyers at 80 percent
of the median area income. It allows the development to obtain a density bonus for the provision of affordable housing but not
to exceed an increase beyond 15 percent of the maximum allowable density.
Another provision for meeting the affordable housing is to build 15 percent of the units for buyers or renters with household
incomes that do not exceed 60 percent of the median area income.
The Housing Commission has grappled with the third provision. A developer could dedicate an amount of land to a non-profrt
housing development or comparable development corporation for the purpose of complying with the amendments above.
There is code language that effects the commercial properties that are seeking' to do residential development in conjunction
with commercial. ' The provisions above would remain the same. In addition, they would have to demonstrate that the zone
change would not negatively impact the city's inventory of commercial and industrial land.
The Planning Commission will review these changes at the July meeting. As Staff has thought about these changes, there
could be some potential unintended consequences of the changes. Are households we are targeting too low at 60 to 80 percent?
Given some of the fmdings from the Needs Analysis, there is a fairly large gap in the 75 to 125 percent of area median. .
Could the changes discourage smaller mixed-use projects? Low-income housing is more difficult to accommodate in smaller
market rate projects. Molnar referred to Tara Labs project again. Could the proposed changes be a deterrent? We already
have a lot of policies in place that encourage mixed use.
The main changes to the annexation criteria is whatever affordable housing target levels we establish for zone changes would
be consistent in the annexation criteria.
JOINT STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCil
MINUTES
JULY 9, 2002
4
\ .:...
":;. .
:.
-1-- Hit
. Sensing that some 'of their customers. are tired of trodging through stores the size of air]
............,..
BY DANIEL MCGINN .
AT 1I'IllST GLANCE THE HOME
. Depot in Elizabeth, N.]., looks
like the rest of the chain's .1,385
locations. But, insid~ it's dear
the store is a newtwiston the fa-
miliar big box. Gone are the 'shelves that
reach to the celling;.instead, racks are low-
er, e1imin"ting the ,feding, that you're.
trapped in: a bardware'jungle. Looking for
the lumber department? Good luck: this
.store cimies only a few two-by-foUl'S. The
biggest di(erence: at 41,000 square feet,
this :Home Depot is less than one third the
size f)f the chain's typical orange warehous.
es. 'The Elizabeth location is one example
of an innovation that may playa big role. in
. the m1ure of Home Depot.and,other mega-
tetailers: smaller stores. .
It's a surprising reversal Since, the
1980s, Americans have migrated to giant
36 NEWSWEEK JUNE I. 2881
;iJ:;~..~::.". :
:'~"'~:".~ .
." ..:. .4:
~.~:.:
~~~;t~
~~:'.."::.""I'..".
:" .. ".J
-category killers" like stapleS and Circuit
~ ~tem" tbatcombine groceries
with mass metdumdise, and warehouse
dubs, wIi= shoppers forgo oiceties like
grocery bags in favor of cheap stu1f stacked
to theraftezs. But across the shopping land-
scape there are signs that the supersize-
it formula is evolving. Some of the na-
tion's leading big-box retailers-Wal-Mart,
Home Depot and Best Buy among them-
are opening Mini-Me versions. For some
chains, it'$ a strategy driven by re8l-estate .
constraints and demographics. Bu,t it's. also
driven by a sense that although shoppers
love megastores' huge selection and low
prices; they're getting tired of spending
Saturday. afternoons trudging through
stores the size o( airplane hangars..
Wal-Mart leads the way in.this small-
.store-chic stmtegy. While supen:enters re-
main tJ:1e,company's big growth engine, the
~ has ~ quietly opened. 3i stnaller, .
Neighborhood Market stores in Arkansas,
1l::Ds, Oklahoma and Alalunn.J and ies
-opening as many as 20 more this' year. At
50,000 square f~ they're itsy-bitsy com-
pared with Wal-Mart's biggest stores. But
with Neighborhood. Markets, Wal-Mart is
re-aeating the traditional groccay store,
...Jimin"ting its selection of everything from
patio furniture to exotic fish and.aiming to
woo shoppers with easier parking, less
crowd~ aisles and quicker checkout.
Customers like Sheila Bernard, of Haltom
City, fThDs, find that appealing. She used to
do her' major grocery shoppi,ng .at mega-
stores, but now she's buying almost all her
food at NelghOorhood Market. "You don't
n~ to.walk: through -the:garden or cloth-
ing or automotive ,departments,- she says.
<<You zip in, get what you need and1eave.-
Small stores also help chains with an
~I
~.~" .
.. lane hangars, big retailers, like Wal-Mart and Home Depot, are starting to think small
.. ...,: .. ..~'.:'~
Alexander complex:. having no new worlds
to conquer. Within a. few years electronics
retailer Best Buy will have locations in
every market with enough peoJ?le to sup-
port its traditional 45,OOO-square-foot
. stores. 1b keep gn:JWing, it's opening stOres
that are two thirds that size, suitable for
smaller communities. --rhese megastores
~ trying to find a way to capture the popu-
lations in these smaIl markets,. 'says retail
consultant Kurt Barnard. Walking through
the newly opened "smaIl ~. Best Buy
in Newington, <Ann., managerJoe DeWald
points 'to subtle differences: His store :has
seven racks of CDs instead of the usual: 12.
Its appliance department has limited siZes
and colors. ManageJ'S hope that whatever
customers can't find in their sm;iller stores,
they'll order from Bestbuy.com. JaIiles
Damian, senior VP for store design, is now .
working on 2O,OOO~square-foot stores for
....+:~,~~~.....~.~
~~i~~~~~~;~~~~
t~:S~I.;:.:~:~i~':;
...............~:...:.....~.....''\o
~~t~~~
f.:ifrt.Y.a'.~~.
~~~~~~~~
~~~~:~,~..
"...~..::.-....:....:
. :.. ,.0, .':~' ",:
...,....'" ......a.u
even smaller towns. It's a cballenge, he
says, since size is part of the brand identity.
-You don't want to go too small," he says.
Not everydWn will get it right the first
time. In 1998 Home Depot opened four
smaI1 ViIJ,agers Hardware outlets in New
]etsey, including the ElizabetIi location.
They carried' tools, housewares and deco-
rating accessories, but not basics like lum-
ber and appliances. Home Depot sayS the
protoqpes were a great learning experi-
ence, but earlier this year it'abandoned the
fOrmat, converted the four locations into
sInan Home Depots and opened version
2.0 of its smaIl-store initiative, an "urban
format. in the Mill Basin section of
Brooklyn, N.~ The new goal is to shoehorn
downsized Home Depots into the smaller
plots ofland in cities. At 61,000 square feet,
Mill &sin is still less than half the normal
&iTA:AJsles ate six feet wide instead of eight
f~ and the store carries 30 percent fewer
items (no need for riding mowel'S in the
city). But it still stocks mainstays like lum-
ber and.adds urban essentials like closet .
organizers. -Vou have to put in what really
sells,. says store manager James Duffy.
"'l11ere's not a lot of room for mistakes."
Outside observers expect retailers to face
a learning auve in adapting the big-box for-
niula to smaller spaces. But in the long run
they're encoUJ.'8g00 by early signs that shop-
pers may grow to prefer convenience over
endless selection; some pros speculate that .
. chains like 'Thrget, Kohl's and 1bys "R" ~s
may follow the trend "It's almost like ~u
have to buffer all of that big-box abundance
with something more intimate and less
overwhelming,. says' Candace Corlett. of
WSL Strategic Retail. Anything that re-
duces the stress of shopping in the big-box
juDgleS Will be a welcome relief: .
,niNE ,. 2002 NEWSWEEK 37'
(. I:
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Synopsis:
Update on "Big Box" Ordinance Atitendment Process
Department of Community Development
April 16, 2002
John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
Greg Scoles, City Administrator
The City Council.has requested that staff provide revisions to the "Big Box"
ordinance - Chapter 18.72 of the land use ordinance. Specifically, the Council
requested that the ordinance be reVised to address the issues raised in the recent
aSF New Theater application.
Recommended changes were proposed by Staff in September, 2001, and further
discussed in February', 2002. The changes proposed were deemed to not be
comprehensive enough in their scope, and the Council requested the Staff conduct
a more involved process for the ordinance amendments.
A revised process is proposed here, with several meetings and review points. It is
estimated that if the process begins in June, we can have adoption by the City
Council in December, with the new standards becoming effective in January,
2003.
This process was not incl~ded in the Strategic Plan Goals recently adopted by the
City Council, nor included in the timeline for the completion of the new goals for
2002-2003. It is expected that this process will impact the timelines for the
Riparian Ordinance process, and with the completion of the planning efforts for
the Railroad Property and the Downtown.
Recommendation: Staffhas recommended that the following process be utilized for modification of
Chapter 18.72 regarding "Big Boxes:"
Joint Study Session - Planning Commission/City Council - June 25, 2002
This session would be used to provide the scope of the project, identify the
areas of the ordinance to be modified, and discuss the nature of the process.
Staff Research and Ordinance Draft -
Based on the scope of the project, Staff would prepare the appropriate
ordinance amendments to meet the desires of the City Council/Planning
Commission and the community.
Public Workshop/Study Session - August 27, 2002
Presentation of the draft ordinance and proposed changes. Opportunity for
comments, modifications, and suggestions.
Ir~.
Staff Redraft based on public comments
Joint Study Session - Planning Commission/City Council - September 24, 2002
Public work session on draft changes,
Planning Commission Public Hearing - November 12, 2002
. City Council Public Hearing - December 17, 2002
Fiscal Impact:
Ordinance research and drafting will be done by Staff. No consultant time is
proposed for this project.
Background:
The previous Council Communications have been included for background
information.
,..--
!'A~
.
Monison asked for clarification on the reasons for switching to the Housing Committee for review. HarTis explained
that the Housing Commission is more up to speed with Federal regulations, is likely to have a more relevant backgro\D1~
and have a better understanding of the coso program.
Public Hearing OPEN: 7:30 p.m.
PubJk: Hearing CLOSED: 7:30 p.m.
CO.Dellon Hartzell/Reld mls to add the following language for the allocation of CDBG Funds as, "7S~. for
prefenbly ont, and Dot more than two proJeets, fUDded throuch the eom~titive grant process... tt.
DISCUSSION: Reid noted that while she is not in opposldon she wanted to make it clear that by having two projects
staff could come back and say the cost of administration is greater than 20'.4 which would reduce the amount of money
available to give to the community. Monison stated his understanding is that there are presently more than two projects
and while we should remain sensitive to keeping administrative costs doWllt he believes it will not pose a problem.
Hearn clarified the language of the motion to show that the preference is for one project unless there is a special
circumstance. Hartzell noted that up to eight projects have been undertaken before so the reduction to one .or two will
be significant. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC fORUM
Erie Navklwl711 FaithlSpoke regarding space for putting up public posters in the downtown area. He felt that one
kiosk is DOt sufficient to ensure adequate public outreach and requested that additional space for posters be created. He
suggested the Chamber of Commerce and the new Library as potentia11ocatioos for new kiosks.
Zane JODesI2i3 W HerseylSpoke about the issues of speed limit enforcement and right-of-way law in the downtown
area, and expressed disappointment that the issue was not on this meeting's agenda. He encouraged immediate action
by the council.
WD Tho1USODl539 WalnutlSpoke regarding the redevelopment ofSisldyou Boulevard and safety issues for bicyclists
and pedestrians. He suggested timing the traffic signals on Main Street and felt that installing additional signal lights
would obstruct the flow of traffic. He enCouraged the use of drought resistant landscaping on the Boulevard.
CoIia $walesl461 AUisoDlSpoke concerning the new parking structure, noting the lack of use by the public, the
accwnulation oflitler there, tack of buffering for neighboring property owners, and how the structure negatively affects
the look of the area. He also commented on bow the ~Iocking of Main Street during rush hoursecmed to help in traffic
calming, and expressed concern about the proposed closure of Union Street in the SisldyouBou1evardproject, especially
in terms of Library access.
Sydney Slmasl210 CaUfonala St #lAlDiredor of Communication for Student Government at Southern Oregon
University (SOU), spoke concerning plans to facilitate a relationship with the city.
Brut nompson/S82 AlIisoalSpolce regarding Affordable Housing including accessory dwellin~ land trusts, and
posSl'bly allowing substandard size lot partitions in certain neighborhoods.
Mayor commented that additional kiosks are a good idea and will pass the idea on to staff.. He voiced the support of
the council for enforcing traffic safety and noted that measures are moving forward to adcfr1:ss the issues.
Amy GocIard/396 Bridge Street I#2JSupported the CUlTel1t "big box" ordinance and voiced her concern with the changes
that have already taken place in the community. She feels that large buildings change the "feel" of the community and
.that it is important to keep the buildings small.
Breat TJaompson/582 AlIIsonIFelt that we need to keep the current ordinance in place in order to maintain Ashland's
"small town" atmosphere. He stated that a 45,000 square foot footprint is beyond the scale for a small town community.
City Council Meeting 2-05-02
Page 2 of 5
He urged the council to consider reducing the footprint limit to 30,000 to 40,000 sq. ft., and encourage building to '
expand upward instead of out.
Bill Street/180 Mead Street/Commented on his choice to live in a "small town" atmosphere and questioned how to
keep it this way. He felt that theR are few ways to control growth, and that the current "big box" ord~ provides
a tool to help manage growth. He wged the council to seriously consider the size of the footprint He requested that
adequate thne be allowed for public input and that an evening discussion meeting be scheduled.
Erie Navickasnll FahhlCommented that the Mark Anthony building (currently Ashland~prings)has a 43,000 square
foot gross size, and urged consideration of that when assessing allowable footprint limitS. . He cited the Mo Jo Caf6 as
an example of a good size for downtown buildings.
Stan Druben/125 Brooks LandStated that a new interpretation of the "big box" ordinance would mean major changes
. to the community. He requested that there be an additional evening public meeting scheduled in order to allow public
input and stressed the importance of educating the commmtity on the consequences of the proposed changes. He
suggested that guidelines need to be better not bigger, and that a 45,OOO-sq. ft gross size is a very different thing from
a 45,OOO-sq. it. footprint
ColiD'Swalesl461 ADisoRlPresented photos of various sized buildings in town in order to illustrate how a 45,000 square
foot building footprint impaas the scale and feel of the city. He noted the problems associated with contiguous
buildings and bow design standards arc not being followed with current projects. He suggested ,tightening design
standards.
EUzabeth Bretkol1372. OregOD Street/Commented on the need to protect our "small town" and that the proposed
charages to the "big box" ordinance require public input before any cbanges are made. Spoke regarding the intention
of proposed changes and the resources that go into large-scale buildings. She stated that while growth is inevitable,
conscious growth is possible.
111e council discussed possible future meeting times in order to allow additional public input. The need for clarity,
. understanding, and consequences was noted. It was suggested that a regular daytime study session be scheduled ,and
that mother study session be scheduledjust prior to a regular council meeting. Barbara Christen~n. the City Recorder,
noted that council packet information on this issue is available to the Public via the City's website. Hanson voiced his
support of tile current wording of the ordinance and did not see the need tc) make changes. Nolte clarified that what is
in effect today is a council interpretation of the ordinance and the proposed changes would clarify that interpretation.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
I. Discussion of AFN and ISPs' relationship.
Electric &:. TelccommunicationsDirector Didc Wanderscbeidgave briefbackground information regarding the Ashland
Fiber Network (AFN) as an open network and the status of the nine current agreements with certified ISP's who provide
retaillntemet cable modem service via AFN. He explained that CUITeJttly AFN has no policy that deals with inquiries
from companies interested in becoming ueW,lSPs and how this creates operational problems. He outlinedthrec possl'ble
ways to remedy the situation: 1) Limit ISPs to the nine currently certified; 2) Grandfatherthe present nine, and increue
entry requirements for new ISPs; and 3) Initiate a moratorium on certifying new ISPs until July 2003. Staff
recommendation is option 3.
Coundlon HaDSODlMorrisoo mls to accept staff recommendation and the aty temponrily limit tbe total number
of AFN ISPs to tile nlDe that are currently certified witla the City utll July 2003, when the Issae wiD again be
reviewed. DisCUSSION: Staff was directed to measure the requirements and production of the existing ISPs wder
current agreement with the City. It was explained that all current agreements expire in July 2002 and that staff is
revishig new agreements with additional requirements. Voice Vote: AU AYES. Motion passed.
2. Review of TaIent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Interne Pipeline Decisions and Future Constnlctionofthe line from
Talent to Ashland.
Councilor Morrison stated his indirect relationship with the TAP project through his employment at Rogue Valley
Council of Governments (RVCOG). .
Public Works Director Paula Brown gave a brief overview of staff actions based on the Council's 1998 direction,
including review of I) Lost Creek Water Rights: Evaluate the strategy for the purchase of these water rights; timingt
quantity. etc.; 2) Review the process of changing the City's Talent lnigation District (lID) water rights from the City's
City Council Meeting 2-05-02
Page 3 of S
..
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMIITED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Synopsis:
Recommendation:
Fiscal Impact:
Background:
-
Discussion of amendments to the "big box" ordinance, Chapter 18.72 of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance
Department of Community Development
February 5, 2002 . h'\\
John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development ~
Greg Scoles, City Administrator
The City Council held a hearing on the proposed changes to the "big box"
ordinance on September 4, 2001. At that time, the COuncil delayed the adoption
of the changes to. allow for tQe scheduling of a study session to discuss the issues.
Due to difficulties in finding an open evening study session date for the entire
Council, the item was delayed to this point.
No recommendation. This is an item for discussion, and ultimate direction to
staff regarding any proposed changes.
None
The previous Council Communication from September 4 and the supporting
information has been included in this packet, as well as the minutes from both the
Planning Commission meeting and City Council meeting.
In addition, a new Staff Exhibit, S-5, has been included which appears to clarify
when the C-I-D reference was dropped from the ordinance. This exhibit is a staff
recommendation during the process of original adoption of the big box standards
that shows the current language III-A2 with a possible modification that ended up
dropping the C-I-D reference. The explanation of the staff suggestion in the
.memo makes no mention of the C-I-D zone. While this is a relatively minor
issue, it represents staff's understanding of the history of the ordinance and how it
came about.
. Also included in the packet .are the adopted Downtown Design Standards. The
Council asked for information regarding the extent that the Downtown is
regulated beyond other commercial areaS. All commercial and employment zones
are subject to the Basic Site Review Standards, while o~her areas are also subject
to the Detail Site Review Standards. The Downtown is included in these areas.
Further, the specific Downtown Design Standards also apply, providing a
progressively rigorous design standard process for applicants to follow in the
Downtown.
!'A~
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CIP' COUNCIL
September 4, 2001
Civic Center Councll Chambers, 1175 Eo Malo Street
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting 10 order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Cbambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Laws~ Reid~ Hartzell, Hanson. Morrison and Hearn were prcscnt.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 21, 2001 were approved with note to add a heading for the
Ordinance. Resolutions section.
SPECIAL.PRESENTATlONS &. AWARDS
1. Presentation by the Bicycle &. Peclestr1an Commission on current activities.
Kcri Green. chair for the commission, briefly highlighted the activities of the commission. Member Alexis Rewcastle
reported on issues that the conunission has worked on, including safety and promoting a monthly "car free" day. The
commission encourages participation through the school s~ mlwng school programs and flyers. Binders were
provided to the ~l, wbida are used as a rciourcc guide 10 the community. Member Carol Rogers reported that her
intmst is in education. Member Joan Spear.reported that she participates by providing directional signs for bike pathS
and slogans that encourage walkinglbiking. Member John Baxter commented positively on the community's contiouing
progress ~.promoting alternative modes of transportation. Member Da~d O1apman reported his interest in pedestrian
and bicyclist safety. He also provides computer support for the Commission's advertising. Hartzell. council liaison,
voiced her appreciation for the members of the commission and staff liaison Maria Harris.
Car Free Day is scheduled for Friday, September 21. 2001.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes 01 Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. ColDIDIIDity Emergency Response Team Enhancement. .
3. Ratlflcatioa of labor coatract between the City aa~ Labo!'ers Union LocaIIZl aDd IBEW Clerical
TedJnlaal Local 659.
Couodlon HansonIReid mls to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: aU A YES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC IlEARINGS .
1. A PublIc Heariog on an OrdInance ~ 1nPJ'd1~ Cbapter 18.62 orebe AshIaDd MuuidpaI Code - Land Use
OrcJln.ncf'. 81Qft1ding ttae detaU lite !'evlew zoae &taJldards for large bulkUDgs, and .meud1ng SectIon
n-c.3a(2) 01 the SIte DesIp and Use Standards.
Community Development Director, John McLaughlin, gave an explanation of d1e relevant portions of the ord~ the
process inwlwd in it.s cirafting, and the proposed changes. He clarifacd the Planning Boanf's findings chat the 45.000-
sq. ft. limit applies tp the footprint of the building and not the total square footage of the buildifl8, and that these
standards do not apply in the downtown area. He also addressed various questions concerning the application of the
ordinance and how it relates to maintaining the scale and desigo standards of the downtown area.
Reid noted that she was part of the committee that worked on the CUlTCnt ordinance and gave .an example of how solid
block design standards arc important to maintaining the downtown area's rich historic past.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:37 p.m.
Eric Nav1ckasl711 FaltblSpokc concerning his perception on how the ordinance change would allow inappropriate
building within the downtoWn area.
John Freedoml442 HoUy StreetlStated his agreement with ordinance and complimented the Planning Department in
the visioning and planning process that went into both the creation of the ordinance, and in maintaining the character of
.the town. He suggested that before changing what isn't broken. look at how we can embrace the process of creating a
. vision of where we want to be in 25 to 50 years. And once that is in place, and written into oW' comprehensive plan, then
begin the process of taking a look at our ordinances and how those ordinances fit in with the accomplishment of our
vision.
Page 10f6
City Council Meeting 9.04-0 I
Del)ble MJIIer/l60 Normal Avenue/Commented on her perception of how this ordinance might adversely affe<:t the
character of the city. She urged consideration of the ramifications of allowing big buildings, what the future holds, and
what kind of city we want to be.
CoUn Swalesl461 AlUsonINotcd that the footprint was never actually mentioned in the findings and wondered why it
is now a part of tile argument. Stated a concern about laws being rewritten by persons seeking loopholes in existing land
use ordinances. Contends there are several mistakes in the staff reports and that the amount of information provided to
the community was inadequate.
Bill Streetl1etter read Into the recordN oiced concerns about misinformation published liftbc public notice, as well
as lack of detail and an adequate tiri1e frame for public response. States the proposed changes dismantle the original
ordinance as it applies to the downtown area. He urges public education and involvement
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:57 p.m.
McLaughlin clarified that the proposed ordinance change should be Chapter 18.72, not Chapter t 8.62. He also noted
how the total ~ footage of a block is c:alcula1ed and how that ca1cu1ation serves to 1IJSIIDtbin the scale ofthc building
in the downtown area. Notes 1he YMCA building exceeds 45,000 square feet in tota1ll00r area.
Reid'noted dlat the downtown plan prolDJk:s the look of ~ CYal ifdlcy arc DOt sepm.1e and that this gives
flexibility in growth and m:lin~1JCe of tile area. Also that consistency and die ability to address problems as they arise
are needed
laws notes that the original ordinance clearly did not apply to the downtown area. Notes that the councirs intelpmation
of 1be 45,000 square foot issue was done with the input of1cga1 counsel He suppods the doWDlown area being a mixtuJ:e
of old and DeW, big and bulky, and claims the current downtown design ~ arc adequate to protect the ba1aDce.
Stated openness to the airing of various opinions on d1e subject.
The oomci1 discussed the need for additional1imc to consider the ~ct and intent of1hc proposed ordinanCe changes
and to allow more public input on the matter. .
CouncDon HansonIIIartzeD mls to delay fint readlag .of ordinance until the fint coundl meeting In October to
allow pub~ Input. Voice Vote: aU AYES. Motion paSsed. .
PUBUC FORUM
CoUn Swa1esl461 Allison StreetJUrged the City Council look very carefully at the proposed ordinance changes just
discussed. Spoke regarding Ashland Munjcipal Code Olapter 2:1.7 - atizen Involvement in Pluming. Swales noted
that.the previous mayor abandoned this part of tile ordinance. He. feels chis is an aq,ol1aDt part of the decision making
process and would like to see the Citizen Pluming Advisory Committee leinstated. Reid clarified that the CIP dissolved
because of lack of citizen interest due to lack of cmpoWCQllCDt in the decision making process.
.John Freeclomf442 Holly StreetlSpolcc about the recent edition of the City Source that included a poll vote regarding
welcome signs at the entrances to d1e city. Commented that pedestrian right-of-way is a major concem to aU ,who live
in town aDd nOticed that violations are raq>ant. Noted lack of specific language optiODS in poll wte. He A'YOIS being
vel}' direct with visitors regarding pedestrian right-of-way. Morrison clarifies thaUhe Traffic Safety Commission is
looking for additional ideas and will be open to considering other slogans.
Eric Navickas/711 Faith Ave! Feels there is a need for the city to promote the arts and suggested that 1% of public
projects to be allocated to funding the arts. Suggested that the present fire station expansion offer an opportunity to begin
funding the arts. Hartzell suggested bringing in other model ordinances or examples where conmmnities have funded
the arts in such a manner.
Elizabeth Bretko/1372 Oregon Street/Gave her thoughts on Car Free Day and how she feels Ashland currently bas too .
much car traffic and that this traffic detracts from the community feel of the city. EnCourages everyone to walk or ride
bikes. Mentioned uWomen Who Move Mountains,ft and the next meeting on September II, in Triangle park.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Update on water use.
Public Works Director Paula Brown reported that on August 1(/1 Stage 1 water curtailment was imposed. Previous to
the curtailment. water usage was DOt below 5.2 million gallons per day, with a peale, on August 106 of 6.4 million gallons
per day. Since the curtailment went into effect the average is 4.6 million gallons per day. This saves an average of I
Page 2 of6
~ityCouncU Meeting 9-04"() I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE: .
SUBMITIED BY:
APPROVED BY:
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land
Use Ordinance, Amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large
Buildings, and Amending Se.ction II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use
Standards.
Planning Department
. September 4, 2001
John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
Greg Scoles, City Administrator
Synopsis:
After approval of the new theater and parking structure for the Oregon
Shakespeare Festival, the City Council directed the .staff to prepare amendments
to the City's ordinance regarding site design standards for large buildings,
clarifying that the 45,000 sq. ft limitation applies to the building footprint area
and not to the gross floor area of the entire building, and that the standards not
apply within the downtown area. .
The attached ordinance provides the clarifications requested.
The Planning Commission held a hearing on this item at their August 14,2001
meeting, and recommended approval of the proposed changes.
Fiscal Impact: None.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the first reading of.the ordinanCe
as presented.
Background: The staff report and background information is available in the attached packet.
~~1I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING. CHAPTER 18.72 OF THE ASHLAND
. MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND USE ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE DETAIL SITE
REVIEW ZONE STANDARDS FOR LARGE BUilDINGS, AND AMENDING
SECTION.II-C-3a)2) OF THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 18.72.050.C. of the Ashland land Use Ordinance is amended to
read: (deletions in strikeout, additions in bold)
No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall
exceed a gross sq~are footage building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as
measured inside the exterior walls, ora combined contiguous building length of 300
feet. The footprint area does not include any areas with walls but no roof. Any
building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in
existence in 1992, may expand up. to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or
length. Neither the gross square footage building footprint area or combined
contiguous building length as set forth in this section shall be subject to any variance
authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. These provisions shall not apply to new or
existing structures in the Downtown De.sign Sta~dards Zone.
SECTION 2. Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards is amended to
read:
No new buildings or contiguous groups of shall exceed a gross square footage
building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured inside the exterior walls,
or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. The footprint area does not
include any areas with walls but no roof. Any building or contiguous group of .
buildings which exceed these limitations, and which were in existence in 1.992, may
expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. These ,
provisions shall not apply to new or existing structures in the Downtown Design
Standards Zone.
The foregoing ordinance was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of
, 2002.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
, .2002.
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
Conditional Use Pennit, they are going to turn J80 degrees and have a facility they can be comfortable with. His is not wiIJing
to take that leap.
KenCaim agrees with Chapman but she does not believe that they have that option because they already have the approval for
the Conditional Use Permit.
Gardiner believes, even though he agrees with a couple of Chapman's misgivings, that with the Conditions that apply to this
approval, and that with some modifications that will appease the neighbQrs and by moving to a level of maintaining the
property, keeping it clean and having a Iocaf contact will remedy problems existing now. He sees how the applicants have
responded to the Commission's concerns voiced at the July meeting.
Manis moved to approve Planning Action 2001-059 with the attached 14 Conditions and amended Condition 12. Amarotico
seconded the motion and it carried with Chapman voting "no".
TYPE III PLANNING ACTION
PLANNING ACnON 2001..069
REQUEST FOR AN ORDINACNE AMENDMENT - CLARlFICA nON OF 45,000 SQUARE FOOT MAXIUMUM
BUILDING FOOTPRINT IN THE DETAIL sITe REVIEW ZONE.
APPUCANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
McLaughlin said in 1m. the Commercial Development Standards were adopted that included a limitation on building size in
the Petailed Site Review (DSR) zone of 45,000 square feet. That includes downtown.Ashland. In the past year, the
Shakespeare Theater application came under that ~uirement The Council, in making their decision, made an interpretation
that said the 45.000 square feet is the footprint of the building. They also said this ordinance should not apply in the
downtown.. There are contiguous buiklings in the downtown and the way the ordinance is written. it would make most of
downtown non-confonning. We want the downtown to continue to be an intense development zone. . Council directed Staff to
clarify the ordinance.
They proposed a modification to the ordinance that states: "No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the DSR
zone shall exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured inside the exterior walls...~' "The footprint area
does not include any areas with walls but no roof."
McLaughlin said they came up with examples of areas that are walled but really don'( have an area to them such as enclosed
courtyards that are walled. It is not a gross interior floor area in the building,: but the footprint.
The information gathered when this ordinance was amended in 1992, included a list of existing buildings (see Exhibit 8-1). It
referred to the ground floor so it appeared to be the intent to look at the footprint of the building in crying to establish the
45,000 square foot maximum. That is the maximum mass they want to have.
McLaughlin said they have added language that these provisions shall not apply in the Downtown Design Standards. .In .
reviewing the record, there are a couple of staff versions of the ordinance that said there was a 45.000 square foot limit except
in the C- J -D zone. As the community discussed it, an option came up that there may be instances where we want larger
buildings so we should have a Conditional Use Permit process to allow buildings in excess of 45.000 square foot (Exhibit 8-3).
When it went through the hearing process, the Council removed the Conditional Use Pennit process saying they wanted to set a
flat lim it. McLaughlin ~ s guess is that when editing was done to remove the CUP portion, the remainder of the sentence was
also excluded. Mclaughlin has added a sentence: These provisions do not apply in the Downtown Design Standards zone
(map showing that area).
McLaughlin is recommending approval of the redefinition of 45,000 square feet and that it not apply in the Downtown zone.
Briggs has trouble counting the interior as the measurements instead of the exterior. She wants the document showing it has
.. always been done that way. She thinks it is confusing.
Mclaughlin said for the purposes ()f establishing parking demand and for accessory units, it has been the interior floor space
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
AUGUST 14, 2001
--.t.---- _..
that has been calculated. The impact is going to be minimal.
Fields added that il depends on the massing of the building and ~ight make a difference of only one to two percent, but you
might be losing exterior. detail.
Fields is not sure what "contiguous" means. Mountain View Retirement exceeded the massing and they resolved it by
rezoning it. With Shakespeare, because there is no parking requirement, you can say this is parking for downtown, not for
Shakespeare.
Mclaughlin said in tenns of contiguous, they are considered one building and the 45,000 square foot rule applies. (ftheyare
not contiguous, they have to be separated by at least 60 feet or some relationship to the height ofthe.building. Once you get to
buildings of that size and scale, they tend to take on the scale of a city block. Then you would want to separate the buildings
by a right-of-way width to get the rhythm that starts happening in city blocks. He believed a variance was granted for
Shakespeare. in the downtown.
McLaughlin said the Detailed Site Review zones are the more commercial Corridors such as downtown, Ashland Street
commercial area, and A Street and the recently redone railroad property.
Fields said we create this fmely worded ordinance but the motivating factor is developing r~ estate and making money on it
We wordsmith these rules when we see what bas happened before and what we don't want to have happen and that a web of
pennitted uses is created. People are so creative, they can adapt around these rules. The reaction that grew out of the "big
box" ordinance was Ashland losing its small town scale. That is the nature of change. Or, it will get so difficult to do anything
and too costly. He doesn't see the pressure right now to build anything d1is big. He doesn't see what the net result will be in
40 years. He believes this is a way of cleaning up this ordinance. He would support the adjusted wording.
McLaughlin said they could see this used in redevelopment changes.
Kistler sees this rule as a lost opportunity for some great things such as a community building.
PUBLIC HEARING
PHILIP LANG, 758 B Street said the problem is simple. An ordinance is passed, it is not enforced, or it is violated at will on
behalf of important people or institutions. If someone calls it, it is repealed. In 1997, he found the B&B ordinance was never
enforced. The ordinance was repealed. The ordinance amendment before the Commission is. result of the. Shakespeare
Festival parking lot. The building and the parking lot are contiguous and so this was clearly in violation of the whole intent of
the ordinance. It was an ordinance to protect us against exactly what has happened and now that it has happened, we don't
need the ordinance any more. He is opposed to the amendment.
Fields asked if Lang sees the 45,000 square foot gross limit as a total. Does he see remodeling the Mark Antony as a violation?
Lang said it is not the same. Fields said all of our other planning documents encourage density in the downtown. Everything
we are doing in the downtown is creating more density to be a wise use ofland.
Kistler asked if Lang sees any examples of a public good for the community where it would be okay to have a building over
45,000 square feet. What about the YMCA having the pool? It would seem he is more against the use than the size based on
.bis previous testimony. Lang said maybe both the use and the size. No one ever determined there was a public benefit in
turning over our parking lot to a $60 million asset private corporation. Yes, there is a valid issue with regard to public benefit.
Fields moved to approve Planning Action 200 1-069. KenCaim seconded the motion and it carried unan imously.
OTHER - Next month the Hearings Board changes. KenCaim volunteered to take Chris Hearn's spot on the September,
October, November, December Hearings Board.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES .
AUGUST 1~. 2001
6
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING ACTION: 2001-069
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170
Legislative Amendments
REQUEST: Amendment of Chapter 18.72.0S0.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and
Section ll-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards regarding standards for iarge
buildings.
I. Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application:
In 1992, the City adopted new Commercial Development Standards including specific
limitations on the size of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone. A limitation of
45,000 sq. ft. was imposed.
In 2000, the City approved an application.by the Oregon Shakespear Festival that
involved a new theater and parking structure in downtown Ashland. Questions arose
about the application of the building size standards adopted in 1992. Specifically,
questions arose as to the application of the 45,000 sq. ft. standard and how it is measured,
and is it appropriate to apply the standards downtown since so many buildings are
contiguous and possibly exceeding the standards already.
The Council ultimately interpreted the 45,000 sq. ft. requirement as applying to the
building footprint, making the following finding:
Conclusions of law: The City Council concludes as follows:
*****
9 Regarding #2 above and based upon Drawing Sheet A 1.0 at Record p. 192, the
proposed building has a gross floor area square footage less than 45,OOO.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) II-C-3-a-2 which both provide in pertinent part:
Planning Application 2001-069
Applicant: City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.
August 14, 2001
Page 1
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
The City Council does not interoret "oross SQuare footaae of 45.000 SQuare feef' to mean
oross floor area SQuare footaae. This ouoted ohrase is to be interoreted asmeanino 45.000
SQuare foot footorint. 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 gross floor 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 square footage of the building and found it to be less than 45,000 gross floor area
'square feel . 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 feel The City Council accepts an<fadopts
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 1I-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 1I-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 1I-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.
After the OSF application, the Council directed the Staff t~ prepare .amendments to the ordinance
.that would reflect their interpretation of the ordinance, and to address the issue of the application
of the size standards within the downtown area.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
The proposed ordinance changes are as follows:
Section 18.72.050.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is amended to read:
(deletions in ttrikeout, additions in bold)
No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a 9fQ6S
square footage building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured inside the exterior walls,
or a combined contiguous .building length of 300 feet. The footprint area does not Include any areas
with walls but no roof. . Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations,
Planning Application 2001-069 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland August 14, 2001
Page 2
which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or
length. Neither the gfe&& cquar.e footage building footprint area or combined contiguous building length
as set forth in this section shall be subject to a.ny variance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. These
provisions shall not apply to new or existing structures In the Downtown Design Standards Zone.
Section 1I-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards is amended to read:
(deletions in strikeolJt, additions in bold)
No new buildings or contiguous groups of shall exceed a gr.o&& cql::J3re footage building footprint area of
45,000 square feet as measured Inside the exterior walls, or a combined contiguous building .length of
300 feet. The footprint area does not Include any areas with walls but no roof. 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. These provisions shall not apply
to new or existing structures In the Downtown Design Standards Zone.
The specific language in the Site Design and Use Standards is slightly different than that of the
land use ordinance. The overall intent is exactly the same.
ll. Project ImDact
The impact of these changes is to amend the ordinance to be consistent with the City Council's
interpretation of their own ordinance in the OSF application. Further, in reviewing the file
regarding the original adoption of the commercial development standards, it was found that there
was comparative information on other buildings in Ashland that was used by the committee in
determining the 45,000 sq. ft. limitation. As seen on Staff Exhibit S-l, these measurements refer
to the "ground floor" in several instances, leading one to believe that it was the intent of the
ordinance to regulate building footprint (and thereby building scale) and not gross floor area
within several floors of a building. .
Regarding the application of the size standards within the downtown, also in reviewing the
original file, it was found that the staff drafts of the Site Design and Use Standards, exclusions
were proposed for the C-I-D zone (see Staff Exhibit S-2 and S-3). It appears that as the final
ordinance version was prepared (based on StaffDraft#2 - Exhibit 8-3) deleting the opportunity
for conditional use approval for building~ larger than 45,000 sq. ft., the language. regarding the
exclusion of the C-I-D zone was inadvertently also deleted.
The size and scale of downtown Ashland is based on historical development patterns. The
application of the size limits imposed by this . ordinance would result in a development pattern not
in keeping with the design that has proven so successful for our community.
III. . Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
Chapter 18.108.140 of the Procedures Chapter regarding Legislative Amendments states
the. following:
Planning Application 2001-069
Applicant: City of Ashland
AShland Planning Department - Staff Report
August 14,2001
Page 3
It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the land Use Ordinance or make other
legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other
changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely
within the authority of the Council.
In this instance, it is necessary to amend the ordinance to conform with the circumstances that
led the Council to interpret the ordinance to mean a 45,000 sq. ft. footprint, and to correct the
error of deleting the exclusion of the application of this section of the ordinance in the downtown
area.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendments as presented.
Planning Application 2001-069
Applicant: City of Ashland .
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
August 14,2001
Page 4
SDtf''' t tN'.fT S-1
..,
4
and Frontage Distances for Selected Buildings and groups of
Buildings
. .vepart.ment of Motor Vehicles
./ (Maximum Building Frontage)
Reid/Hanna Office Building
(Maximum Building Frontage)
Yerba Prima
(Maximum Building Frontage)
Churchill Hall
(Maximum Building Frontage)
Safeway
(Maximum Building Frontage)
i3i-Rite Shopping Center
.(Maximum Bullding Frontage)
Bi-Rite Shopping Center .(New proposal)
Bi-Hart/Shop&Kart stores
(Maximum Building-Frontage)
Albertson's (New)
(Maximum Building Frontage)
Downtown Plaza Buildings
(Maximum Building Frontage)
Ender's Block (between 1st and 2nd)
(Maximum Building Frontage)
Sentry (Ashland Shopping Center)
(Maximum Building Frontage)
. Ashland Shopping Center Buildings
(star, Thrifty'S, to D.J.'S, etc.)
(Maximum Building Frontage)
. Mark Antony Hotel
sose Library
(currently)
sose Library (Proposed)
Ashland Hills Inn
3,108
60'
3,996 (Ground Flotir)
110'
14[388
100'
13[660 (Ground Floor)
240'
26[000
180'
28,000
350'
48,872
60,000
380'
44[000
240'
37,000 (Ground Floor)
370'
29,.000 (Ground Fioor)
300'
31,~00
240'
52,800
400'
43,000
65[000
108[000
123,000
~II." WHi, ~JT S.. ~
E) Lighting:
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.
F) Building Materials:
1) Buildings shall include changes in
relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration,
fluted masomy, for at least 15% of the
exterior wall area.
2) Bright or neon paint colors used
extensivly to attract attention to the build-
ing or use are prohibited. Buildings may
not incorporate glass as a majority of the
building skin.
,
Page 22 Staff Draft # I
LEVEL III
Approval Standards: Any devel.
ment that is in conformance with a Special
Area Plan is not subject to a Level m
reVIew.
Developments (I) involving a gross
floor area. in excess of 1 0,000 square feet or .
a building frontage in excess of 100 feet in
length, (2) located wi~in the Detail Site
Review Zone, and (3) not in conformance
with a Special Area Plan shall, in addition to
compiyingwith the standards established in
Level land Level n, conform to the follow-
ing:
A) Orientation and Scale:
1) Developments shall divide large
building masses into heights and sizes that
relate to human scale by incorporatir.g
changes in building mass or direction, shel-
tering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions
on surfaces, windows, trees, and small
scale lighting.
2) No building or group of buildings
connected by common walls shall exceed a
gross square footage of 45,000 square feet,
except in the C-I-D zone.
3) No building frontage or co~tigu-
ous building frontages connected by a com-
inon wall shall exceed a length of300 feet,
except in the C-I-D zone. Buildings not
connected by a common wall shall be sepa-
rated by a distance equal to the height of the
tallest building. If more than a 100 foot'
overlap exists between buildings, than the
. separation shall be 60 feet.
.$T"fF f~Hll ~T S-3
"
ll-F2) Bright or neon paint colors
used extensivly to. attract attention to the
building or ~e are prohibited. Buildings
may not incorporate glass as a majority of
the building skin.
, III. Additional
Standards for. Large
Scale Projects
Developments (I) involving.a gross.
floor area in excessofl 0,000 square feet or
a builditig frontage in excess of 1 00 feet in
. length, (2) located within the Detail Site
Review Zone, shall, in addition to comply-
ing to the standards for Basic and De~1
Site review, shall conform to the followmg
standards:
A) Orientation and Scale:
ill-AI) Developments shall divide
large building masses into heights and sizes
that relate to human scale by incorporating
. . changes in building mass or direction, shel-
tering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions
.
Page 24 Staff Draft #2
on surfaces, windows~ trees, and small
scale lighting.
ffi-A2) Any buildinB_or group of
buildings COIUlectedbycommon wailS which
exceed a gross square footage of 45,000
square feet or a length of300 feet must be
reviewed through the Conditional Use Per-
mi~ (AMC.18.1~), except in the C-I-D
zone.
IU-A3JBuildings nOt COMected by a
Common wall shall be separated by a 4is-
tance equaf to the h~ight. of the tallest
building... If buildings 'are.more tIw1240
feet in length; the separation shall be 60
feet
ID-A4). All on-site circulation sys-
. terns shall incorpOrate a streetscape which
includes curbs, sidewalks, pedestrian scale
light standards, and street trees.
B) Public ~paces
m-Bl) One. square foot of plaza or
public sp8(:e shall be required for every 10
square teet of gross. floor area.
...
s.",.~ eJ,;' I~
~
;-&
,
Additional modifications to the Site Design and Use Standards (STAFF PROPOSALS)
There are a couple of areas where additional modifications have been suggested by the
staff regarding the new standards. These involve modifications of existing. buildings, or
integ~ated groups of buildings, greater than 300' in length; and for modifications of
existing buildings that non-conforming landscaping.
Modifications to the following sections are indicated in ~Jlllllj text.
(new section in I. Basic Site Review Standards)
G) Expansions of Existing Buildings or
Integrated .Groups of Buildings - Landscaping
Improvements Required:
1-61) For sites with non-conforming or
substandard landscaping, a percentage of the
. required landscaped area of a site, which is equal
to the percentage of the expansion of the building
shall be improved to the current standards of this
chapter and included as part of the site review
request.
This change would affect older buildings and developments with little or no landscaping.
Should the request involve a 20% increase in building size, then 20% of the area
required to be landscaped must be brought up to current standards, including trees,
ground cover, etc...
(current section - page 24)
ill-A2) Any building or group of
buildings comiected by common walls which
exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square
feet or a length of 300 feet must ~e reviewed
through the Conditional Use Permit (AMC
18.100), except in the C-I-D wne.
(possible modification)
..----. --
.....
IQ-A2) No new buildings or groups
of buildings connected by common walls shall
exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square
feet or a length of 300 feet. Modifications or
expansions of existing structure~in ex~ss. of the.
. ./J'f ISt~, SJz-~AL~ ~
(1~2-
l'
{.... ,}..-' --0'
~-=::;:.. .'_. .
c.- c,:\J
. 1:-
~ \ C';, :. </ .
~
above limitations may be allowed under the . '1,
Conditional Use Permit process (AMC 18.104). J (L-:J [e-t'7 ~> f.'~) J--r Iwd- J'Y..Ru/ /J /~. t { .~<~
C"_ --'..
. -......... . . . ~
This modification has been suggested based upon statements made at the last meeting ~
that the City Council may institute .a building size limitation, and the 'Planning \
Commission may wish to consider a change that would allow modifications or expansions )
of existing structures without making them non-conforming. __---/
-----
------- -----
-.' .:>-.
<:7'7 ~. /
2~
--~~ ------1"--
(
j/: ;-
0C)>
7oc:z..:-
I i
I I
. I
e<..-.....
~'\ (~';
/ \ : I /". '.
--_._..'-'x~:,~-_-~./'_ '-.., . -r--7-
I
!
. i .
.,.
.,
Brent. Thompson
.P.O. Box 201
Ashland, Or 97520
.-..--.-
22 October 2001
Ashland City Council
Ashland Planning Commission
20 East Main .
Ashland, Or 97520
----.--
Ae: Big Box Ordinance
Dear members o.f the Council and Planning Commission,
.The purpose of Ashland's.--Big BoX" ordinance should be to limit the footprint of
buildings not their square footage. But height limitations already in place in
conjunction with footprint limitations would result in restricting the total square "footage
<;>f buildings too.
Currently the .footprint of buildings can exceed one acre, or almost a city block.
That is inconsistent with the vision of preserving Ashland's small town feel and
inconsistent with building to a scale comfortable for people possessed with sensitivity
to their surroundings.
The maximum footprint size should be reduced to 40,000 square feet. Wrth two
stories such a building could be 80,000 square feet and with two and one half stories
nlore than 100.000 square feet. . .
Too often the council talks of preserving Ashland's small town feel.and then
votes in such a manner so as to undermine that vision. A case in point is the approval
of a new Shakespeare th~~ter potentially 2 1/2 times the size of the former Black
Swan Theater. The festival has grown beyond the scale appropriate for a small town,
yet only Councillors Laws and Fine were in tune with this issue. Councillor Reid and
Councillor Hansen were no1.
A further potential undermining of the vision of keeping Ashland a small town is
the absence of discussion about the ulUmate size of SOU and the acreage of the
campus itself. We need that discussion as well as a discussion as to what the
maximum city size should be both in terms of square mileage covered and in terms of
t~emaximum population to be accommodated.
With the -Big Box" ordinance the Council has an opportunity to adjust the size of
buildings to conform with a small town, not a town of 50,000 people. A small town.
simply should not have a proliferation of buildings with footprints .in excess of 1 acre.
In the case of bu~inesses, SOU and the hospital, many functions in those
operations can be -kicked upStairs" to provide, for example, more producti<;>n space or
more bed or patient treatment space on the first level. Busine.sses, SOU, and the
.
..
hospital do not need to continue to sprawl out on their campuses to meet their needs
or the needs of the community.
Ashland's density is 3000 people per square mile or less, but alternative forms of
transportation can only be truly viable if the density exceeds 5000 p~ople per square
mile. Thus, although many 01 us do not want more growth, we must try to
accommodate the .growth we are forced to accept by staying within our current city
limits, and that forces us to "go up and not" out" in all projects including City sponsored
projects. To do otherwise indicates a willingne~ to encroach on even more farm and
forest land, to destroy even more wildlife habitat, and to contribute to more exponential
traffic increases.
A clear, enforceable "Big Box" ordinance limiting footprints to less than bne acre
is an important piece of holding the line on sprawl and of preserving what is left of
Ashland's small town feel. Ordinances and policies to Increase density are not
~esirable ~ut ordinances and policies that yield sprawl are worse.
Sincerely.
~~
Brent Thompson .
'Y%;r-~~c/7
--
r-
SITE .DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION VI
. Downtown Design Standards
The purpose of the Downtown Design Standards is to respect the Downtown area's 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
applicant6, citizens, and community decision maker6 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 development or redevelopmen~ to be
within the context of 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 wit.h diverse individual buildings that collectively
create an organized. coordinated and ageless rhythm of buildings. As a collective group, the
downtown can retain its "sense of place," its economic b~se, its history and its citizens' vision.
Under the procedures of the City's Site Design and Review Process, an applicant wishing to
undertake facade changes must demonstrate the proposal meets all the design. standards in order
for the decision making body to approve the proposal. As such, the standards should help increase
objectivity and reduce subjectivity.
The Downtown Design Standards adopts the following standards that shall be used as part of the
land use approval process.
VI-A) Height
1) Building height !?hall vary from adjacent building!?, u!?ing either "stepped" parapet!? or !?lightly
dis6imilar. overall height to maintain the traditional "6taggered" street scape appearance. An
exception to thi!? standard would be having a building that have a distinctive vertical division/facade
treatment that "visually" separate!? it from adjacent building6 (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 10;
Avoid 3). .
2) Multi-6tory development is encouraged in the downtown (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, 6 & 10).
1
'lr
61ie~ /
=m/
heieht
multiple eurfau
~etsm:; sdel
intere5t
re6identla'
or commercial
uses aboV~
flret floor
clear -vitlWl'"
~ivI6lon of grou",
Iev~ floor
sru:t upp<< floor
awnif16s In-eak
at piLtster6
cfult1ge of .
nurterial at
"'ase
w1nd0w6anel
doort:; sre
trsnsparent
<61ass)
--
ILLU5~TION 1
RECOMMENDED
VI-B) Setback
1) Except for arcadesl alcoves and other recessed featuresl buildings shall maintain a zero setback
from the sidewalk or property line (lIfustration:.Recommend 215 & 10). 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 th.e public right-of-way to create a
ccsense of entry" either through design or use of materials (Illustration: Recommend 21 5, 6 & 10;
Avoid 3).
3) Recessed or projecting balconiesl verandas or other useable space above the ground level on
existing and new buildings shall not be incorporated in a street facing elevatil'.n (Illustration: Avoid
4&7).
rU17'1c sk.fews'~
acess door
to upper floon5
/ zero setback st
property line
.,.~.
--:.,.. -- -. ----.
6treet trees
RECOMMENDED
2
limited ground
floor
. tram;parency
(glaH)
no l7a6C or
cha~of
material
.,
"
AVOID
IllUS.U. TION :3
VI-C) Width
1) The width of a building ehall extend from eide lot line to side lot line (Illustration: Recommend 5).
An exception to this etandard would be an area specifically designed as plaza space, courtyard
epace, dining epace or rear access for public pedestrian walkways.
2) LoU; greater than 80' in width shall reepect the traditional width of buildings in the downtown
area by incorporating a rhythmic divieion of the facade in the building's design (I//ustration:
Recommend 5 & 10). -
VI-D) Openings
. 1) Ground level elevations facing a street ehall maintain a consistent proportion of transparency
(i.e., windows) compatible with the pattern found in the downtown area (II/uetration: Recommend
1, 5, 6, & 10).
2) Scale and proportion of altered or added building elemente, 6uch as the size and relationship of
new windows, dooro, entrancee, columns and other building fea.tures shall be visually compatible with
the original architectural character of the building (Illustration: Recommend 5 & 6; Avoid 4 & 9).
· horizotttal proportion and laole of
rhythm do not re&ot'the hl6torio
structural system of the exlsttne "u1lait1i1
T-111 slt:li~ - unaeslral7le
exterior finish material
coven; exl6ti~
mezzanine wfnaow ana
architectural details
projecti~
"alc;onies
are
prohibited
no -sense .
of entKY'
l2Mo.re
~r
3
AV()ln
lLLU~lEAJlOOA
primsrify
v~I
wlndowts
well defined cornice or "cap"'
,..--- \
promitlMt horizontal rhythms s~ clear visual
divi5lon between street level .~ upp<< floor6
r- - ..
wI~0W6 do
not l1reak
the front
pfaneofthe
- 11u1k:f1~
Pt"
(,..., . ;. \
.: 4 ~ ,I
. .
. .. ..\
. .
J'" ~ \
. ~i
../
marC\uus ,re OK :
to Cro66 pilaeter6
~~r'~
pede6tNn -
sheftere -
tNll~ln
hortzont.l
rhythms
~ entrieS~ ./
,. "eenee of Of' Invitl~ entrY'
ILLUSTRATION 5
RECOMMENDED
3) Upper floor window orientation shalf primarily be vertical (height greater than width) (flfustration:
Recommend 1, 5 & 6; Avoid 8).
4) Except for transom windows, windows shaU not break the front plane of th.e building (I/fustration:
Recommend 5).
5) Ground level entry doors shall be primarily transparent (J1Justration: Recommend 10; Avoid 4).
6) Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians such as decorative columns or decorative
corbeling shaU be provided adjacent to the sidewalk (J1Justration: Recommend 1 & 5; Avoid 4 & 7).
Blank waUs adjacent to a public sidewalk are prohibited.
VI-E) Horizontal ~hythms
1) Prominent horizontal/inef3at f3imilar levelf3 along the f3treet'f3 ~treetfront f3hall be maintained
(Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, 6 & 10; Avoid 4 & 8).
2) A clear vif3ual division f3hall be maintained between ground level floor and upperfloorf3 (l/fuf3tration:
Recommend 1, 5, 6 & 10).
3) Buifdings shalf 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 "f3ense of strength"
(Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, & 10; Avoid 4, & 8).
VI-F) Vertical Rhythms
1) Newconstruction orf3torefront remodelf3 f3haf{ reflect a vertical orientation, either through actual
. .
volumef3 or the use of f3urface detailf3 to divide large walls, f30 8f3 to reflect the underlying historic
property lines (lIIuf3tration: Recommend 5 & 6; Avoid 3)~
4
.,
i
vertically porportK>nea
wiM0W6 at 6ecoM aM
third floors "-..
maintained architectural
detad aM mezzanine
wiM0W6
"-
well
defined
cornice
or.cap"
4- "'I
~
~n
6helter
~
aft.tt
IllU5"~A"lDN 6
RECOMMENDED
2) Storefront remodeling or upper-!5tory addition6 .ehatt reflect the traditional etructural eystem
of the volume by matching the epacing and rhythm of historic opening6 and 6urface detailing
(Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4& 9).
VI-G) Roof Forms
1) Sloped or re6idential style roof forms are discouraged in the downtown ~rea unless visually
ecreened 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 (lI1ustration: Recommend
1, 5 & 10; Avoid 7).
limltM
storefront
w1Me:tow area
upper floor
l7a1cony
.(~or
~jec;tine) are
prohlWtea
roof form 15
inconsistent with
pattern founa In .
the downtown
I7Bscls
too hi9h
^VOID
~U5TRAnON 7
VI-H) Material6
1) Exterior building materials shall consist of traditional building materials found in the downtown
. area including block, brick, pa.inted wood, smooth stucco or natural stone (lI1ustration: Avoid 4 &
9).
5
""
"
2) In order to add visual interest, buildings are encouraged to incorporate complex "paneled"
exteriors with columns, framed bays, transoms and windows to create multiple surface levels
(Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 10; Avoid 7, 8 & 9).
no defineel top or "cap" ___
winaawt; do not
reflect a
vertical
orientation
-
no prominent
. horizotTtal .
alignment
. " no continuity of
openlne 5ize.
6paclng.
horizontal or
vertical rhythm5
ba5e i5 too
high aM not
continuous
IllUSTRATION 8
AVOID
VI-I) Awnings, Marquees or Similar Ped~strian Shelters
1) Awnings, marquees or similar pedestrian shelters shall be proportionate to the building and shall
not obscure the building's architectural details. If mezzanine or transom windows exist, awnin.g
placement shall be below the mezzanine or transom windows where feasible (1I1ustration: Recommend
1, 5, 6 & 10; Avoid 4 & 9).
2) Except for marquees, similar pedestrian shelte~ such as awnings shall be placed between
pilasters (Illustration: Recommend 1 & 5; Avoid 9).
~) Storefronts with prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the!3treetfrontshall maintain
a consistent horizontal rhythm by their respective sidewalk coverings (Illustration: Recommend 5;
Avoid 8).
Vi-J) Other
J) Non-street or alley facing elt?vations are less significant than street facing elevations. Rear and
sidewalls of buildings .may therefore be fairly simple, e.g., 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 building
elements. This shall include such features as the vertical/ines.of columns, piers, the horizontal
. definition of spandrels and cornices, and other primary structural and decorative elements
(Illustration.: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 & 9). .
6
~
.,. I
removal of cornice and
/" architectural detail5
.. _. 0_. .- -.
~ non-compatible
flnb;h material
alter~ window
poportion
awni~ covere
mezzanine
wind0W5
removal of
architectural
detail5
no ba5e
~ afi<< ILLU5TRA nON 9
AVOID
:3) Re!3toration, rehabilitation or remodeling project!3 !3hall incorporate, whenever po~~ible,
original de!3ign element6 that were previou~1y removed, remodeled or covered over (/1Iu~tration:
Recommend 6; Avoid 4 & 9),
4) Park'ng lot-s': adjacent to the pede~trian path are prohibited (Refer to Site De~ig':' and U~e
Standard~, Section 11-0, for Parking Lot Land~caping and Screening Standards). An exception to
thi~ ~tandard would be path~ required for handicapped acce~~ibility.
51ightly di55imila
roof height ~
"'balance of
5ymmetty with
horizorital and
vertical
rllythm5
mezzanine
wind0W5 are not
ol:15tructed
retail or
commercial
U5e5 al1ovt:
firetfloor
retail or
office 5pace
well. defined "cap"
large 5torefront
wind0W5 are a
common pattern
found in the
downtown
. rece55ed
efTtrie5
create a
5en5e of or
inviting
entry"
RECOMMENDED
tLLlJ;J.I~6IIOJ:ilQ
5) Pede~trian amenitie~ ~uch a~ broad ~;dewalk~, ~urface detail~ on ~;dewalk~, arcade~, alcove~,
colonnade~, port;coe~, awning~, and ~idewalk ~eating ~hall be provided where po~~ible and fe~~ible.
7
..
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.
VI-K) Except.ion to St.andards: 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 demo~strable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a
unique or unusual aspect of the site, an existing structure 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: (Refer to Illustration 11)
3) The exception. requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the
Downtown Design Standards.
zero setback -
directly behind
sidewalk I
this small reces6M l:1alcony aoe6 not dramatically
deviate from the downtown'6 exi6tine context -the
majority of the facade 16 at a zero 6eWad::
1'eCe66ed l:1alcony -
with front I:1uIIdi .'
facade having a
zero ~~Ck
.horizontal and
vertical rythm~
provide symmetry
I
(side profile) siaewalk
'ILLU5TRA TlQtU1
EXAMPLE - POSSIBLE EXCEPTION DESIGN
8
~
~
...
(I
Definitions:
Addit.ion: Construction that increase6 the 6ize oft.he original structure by building outside exi6ting
walls and/or roof.
Alcove: Any small reces6ed or niched space,
Arcade: A covered pa6sageway with a 6erie6 of open archways on one or both sides,
Awning: A lightweight, exterior roof-like shade that projects over a window or door.'
Balcony: A railed or balustrade platform that project6 from a wall.
Bay: 1. A repetitive vertical subdivision of an exterior facade; may be defined by various means,
including pilasur6 and wall openings. 2. A door or window opening in a facade, especially when
defined by repetitive columns or arches.
Cast Stone: A mixture of stone chips or fragment6, usually embedded in a matrix of mortar, cement
or pla6ter; the surface may be ground, polished, molded, or otherwise treated to simulate stone,
Column: A slender, vertical element. that supports part of a building or structu~e.
Corbel: 1. A horizontal masonry band with continuous or intermittent corbels. 2. A stepped portion
of a masonry wall; the steps may be on top or on the bottom.
Cornice: The projecting moldings forming the top band of a w~1I or other element,
Courtyard: An exterior space surrounded on three or four sides by building and/or walls.
Decorative: Treatment applied to the 6urface of a building or structure to enhance it6 beauty.
Easement: A deed restriction on a property giving 6Omeone be6ides the property oWner rights to
use or enjoy the prope~.
Elevation: A scaled drawing which illustrates the view of a side of a building,
Facade: Any of the exterior faces of a building.
False Front: A building facade that extends above the roof or beyond the side walls in order to give
the impression of a larger structure.
Historic: A structure or site, usually over fifty years old, which possesses historical or architectural
6ignificance according to the Cultural Resources Inventory (1988-89) of the Ci~y of Ashland and/or
9
r
~
based on the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Marq,uee: A permanent roof-like shelter over an entrance to a ~uilding; flat in shape.
Mezzanine: A partial intermediate floor between two main levels, especiaJly directly above the
ground floor; often has a lower ceiling height than the other levels,
Mezzanine Window: A window with a greater width than height, especially when used to provide light
to an intermediate floor.
Orientation: The directional expression of the front facade of a building; Le., facing the street, facing
north, facing south.
Panel: A small plane 6utface surrounded by moldings or depressed below or raised above the
adjacent surface; typically rectangular but may be any geometric shape; may be ornamented.
Parapet: A low guarding wall that projects above the roof line,
Pier: A member, usually in the form of a thickened section, which forms an integral part of a wall;
usually placed at intervals along the wall to provide lateral support or to take concentrated vertical
loads.
Pilaster: An engaged pier or pillar, often with capital and base; may be constructed as a projection
of the wall itself,
Plaza: An open public space.
Rehabilitation: Refer to Section IV-A for definition and Section IV-B 1-11 for applicable sta'ndards.
Remodel: Refer to Section IV-A for definition and Section IV-B 1-11 for applicable standards.
Restoration: Refer to Section IV-A for definition.
Spandrels: An area, roughly triangular in shape, included between the extradoses of two adjoining
arches and a line approximately connecting their crowns.
Transom Window: A glazed or clear opening above a door or window.
Transparency: A clear opening or window; clear enough to see through.
Veranda: An open-sided, raised sitting area with thin columns that support its roof; typically
extends along an entire wall, or wraps aro~nd a corner.
10
The fil.ht on big-box blight
\.
Page 1 of3
~
~
.-
14
Cbarlott..-m
Posted on Mon, Jun. 17, 2002
"',Qaddt~
The fight on big-box blight
SCOTT DODD
Staff Writer
Charlotte's new warning to big-box developers: If you build it, you might have to pay so we can tear it
down someday.
City planners say that anyone who wants to build a giant discount store such as a Wal-Mart or Target --
a staple of Charlotte suburbs for decades -- must also provide the means for the city to destroy the
building if the store closes and remains empty.
The new policy also requires big boxes to be part of larger, mixed-use developments that include other
stores, offices, even apartments -- and meet higher architectural standards than the usual windowless
shells that give the buildings their name.
"We're not going to accept some corporate, logo-stamped de~ign," said Charlotte Planning Director
Martin Cramton.
If the popular chains -- which typically build identical models all over the country -- object to the policy
and threaten to move outside the countY, "My attitude is, let them go someplace else," Cramton said.
The City Council has not been presented with the policy yet, but members Lynn Wheeler and Don
. Lochman said th~y're skeptical of the Idea of requiring a bond for potentially demolishing new big-box
stores because it could mean too much government interference.
"I think there are other ways that we can encourage developers to redevelop the vacant big boxes
without Imposing stringent measures on them," said Wheeler, chairman of the council's Economic
. Development and Planning Committee. "I just think that at some point, we need to let the market
decide. "
Both Wheeler and Lochman said they supported tougher design and architectural requirements for big
boxes.
The new requirements, which planners quietly have begun to enforce with recent zoning applicants,
would make it difficult to build the type of Single-anchor shopping center that has proliferated across the
country for two decades.
:Cramton and the planning staff don't make the ultimate decision, however. The Planning Commission
http://www.charlotte.comlmldJobserver/news/local/3484745.htm ?template=contentModUles 06/18/2002
The fight on big-box blight
Page 2of3
~ ~
makes a recommendation to the City Council, which has the final say on a developer's rezoning
application. Builders -- in some cases the anchor store, in others a developer -- usually need to rezone
property before creating a new shopping center, and they negotiate with planners to get their
endorsement.
So Cramton has some authority to enforce his new direction. Builders who don't_ f~lIow the guidelines
would get a thumbs down from the planning staff -- which often leads to a "no" vote from City Council.
"The only way you will have staff support," Cramton said, "is if you agree to these conditions."
Planners see the proliferation. of big boxes as a threat to the city's continuing vitality. Charlotte ~as
allowed dozens to be built on city corridors. But they often have a short life span -- usually 10 to 15
years -- before they close and the tenants move farther out in the suburbs,
For two years now, city planners have wrestled with the problem, and several City Council members
have said they want to see a change. More than 30 empty big boxes were identified in a recent report,
the first of its kind.
City leaders and real estate professionals agreed that number was a problem.
When the stores move, they leave behind empty husks surrounded by hundreds of parking spaces.
Though big boxes are increasingly being built as stand-alone stores, older ones often have shops around
them that close when the anchor stores are no longer there to draw shoppers.
"It's an economic domino," city councilwoman Nancy Carter said last year when discussing the high
number of empty boxes in her east Charlotte district. "It hurts the economy. It hurts the neighbors. It
scares people away."
Last year, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission studied the problem and proposed several
pOSSible reforms.
One of them was requiring developers to put up a bond or place money in escrow when they build a big
box., David Anderson, who was then chairman of the planning commission, came up with the idea along
with a real-estate professional he won't name.
If the store closes and stays empty long enough, the city could use that money to demolish it and
redevelop the site.
Cramton said planners are now using that approach with two current developers who want to build big-
box stores and will do so in the future.
. The amount of money the developers would have to put up is still being negotiated, like many other
details of their proposals. Developers and planning staff routinely negotiate design, parking and other
elements of projects.
http://www.charlotte.comlmld/observer/news/local/3484745.htm ?template=contentModules 06/18/2002
The fight on big-box blight
-\
I t,
Page 3 of3
....
<<
. ~either1tteveloper has filed a rezoning application yet. One wants to build a Wal-Mart Supercenter at
Sardis Road North and Monroe Road. The other has plans for big-box stores near a proposed regional
mall in north Charlotte off Interstate 77.
Cramton said requiring big boxes to be part of a mixed-use development with a workable street system
is just as important as a demolition bond, because it allows 'old shopping centers to be more easily
redeveloped.
Developers have countered that the chains that stamp out big boxes will simply move outside the county
limits if they can't build what they want within Charlotte's planning jurisdiction, which includes much of
the unincorporated part of the county.
They point to Concord Mills and the glut of stores around it just across the county line in Cabarrus as an
example.
But Cramton said the city's planning boundc;tries are so large -- 380 square miles -- and the Charlotte
market so desirable that the city can apply some muscle to the chain stores and force change.
"We need to hold the line," he said; otherwise, too much of the city could one day look like the empty
stretches along Independence Boulevard and Freedom Drive.
-- STAFF WRITER RICHARD RUBIN CONTRIBUTED TO THIS ARTICLE.
-- SCOTT DODD: (704) 358-5168; SDODD@CHARLOTTEOBSERVER.COM
02001 observer and wire service sources, All Rights Reserved.
http://viww,cbarlotte,com
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/3484 7 45 .hUn ?template=contentModules 06/18/2002