HomeMy WebLinkAboutBemis Appeal
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
January 9,2004
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Mike Franell, Assistant City Attorney
RE:
Reinterpretation of the city's big box provisions,
Ashland Land Use Ordinance 9 18.72.050.C and
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards 9 II-C-3-a-2.
With the filing of the Bemis appeal (Planning Action # 2003-127) to be heard by the city council
on January 20,2004, questions have been raised as to whether the council may reinterpret the
big box provisions applicable to this appeal.
As background to this issue: the council adopted new Commercial Development Standards
including specific limitations on the size of the buildings in the Detail Site Review zone in 1992.
A limitation of 45,000 sq. ft. was imposed. These standards were developed through an
intense and highly publicized public process. This limitation on square footage was contained
in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 9 18.72.050.C and the Ashland Site Design and
Use Standards (Site Design Standards) 9 II-C-3a)2):
ALUO ~ 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone.
A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted
pursuant to Section 18.72.080.
B. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards
adopted pursuant to this chapter, which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in
length or width, shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure.
c. 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. (Emphasis
added. )
1 - Reinterpretation Opinion
G:\legal\Office\ALOPs\R\reinterpretation big box final opn.wpd
III n '1011
LIDl . 1111
Site Design Standards 9 II-C-3al Orientation and Scale
1. Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to
. human scale by incorporating changes in building mass or direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct
pattern of divisions on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting.
2. No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings shall exceed a gross square footage
of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. 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. (Emphasis
added. )
3. Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the
height of the tallest building. Ifbuildings are more than 240 feet in length, the separation shall
be 60 feet.
4. All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate a streetscape which includes curbs,
sidewalks, pedestrian scale light standards, and street trees.
In 2000, the City Council approved an application by the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OS F)
and in the process interpreted 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:
"The City Council does not interpret "gross square footage of 45,000 square feet" to
mean gross floor area square footage. This quoted phrase is to be interpreted as
meaning 45,000 square foot footprint. It is to be distinguished from those provisions of
the land use ordinance that specifically refer to gross floor area such as in section II-C-3
of the Site Design and Use Standards ("Developments (1) involving a 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 feet. Mr. McLaughlin attributed the deviation to measurements taken
by opponents from the exterior limits of the building rather than the interior limits. He
further testified that the City always computes building gross floor area square footage
based upon the interior size of a building and emphasized that even without subtracting
the planter areas along Hargadine Street, that the building floors were less than 45,000
square feet. The City Council accepts and adopts the findings of its Planning Director
and concludes that the parking structure does not violate the provisions of either ALUO
18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2."
In 2003 after extensive public hearings and meetings before the planning commission and the
city council, the council amended both the land use ordinance and the site design standards to
change the 45,000 sq. ft. restriction to apply to the gross floor area square footage (Ordinance
, No. 2900 adopted September 16, 2003):
2 - Reinterpretation Opinion
G :\Iegal\Office\AL OPs\R\reinterpretation big box final opn. wpd
ALua ~ 18.72.050.C.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., including rooftop parking, with the following exception:
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not
count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any
floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as
provided in the building code.
Site Design Standards ~ II-C-3a)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.,
including roof top parking, with the following exception:
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not
count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose ofthis section, basement means any
floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as
provided in the building code.
The question has now been raised as to what latitude the council has to change the
interpretation in the OSF case to make the 45,000 sq. ft. limitation applicable to gross floor
area square footage for applications received before the effective date of these recent
amendments.
In reviewing the relevant court decisions and statutes regarding a governing body's
interpretation or reinterpretation of its ordinances, there are several general principles that
have been established. Under Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508, 514-15, 836 P2d 710
(1992), the courts are required to give deference to a local government's interpretation of its
own ordinance provisions, so long as the interpretation is not clearly against the language of
the ordinance or made in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The Court's decision to afford
deference to the local governing body interpretations of its planning ordinances has been
codified in ORS 197.829:
(1) The Land Use Board of Appeals shall affirm a local government's interpretation of its
comprehensive plan and land use regulations, unless the board determines that the local
government's interpretation:
(a) Is inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan or land use regulation;
(b) Is inconsistent with the purpose for the comprehensive plan or land use regulation;
(c) Is inconsistent with the underlying policy that provides the basis for the
comprehensive plan or land use regulation; or
(d) Is contrary to a state statute, land use goal or rule that the comprehensive plan
provision or land use regulation implements.(2) If a local government fails to interpret a
provision of its comprehensive plan or land use regulations, or if such interpretation is
3 - Reinterpretation Opinion
G:\legal\Office\ALOPs\R\reinterpretation big box final opn.wpd
III I 'Inll
LIDl . 1111
inadequate for review, the board may make its own determination of whether the local
government decision is correct.
Where the council has not made a previous interpretation of a particular ordinance, it free to a
adopt any reasonable interpretation, even if the interpretation is different than has been
applied by staff or other subordinate decision makers. Alexanderson v. Clackamas County,
126 Ore. App. 549,552 (1994).
When the council has made a previous interpretation of its ordinance, its ability to reinterpret
the meaning or application of the ordinance and still retain deference in the courts becomes
more uncertain and is dependent upon the circumstances of the governing body's different
interpretation. If the reinterpretation is occasioned by a change in state or federal statutes or
regulations affecting the interpretation, then it is entitled to deference. Greer v. Josephine
County, 37 Or. LUBA 261,266 (1999).
If the council makes a reinterpretation outside of quasi-judicial setting, then, assuming the new
interpretation is reasonable given the language of the ordinance, it is probably entitled to
deference. If the reinterpretation results in unjustified selective or conflicting applications of
local provisions to different applicants it is most likely not entitled to deference and may result
in a reversible error. Holland v. City of Cannon Beach, 154 Or App 450, 456 (1998).
If the reinterpretation has a justified basis, so that it is not considered arbitrary, if it is made in
conjunction with application in a quasi-judicial hearing, the parties in the hearing may be
entitled to notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed new interpretation. Wicks v.
City of Reedsport, 29 Or LUBA 8, 27 (1995).
As to any reinterpretation in the situation now facing the council in the Bemis appeal, the
following observations are noted:
1. The council has made a previous interpretation of this specific ordinance;
2. The reinterpretation is not precipitated by any event, such as a change in law, which
would explain the need for the reinterpretation;
3. The project application has already been received for which a reinterpretation of the
ordinance would most likely have an ~ffect;
Applying the principles set forth in the court decisions to these observations, since there has
been a previous council interpretation, the council most likely will not be able to receive
deference as an initial interpretation if it decides to change the interpretation. Since a project
application has been received for which a reinterpretation will most likely have an impact, if the
council desires to reinterpret the ordinance, it may desire to provide notice and an opportunity
to comment on any proposed reinterpretation to all parties involved in the quasi-judicial action.
The fact that the council began a public process through which the planning commission held a
public hearing and through which the city council received public comment prior to the filing of
the Bemis application may suffice for the notice and opportunity to comment in order for the
council to receive deference to a reinterpretation. It certainly lends credence to an assertion
that the reinterpretation is not being done in an arbitrary fashion to infringe on the rights of the
4 - Reinterpretation Opinion
G:\legal\Office\ALOPs\R\reinterpretation big box final opn.wpd
applicant. While there is a good chance of receiving deference from the courts to a
reinterpretation of the 45,000 sq. ft. limitation, there is still the possibility that a court would not
grant deference and could reverse the impact of any new interpretation on the proposed
project.
5 - Reinterpretation Opinion
G:\legal\Office\ALOPs\R\reinterpretation big box final opn.wpd
101 n I IDII
RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2003-127
212 EAST MAIN STREET
REQEUST FOR A LAND PARTITION AND SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A
MULTI-FLOOR, MIXED-USE (CONDOMINIUM AND COMMERCIAL)
BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING UPON THE AREA OCCUPIED
BY THE EXISTING ASHLAND SPRINGS HOTEL SURFACE PARKING AREA.
AN EXCEPTION TO CITY DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS IS
REQUESTED TO ALLOW RECESSED BALCONIES UPON STREET FACING
BUILDING ELEVATIONS {V1-B-(3}}. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: COMMERCIAL; ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR'S MAP # 39
1E 09 BC; TAX LOT: 100.
APPLICANT: ED & TANYA BEMIS
1-20-04
Notice of Public Hearing, related criteria, mailing list & affidavit of
mailing
Notice of Public Hearing for Daily Tidings
E-mail from Fran Berteau to Gino Grimaldi notifying of appeal
Notice of Land Use Appeal of PA2003-127
Planning Commission Findings & parties receiving copies
Planning Commission Minutes
Transcript of portion of 10-14-03 Planning Commission Meeting
Letter from Ron Silverman
Staff Report Addendum
Historic Commission Minutes
Notice of Public Hearing, related criteria, mailing list & affidavit of
mailing
Planning Commission Minutes
Staff Report
Tree Commission Site Review
Applicant's Findings
Letter from Mark and Rebecca Reitinger
Planning Action Application
Applicant's Findings
1-7-04
12-26-03
12-26-03
12-11-03
11-12-03
10-14-03
11-8-03
11-12-03
11-5-03
10-14-03
10-14-03
10-14-03
10-9-03
11-3-03
10-13-03
9-12-03
9-12-03
E-mails - various dates
111111 I Inl'l
1-7
8
9
1 0-12
13-20
21-28
29-31
32
33-41
42-47
48-53
54-61
62-75
76
77-114
115-116
117-118
119-246
247-334
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLlC~, RING on the following
request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will
be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on January 20, 2004
at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main
Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice, Oregon law
states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by
letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity
to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals
(LUBA) on that issue, Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on
also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion, Failure of the applicant to raise
constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient
specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for
damages in circuit court,
~~~~._._-_._---~-_._--...;...------_...
~~:~.__..__._--~--
.1."______________
+Ml,_~
_UMlIIa_.
A copy of the application lcuments and evidence relied upon by the applicant and
applicable criteria are a~ ~..dble for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested, A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection
seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested, All
materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development
and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520,
During the Public Hearing, the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and those
in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit the length
of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria, Unless
there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing,
the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing,
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact
Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and
Engineering Services, at 541,552,2041, Our TTY phone number is 1,800,735,2900,
-..-~----:-----;'"~~.,;--....-...----~.;.~.._--._-------------_....-_..-=---.__._._------.;......;._...,,;;.,.-------_-.:._.--~---
~~::=::=::)=::.=::=::=::=:.:~:;.;;::~::=i-":-'. .
PLANNING ACTION 2003-127 is a request for Land Partition and Site Review to construct a multi-floor, mixed-use
(condominium and commercial) building with underground parking upon the area occupied by the existing Ashland Springs
Hotel surface parking area at 212 E. Main Street. An Exception to City Downtown Design Standards is requested to allow
recessed balconies upon street facing building elevations {VI-B-(3)}. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial;
Zoning: C-1-D; Assessor's Map #: 391 E 09 BC; Tax Lot: 100,
APPLICANT: Ed & Tanya Bemis
111111 Inl'l
1
CRITERIA FOR MINOR lAND PARTITION
(Section 18.76.050)
The criteria for approval of a Minor land Partition are as follows:
A. The future use for,urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the reminder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land,
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter on
Subdivisions.
F. When there exists .adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as determined
by the Public Works Director ami specified by City documents for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer.
and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully
improved collector or arterial $treet, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be
, improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum
width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department.
1.
The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land partition
when all of the following conditions exist:
:--,
a. The unpaved street is at least 20.feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or
arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent.
2, Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree
to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to
remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street
improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improv~ment district 10 cover
such impr'ovements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb,
gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of utilities, This requirement shall be precedent to the
signing of the final survey plat. and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall
be denied,
H, Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided frolll the alley and
prohibited from the street (amended Ord, 2757,1995)
~
SITE REVIEW
18.72.050 Criteria for Aooroval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or
deny a site plan:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met and will be met by the
proposed d~velopment.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met.
C. The site design complies with the ,guidelines adopted by the City Council
for implementation of this Chap~er. .
O. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access
to'and througn the development, electricity, urban storm drainage', and
adequate transportatian can and will be pravided to' and through the
subject property. COrd. 2655, 1991)
SECfION 18.72.090 Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards.
An administrative variance to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the
requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 if, on the basis of the
application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to 'exist:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design
Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site;
B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties;
C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter;
and
D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty.
An exception to the Downtown Design Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of
Section 18.100 of the Ashland Municipal Code. An exception may be granted with respect to the
Downtown Design Standard discouraging projecting balconies if all of the following circumstances
described in Section VI-K) of the City's Downtown Design Standards are found to exist:
1) There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or
unusual aspect of the site, an existing 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 (Illustration: Recommend 11).
3) The exception requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown
Design Standards. .3
391E09BC901, PA#2003-127
ASH~AND ITY OF
CITY H L
ASH , OR
97520
391E~09BC400 PA#2003-127
ASHLAND TY OF
CITY H L
ASHL , OR
97520
391E09BC600, PA#2003-127
BANKE THEODORE HlLOIS E
150EMAIN
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC700, P A#2003-127
CONNOLLY ALLEN
142 E MAIN ST
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BD4500, PA#2003-127
CRATER NATL BANK OF MEDFORD
PO BOX 7788
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
92658
391E09BAI0500, PA#2003-127
GARLAND GERALD G TRUSTEE
921 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS CIR
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC6201, P 2003-127
HOWE CH S L TRUSTEE
PO BOX 7
ASHL , OR
97520
391E09BCI00, PA#2003-127
MARK ANTONY HIST PROP LLC
953 EMIGRANT CREEK RD
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC6200, PA#2003-127
NUDELMAN RICHARD
244 HARGADINE ST
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC300, PA#2003-127
POTIER EARL
CITY HALL
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC800, PA#2003-127
ASHL~C OF
CITY H
ASHL , OR
97520
391E09BD5300, P A#2003-127
ASHLAND HISTORIC PROPERTY
437 WILEY ST
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BD4400, PA#2003-127
ASHLAND LODGE #944/B P 0 E
POBOX 569
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC5900, PA#2003-127
BUFFINGTON JANE N
1800 SE 10TH AVE SUITE 400
FT LAUDERDALE, FL
33316
391E09BC6100, P A#2003-127
BYERSTERRYPflOYCE
173 LOWER TERRACE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94114
391E09BC5600, P A#2003-127
CONSERVANCY LLC
625 B STREET
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC6000, PA#2003-127
CON~ERV CY LLC
625 B S
ASH , OR
. 97520
391E09BC5400, P A#2003-127
EDWARDS OREN R
219NMOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC5500, PA#2003-127
EDW~S N RALPH JR
219NM AIN
ASH , OR
97520
391E09BC5100, P A#2003-127
HOWE CHARLES L TRUSTEE
PO BOX 786
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC6300, A#2003-127
HOWE C ES L TRUSTEE
PO BOX
ASH
391E09BC5700, PA#2003-127
KELL GEORGE
333 MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTS 78
TALENT, OR
391E09BAI0600, P A#2003-127
KEY BANK OF OREGON
PO BOX 560807
DALLAS, TX
97540
73556
391 E09BD4600, PA#2003-127
MOUNTAIN PARK DEVEL LLC
953 EMIGRANT CR RD
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BAII000, PA#2003-127
NELSON CLYDE J
145 E MAIN ST
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BD5200, PA#2003-127
OREGON SHAKESPEAREAN
POBOX 158
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BD5400 j> A#2003-127
OREGON S SPEAREAN
P 0 BO 58
ASH , OR
97520
391E09BD4700, PA#2003-127
SAVAGE K LYNN
2773 BUSH ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA f I
94115 T
391E09BC500, P A#2003-127
SCHWEIGER JOHN C TRUSTE FBO
1644 ASHLAND ST
ASHLAND, OR
97520
(ltc-o'L<'f..<:_1 ~r/<- '-h ^-"/1/f.f~~:;_
/J/'Y"-C'( J i I / ~. / ,g 1:' ! t"' .;J ,~f
39lE09BC5300, P A#2003-127
SVENDSGAARD LARS D III (LE)
183 VISTA STREET
ASHLAND, OR
97520
39lE09BD4690, PA 003-127
TEITELBAUM ERT TRSTE FBO
196 WINDEM PLACE
ASHLAND R
97520
391 E09BC200, PA#2003-127
WILLIAMS F AMIL Y LLC
5500 COLVERRD
TALENT, OR
97540
ED & TANYA BEMIS
POBOX 1018
ASHLAND OR 97520
HOFFBUHR & ASSOCIATES INC
3155 ALAMEDA STREET
MEDFORD OR 97504
111111
39IE09BD4800, PA#2003-127
TEITELBAUM ALBERT TRSTE FBO
196 W1NDEMAR PL
ASHLAND, OR
97520
39IE09BA10900,
TEITELBA
196 WIND AR PL
ASHL , OR
97520
391E09BA10400, PA#2003-127
YAMAOKA RONALD/CARRIE
2422 33RD AVE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94116
MARK ANTONY HISTORIC PROPERTY
LLC
953 EMIGRANT CREEK ROAD
ASHLAND OR 97520
ZBINDEN-CARTER ENGINEERING INC
104 N 11 TH STREET
KLAMATH FALLS OR
s-
.
I tr < C I' ('I, C
/,;r}"C'l.{ /(>{
39IE09BD4900 .PA#2003-127
TEITELBA ALBERT TRSTE FBO
196 MAR PLACE
ASH , OR
97520
39IE09BC5000, PA#2003-127
THORMAHLEN P A TRUSTEE FBO
10 MONfECITO RD
SAN RAFAEL, CA
94901
39IE09BC5800, PA#2003-127
ZIEMINSKI BERNIE
PO BOX 552
TALENT, OR
97540
OGDEN KISTLER ARCHITECTURE
2950 EAST BARNETT ROAD
MEDFORD OR 97504
GREG COVEY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
295 EAST MAIN STREET #8
ASHLAND OR 97520
c'j)):.J '~(1.( 'Yl~.( .-t'{,.; /,
1/) / -6.<' It? -j /'JJ
BEMIS
P A2003-127
212 E. Main Street
MARK ANTHONY HISTORIC
PROPERTY LLC
212 EAST MAiN STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
RON SIL YERMAN
POBOX 1206
ASHLAND OR 97520
ERIC NAVICKAS
711 FAITH AVENUE
ASHLAND OR 97520
REITENGER & ASSOCIATES !NC
625 B STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
mil n 110 I"
OGDEN KISTLER ;\ltCHITECTURE
ATTN: DAVID LKERSON
2950 EAST IT ROAD
MEDFO OR 97504
HOFFUBHR & A OCIATES
3155 ALAME STREET
MEDFO R 97501
GREG COVEY
295 EAST MAIN STREET #8
ASHLAND OR 97520
DOM PROVOST
4114 HWY 66
ASHLAND OR 97520
DOUG NEUMAN
951 EMIGRANT CREE ROAD
ASHLAND OR 97520
BILL STREET
180 MEADE-STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
BRYAN HOLLEY
324 LIBERTY STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
RAMONADEV AUL
865 PALMER ROAD
ASHLAND OR 97520
JACK HARDESTY
575 DOGWOOD
ASHLAND OR 97520
(
771.~~p ~r
I ~ II I / 0 3
r-[j ~
~
.
/ " .A.--.^A~c:l
/.2--/ S c/e3 ~ ;/ r , --
,/y~.--rJ t'-/ ~~..-vt_~_u-L-
~ .. 7" r~~ c'1'
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon
97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On January 2nd, 2004 I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached notice to each person listed
on the attached mailing list at such address as set forth on this list under each person's
name for Planning Action #2003-127.
/Lk- (.{!/i(. /J~, 5:C-15u2'Z---d--CJ{
Derek D. Severson
City of Ashland, Planning Division
SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this
I-~ -oc(
OFFICIAL SEAL
. NANCY E SLOCUM
: '; NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON
\, ./ COMMISSION NO. 371650
"" ,,' MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 18, 2007
PA #2003-127
Bemis
7
212 E Main Sf.
1111 11 I IDr'l
ATTN: MEL-CLASSIFIED
PUBLISH IN LEGAL ADVERTISING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to
the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland City Council on
January 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street,
Ashland, Oregon. At such Public hearing any person is entitled to be heard, unless the
public hearing portion of the review has been closed during a previous meeting.
Request for Land Partition and Site Review to construct a multi-floor, mixed-use (condominium
and commercial) building with underground parking upon the area occupied by the existing
Ashland Springs Hotel surface parking area at 212 E. Main Street. An Exception to City
Downtown Design Standards is requested to allow recessed balconies upon street facing building
elevations {V1-B-(3)}.
Barbara Christensen
City Recorder
Publish: 1/7/04
P. O. No. 60695
9
I Susan yates - Appeal - Downtown
Page 1 I
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Fran berteau
Gino Grimaldi; John mclaughlin; Paul nolte
12/26/03 1 :27PM
Appeal - Downtown
Just received a Notice of Land Use Appeal re Planning Action 2003-127 (re: property at 212 E. Main
Street). The original was addressed to Gino and fees have been paid, I will make copies and distribute to
all of you. Fran
Fran Berteau
Executive Secretary
City of Ashland, Administration Department
Tel: 552-2100
Fax: 488-5311
berteauf@ashland.or.us
TTY 800 735-2900
cc:
Susan yates
7
1111 n 1101'1
Notice of land Use Appeal
(Ashland Municipal Code 9 18.108.11 0.A.2)
A. Name(s) of Person Filing Appeal: B. Address(es):
1 ,Ramona G. DeVaul 865 Palmer Road
2. Jack Hardesty 575 Dogwood Way
3, Bryan L. Holley 324 Liberty Street
4. Eric Navickas 711 Faith Avenue
5. Bill Street 180 Mead Street
C. Planning Commission Decision Being Appealed
Date of Decision: Planning Action Title of planning action:
November 12, 2003 # 2003-127 Land Partition, Site Review and Exception to
the Downtown Design Standards for the
property located at 212 E. Main Street -
Assessor's Map # 39 1 E 09 Be, Tax Lot 100
D. How Persons Filing Appeal Qualify as a Party
The persons named
in Box A. above ~ Each participated in the public hearing before the planning
qualify as parties commission, either orally or in writing.
because:
E. Specific Grounds for Appeal
1. The first specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is:
The application does not meet the requirements of Ashland Land Use Ordinance
18.72.050 (Detail Site Review Zone) as extant at time of application submittal-
September 12, 2003.
2. The second specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is:
The application does not meet the requirements of Ashland Site Design and Use
Standards II-C-3 (Additional Standards For Large Scale Projects) as extant at time
of application submittal - September 12, 2003.
/6
\2-~(1Id.' Izl:t0(o3
3. The third specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is:
The application should be subject to the variance requirements in ALUO
18.100.020 and Administrative Variance 18.72.090 (Separation between Buildings)
as stated in the original application submittal and accompanying Staff Report
dated October 14, 2003.
4. The fourth specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is:
The application, submitted September 12, 2003, but not deemed complete by City
staff until October 3, 2003, still did not meet completion requirements as detailed in
ALUO 18.72.060 (Plans Required) and therefore should have been subject to the
requirements of ALUO 18.108.017 (Applications).
Appeal Fee
With this notice of appeal we submit the sum of $ 264.00 which is the appeal fee requir,ed by
9 18.108.11 O.A of the Ashland Municipal Code. Date: L/? ~~ ~ 3
2-Y Jib, ;;2005
2t;jl/? / J:?
71 ~. 2<90)
z <1 ()EC, LOC3
)j, J)u. ~)
II
CITY OF ASHLAND
Str"teJ-
t 3-
86176
Date I!) - :J ffl- 0'3
Cash 0
Check ftJ f) I R .3
Account Number Amount
-!in -- 0--'---
1lu aL oLO___
!)~4. (V
---.-~ ,
/ \
TOTAL $
/)01/ fY)
CITY OF
ASHLAND
December 11, 2003
Ed & Tanya Bemis
P. O. Box 1018
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Planning Action #2003-127
Dear Ed & Tanya Bemis:
At its meeting of November 12, 2003 the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a Land
Partition, Site Review and Exception to the Downtown Design Standards for the property located at 212 E. Main
Street -- Assessor's Map # 39 IE 09 BC, Tax Lot 100.
The Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, adopted at the December 9,2003 meeting, is enclosed.
,r--
Please note the folIo . g circled iJems:
tJ)
2.
(j)
(3)
C)
A final map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year of the date of
preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid.
A final plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval
becomes invalid.
There is a l5-day appeal period which must elapse before a building permit may be issued.
All of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met before an occupancy permit
may be issued.
Planning Commission approval is valid for a period of one year only, after which time a new application
would have to be submitted.
Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions.
cc: Property Owner, People Who Testified, People Who Submitted Letters
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
13
Tel: 541-488,5305
Fax: 541,552,2050
TTY: 800,735,2900
~:.,
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 12,2003
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2003-127, REQUEST FOR LAND ) FINDINGS,
P ARITION AND SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-FLOOR, MIXED- ) CONCLUSIONS
USE BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING UPON THE AREA ) AND ORDERS
OCCUPIED BY THE EXISTING ASHLAND SPRINGS HOTEL SURF ACE )
PARKING AREA 212 E. MAIN STREET. AN EXCEPTION IS REQUESTED TO )
CITY DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS TO ALLOW RECESSED )
BALCONIES ON STREET FACING ELEVATIONS {Vl-B-(3)}.
APPLICANT: Ed & Tanya Bemis )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 100 of39lE 09 BC is located at the rear of2l2 E. Main Street, adjacent to 1st and Hargadine
Streets.
2) The applicant is requesting a Land Partition and Site Review to construct a multi-floor, mixed-use
(condominium and commercial) building and underground parking upon the area occupied by the
existing Ashland Springs Hotel surface parking area at 212 E. Main Street. An Exception to City
Downtown Design Standards is requested to allow recessed balconies upon street facing building
elevations {VI-B-(3)}.
3) The criteria for approval of a Site Review application are described in the Site Design and Use
chapter 18.72 as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
e. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to
and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-ol-way shall comply with the
Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6,
1999).
The criteria for approval for a Partition application are described in the Partitions chapter 18.76
as follows:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
e. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter
18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord 2836 S8, 1999)
Ii
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as
determined by the Public Works Director and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers,
storm sewer, and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest
fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall
be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The
minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works
Department.
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land partition when
all of the following conditions exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to
participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both
with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not
remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs
thereof Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding
of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner
declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley
and prohibited from the street. (amended Ord. 2757, 1995)
An exception to the Downtown Design Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of
Section 18.100 of the Ashland Municipal Code. An exception may be granted with respect to the
Downtown Design Standard discouraging projecting balconies if all of the following circumstances
described in Section VI-K) of the City's Downtown Design Standards are found to exist:
1) There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or
unusual aspect of the site, an existing 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 (Illustration: Recommend 11).
3) The exception requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown
Design Standards,
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held Public Hearings on October 14th and
November 12th, 2003, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning
Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of
the site.
Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
15
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that Land Partition and Site Review to construct a multi-
floor, mixed-use (condominium and commercial) building and underground parking upon the
area occupied by the existing Ashland Springs Hotel surface parking area meets all applicable
approval standards described in the Partitions chapter 18.76 and Site Design and Use chapter
18.72. Additionally, the Commission finds that the request for an Exception to City Downtown
Design Standards to allow recessed balconies on street facing elevations meets the circumstances
described for granting an exception VI-K ofthe City's Site Design and Use Standards.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the request for a Land Partition meets all applicable
approval standards described in 18.76.050. Both parcels have frontage along and access to improved
City streets, as well as to needed public facilities (i.e. sewer, water, electric, etc.) necessary to serve
the existing and proposed developments. While required hotel parking is located on the adjoining
parcel, this is permitted through the recordation of a permanent parking easement. Since neighboring
properties have access to the existing public street network, the proposed division of the property
will not impede the development of re-development of adjoining properties.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the request for Site Review approval meets all provisions
of the Land Use Ordinance, as well as other applicable requirements described in the Site Design and
Use Chapter 18.72. Given the location of the property within the downtown area, landscaping and
off-street parking is generally not required as part of a project. However, approximately 90 parking
will be provided within the structured parking facility. Seventy spaces will be allocated to the
Ashland Springs Hotel in perpetuity through an easement, while the remaining 20 additional spaces
will be made available for public (5 spaces) and private use by residential and commercial
condominium owners. The proposed building height is slightly below the 40-foot height maximum
allowed within the Commercial zoning district, while the building footprint of approximately 19,750
square feet is well within the 45,000 square foot maximum permitted at the time the application was
filed.
I?
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the design of the building and its footprint is consistent
with City of Ashland design standards for the Downtown Commercial district. Specifically, the
Commission finds that the building's height and primarily perimeter setback is consistent with
existing and preferred developments within the downtown area. The design reflects the
horizontal and vertical rhythms of other main street buildings, offering a clear division between
ground and upper floor levels and using changes in surface details to divide the building fa<;ade
into smaller areas and volumes distinctive of the downtown core.
The Commission finds that the overall project complies with specific design criteria intended to
implement the policies of the City's Down Plan. Specifically, the Downtown Plan discourages
locating parking lots along key pedestrian routes, while advocating the introduction of housing
on upper stories. This is underscored through the City's Downtown Design Standards that
generally prohibit the location of parking lots along key pedestrian routes. The Commission finds
that the combination of a mixed-use building (i.e. residential and commercial) with underneath
structured parking represents a redevelopment project that serves to strengthen the downtown
area through providing additional commercial space and housing, while accommodating and
screening required parking within and below an attractive building design.
2.6 The Commission finds that the initial request for an Administrative Variance to Detail Site
Review Standard II-C-3a (3) does not apply to buildings located or proposed to be located on
separate parcels. The standard states: Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be
separated by a distance equal to the height of the tallest building. The proposed building will be
partitioned off onto a separate parcel. The Commission finds that interpreting the standard other
wise would place an unusual hardship on the owner of an adjoining undeveloped parcel, by
dictating the placement of a proposed building based upon the building height of a neighboring
building. Consequently, this could significantly limit or eliminate the potential development area
on the adjoining vacant property, unless the City of Ashland approves a Variance to the standard.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
Land Partition and Site Review to construct a multi-floor, mixed-use (condominium and commercial)
building and an Exception to City Downtown Design Standards is supported by evidence contained
within the record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2003-127. Further, if anyone or more ofthe conditions below are
found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2003-127 is denied. The following
are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here.
2) That the right of the Hotel and its patrons to use the off-site parking must be evidenced by a deed, lease,
/7
easement, or similar written instrument establishing such use, for the duration of the use. The written
instrument shall be created through consultation with the City Attorney and approved by the City Attorney
prior to signature of the final survey plat or issuance of a building permit for the new building.
3) That additional right-of-way dedication is provided on the Partition plat so that existing and proposed
improvements associated with the alley are included within the alley right-of-way. Additional right-of-way,
if necessary, shall be dedicated around the perimeter of the project so that the full widths of public sidewalks
are included within the adjoining street rights-of-way (i.e. 1st and Hargadine Streets).
4) That a public pedestrian easement, approximately 10-feet in width, be dedicated on the partition plat along
the proposed route and location of the pedestrian arcade and public plaza.
5) Street trees shall be installed approximately every 30-feet, using metal tree grates, within the existing 10 and
112-foot wide section of sidewalk adjoining the Ashland Springs Hotel along First Street. The location of
the new street trees shall be included on the revised site plan and installed prior to issuance of a certificate
of occupancy. .
6) That a 4 to 5-foot wide concrete walkway shall be installed along the east side of the public alley from the
public sidewalk along Hargadine Street to the public pedestrian walkway at the northwest corner of the
building. The design shall be approved by the Engineering Division and installed prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
7) That the site plan be revised to include a 10- foot wide public sidewalk (excluding the 6" curb) along the 1 st
and Hargadine Street frontages. Street trees shall be installed, approximately every 30-feet, along the 1 st and
Hargadine Street frontages. Street trees shall be installed within tree wells using metal tree grates prior to
a certificate of occupancy.
8) That pedestrian-scale streetlights, as approved for the downtown Historic District, shall be installed along
the 1 st Street from Main to Hargadine Street, as well as along the project's Hargadine Street frontage at an
interval approved by the City Electric Utility prior to a certificate of occupancy.
9) That a sign, awning and marquee program for the development be included at the time of building permit
review. The program shall identify the anticipated number of signs, locations and approximate square
footage based upon the requirements described in the Sign Code 18.96. Leases for commercial tenant spaces
shall note that awnings, marquees or similar pedestrian shelters shall be consistent with City Downtown
Design Standard (VI-I), reviewed by the Ashland Historic Commission and approved by the Planning
Department Staff Advisor.
10) That the color, texture, shape and building materials be included for all exterior components of the project
at the time of submission of building permit. The information shall be consistent with the colors, texture and
shape of materials and building details proposed and approved as part of the land use application.
11) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission shall be included on a revised landscaping plan
and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permit. Street trees shall be from the approved
recommended street tree list, while the Planning and Engineering Divisions shall review and approve the
j?
metal tree grates.
12) That the site plan shall be revised to comply with the public plaza/space standard based upon the total gross
floor area, excluding areas devoted to structured parking.
13) That 10% of the residential units shall be affordable for moderate-income persons in accord with the
standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council. The units shall be identified on the
approved plans and the household occupying the unit shall be approved by the City prior to occupancy of
the unit.
14) That proposed access onto the alley as well as First Street shall be designed by a Professional Engineer and
approved by the Ashland Engineering Division prior to issuance of a building permit.
15) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division prior to
issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of all public facilities in and adjacent
to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewers, manholes and clean-outs,
storm drainage and catch basins.
16) That all comments and requirements provided by the Fire Department in their August 13, 2003 comment
sheet shall be addressed and approved by the Ashland Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
17) That the information and requirements of the Ashland Electric Utility Service for Commercial Development
shall be provided for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
18) That an opportunity-to-recycle site for use by project residents shall be identified for the project in
accordance with the standards described in section 18.72.115 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance prior to
issuance of a building permit.
19) That bicycle parking is installed in accordance with City standards described in chapter 18.92 prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. '
20) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission be incorporated into the final design and approved
by the Staff Advisor. The applicant shall continue to collaborate between Staff and the Commission
throughout the refinement of the design.
21) That signs shall be installed in at least two places indicate clearly designating the five public parking spaces,
two of which are disabled parking spaces.
I L ~ 1-t9 ~
Date
17
BEMIS
PA2003-127
212 E. Main Street
MARK ANTHONY HISTORIC
PROPERTY LLC
212 EAST MAIN STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
RON SILVERMAN
POBOX 1206
ASHLAND OR 97520
ERIC NAVICKAS
711 FAITH AVENUE
ASHLAND OR 97520
REITENGER & ASSOCIATES INC
625 B STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
ED & TANYA BEMIS
POBOX 1018
ASHLAND OR 97520
OGDEN KISTLER ARCHITECTURE
ATTN: DAVID WILKERSON
2950 EAST BARNETT ROAD
MEDFORD OR 97504
HOFFUBHR & ASSOCIATES
3155 ALAMEDA STREET
MEDFORD OR 97501
DOM PROVOST
4114 HWY 66
ASHLAND OR 97520
BILL STREET
180 MEADE STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
RAMONADEV AUL
865 PALMER ROAD
ASHLAND OR 97520
GREG COVEY
295 EAST MAIN STREET #8
ASHLAND OR 97520
DOUG NEUMAN
951 EMIGRANT CREE ROAD
ASHLAND OR 97520
BRYAN HOLLEY
324 LIBERTY STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
JACK HARDESTY
575 DOGWOOD
ASHLAND OR 97520
--"/7La..c--k!/' // f-,..z~~??
I ~ II I / 0 ,3
jj t2~~~
~~
AD
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 12, 2003
Commissioners Present:
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Russ Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Absent Members:
Council Liaison:
High School Liaison:
SOU Liaison:
Staff Present:
Russ Chapman, Chair
Mike Morris
Dave Dotterrer
Kerry KenCairn
Marilyn Briggs
Colin Swales
John Fields
Ray Kistler
Cameron Hanson
Alex Amarotico - not present
None
None
John McLaughlin, Director, and Community Development
Bill Molnar, Senior Planner
Mark Knox, Associate Planner
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The community drop-in "chat" with Planning Commissioners and a staff person is scheduled for November 25,2003 at 4:00
p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building.
There will be a study session on November 25,2003 at 7:00 to discuss the use of a Hearings Officer in lieu of the City Council
hearing appeals. This will be a joint study session with the Planning Commission, City Council and City Attorney.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BILL STREET, 180 Meade Street, reminded the Commissioners that he spoke at length during last month's Public Forum. He
reviewed the minutes of that meeting. There were 16 minutes of his testimony missing from the video recording of the
meeting, He reviewed the audio recording and requested the Commissioners make some alterations to the minutes,
Specifically, it refers to citing e-mails, conversations and meetings with various public officials, etc. He wanted it to be clear
that he cited specifically an e-mail that was forwarded to him from Mayor Alan DeBoer. The reason it is important to reflect
this in the minutes is because the e-mail came from the Mayor. The Mayor led Street and others to believe that if there
appeared to be a proposal like the one under review tonight, it be brought to the Council and the Planning Commission
interpretation would be applied or interpreted before the application was actually made.
McLaughlin told Street the minutes are not verbatim. The Commission can choose whether or not to revise the minutes.
Chapman asked ifhe wanted to add a sentence about the e-mail he got from the Mayor. Dotterrer said wording could be
revised to state: He cited e-mails "including one from the Mayor...". Street suggested they approve that correction,
Street said he also specifically asked John McLaughlin if he recalled this meeting with the Mayor, assuring him and other
citizens that he would bring large scale development proposals before the Council. At the time, McLaughlin said he had no
recollection of that meeting. Street wanted the minutes to reflect that as well. (Page 2.)
Dotterrer doesn't think that Street's amendments change the essence of the minutes. Swales believes Street is trying to
establish process that took place between him and the Mayor and the Staff and wants the minutes to reflect the discussion that
took place. Swales recalled that conversation.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 12, 2003
~{
McLaughlin said perhaps Street can submit what he wants in writing and it can be made part of the record of the planning
action. Street said it could be important for future research that the specifics he is requesting are included in the minutes.
Chapman isn't comfortable going down this road, Is this because 15 minutes is missing on the video? Street said he just wants
to correct the public record so everyone can find the public record,
KenCaim wondered if it would be possible to have this portion of the tape that Street is referring to transcribed and entered into
the record, Street said if the minutes are amended, he would be pleased,
Chapman moved to amend the minutes with a transcript of the 16 missing minutes and enter it into the record.
Swales said on page 3 (2nd paragraph from the bottom) reads: "Swales said since there is no minimum lot size, the lots could
be subdivided (add 'ad') infinitum, making this part of the design standards completely meaningless." He would like the
minutes to reflect that Molnar concurred. Add the words "Molnar concurred",
Dotterrer moved to amend Chapman's motion and to further amend the minutes of the October 14,2003 meeting with the
above amendments, Chapman seconded the motion and the minutes were approved.
PUBLIC FORUM
BILL STREET, 180 Meade Street, asked to speak to the process leading up to the application that will be discussed tonight.
Chapman said he can't give Street extra time that he can't also give the applicant. Chapman thought it sounded like he would
be talking about the application and discussing information he wants the Commission to consider when talking about tonight's
planning action. Street's ultimate goal is to make the Commission and citizens of Ashland aware of the process that has led up
to this application, He wants to inform people of how things are working in the City based on the research he has done and let
them judge for themselves whether there needs to be attention paid to the process - how we process applications, how we
develop and grow.
Street continued. Last month, he referred to the Planning Commission's unanimous interpretation ofthe Big Box ordinance.
Chapman stopped Street as he is not comfortable letting Street discuss the Big Box because it ties in with the tonight's
application. He asked Street to bring it up during the public hearing of the Bemis application. Street said he wants to take
advantage of this opportunity to create a process that is transparently honest and fair for the people of Ashland. He is trying to
let people know how things work so we can reflect on how the process is working. He would like to talk about the bigger
issues, not the specific application.
Street thanked the Commission for the community drop-ins,
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION 2003-127
REQUEST FOR LAND PARTITION AND SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-FLOOR, MIXED-USE (CONDOMINIUM AND
COMMERCIAL) BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING UPON THE AREA OCCUPIED BY THE EXISTING ASHLAND SPRINGS
HOTEL SURFACE PARKING AREA AT 212 E. MAIN STREET. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW LESS THAN 65 PERCENT
OF THE TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA OF THE GROUND FLOOR TO BE OCCUPIED BY PERMITTED OR SPECIAL PERMITTED
USES. IN ADDITION, AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE AND EXCEPTION IS REQUESTED TO SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
RELATING TO SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS {1I-C-3A(3)} AND TO ALLOW BALCONIES ON STREET FACING ELEVATIONS
{V1-B-(3)}.
APPLICANT: ED & TANYA BEMIS
Site Visits or Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all and a letter was received by most and will be read,
STAFF REPORT
Molnar said this action has been continued from last month. The applicants have been working with the Historic Commission
and Staff and the applicants have provided considerably more information with details, dimensions, and colors. They have
provided amended fmdings. Staff feels sufficient detail has been provided in this application for the Planning Commission to
make a decision whether a particular design standard has been met or not.
Specifically, last month there was a request for a design exception to allow projecting balconies. The projecting balconies have
been eliminated along the public street frontage. There are fewer outdoor spaces along those street frontages and they are flush
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 12, 2003
2
~~,
or recessed. There is a slight projection of balconies facing the back of the Ashland Springs Hotel, along the pedestrian
arcade. There is still a design exception for recessed balconies, Staffs feeling is that recessed balconies on street facing
elevations are acceptable.
The application included a variance to the requirement that 65 percent of the ground floor be within a permitted use. Last
month, approximately 56 percent was within a permitted use. The applicant has removed that variance by incorporating five of
the proposed parking spaces and designating them as public spaces. Public parking is a permitted use in a commercial zone
and that would count toward the 65 percent requirement. Staffs agrees no variance is required,
Molnar said last month Staff was concerned the project might not have enough public space to meet the requirement for large
scale buildings, Looking at previously approved large scale buildings and how that standard has been applied, it was generally
linked to the interior heated floor area. One square foot of public space is required for every ten square feet of interior floor
area, If the area devoted to structured parking is excluded, the approximate floor area is 43,500 square feet of interior heated
floor area for residential or commercial use, That would mean the proposal would require around 4,300 to 4,400 square feet of
public space. The applicant's findings have broken down the area of public space provided. The pedestrian arcade/walkway is
around 3,500 square feet. The internal courtyard is a little over 2,000 square feet. The area needed to widen the existing
sidewalk is 2,600 square feet. Staff said the plaza and courtyard meet the standard. The interior courtyard meets the standard
if access is not restricted. With those two spaces, the project clearly meets the requirement. Staffs primary concern is whether
or not the area used for publk sidewalks is counted toward public space.
Molnar said the notice still identifies an administrative variance for separation between buildings, Staff does not believe it
applies to separate parcels of land. This application involves a partition to separate this building from the Ashland Springs
Hotel.
The Historic Commission voted 4-2 to approve the project at their meeting last week. Staffhas suggested they add a condition
20 that the recommendations ofthe Historic Commission be incorporated into the final design and approved by the Staff
Advisor. The applicant shall continue collaboration between the Staff and the Historic Commission during the refinement of
the design,
Molnar said this could very well be the largest structure proposed in the downtown. Given the many design standards for the
downtown and Historic District, Staff agrees with the Historic Commission that it can meet the standards, If the Commission
chooses to recommend approval, there are 20 attached conditions.
Molnar reported there are one or two members of the Historic Commission present that can speak to the Historic Commission's
comments.
Briggs wondered how five parking spaces can be counted for commercial use because commercial parking is not required in
the first place. McLaughlin said the public parking is a permitted use allowed in a commercial zone.
Swales could not find it in the C-l zoning ordinance. Molnar said it is under "I." - public and quasi public utility buildings and
public parking lots.
Fields asked if the applicants will deed the public parking spaces to the City. McLaughlin said the public spaces can't be
restricted in use. The parking has to be available to the public 24 hours a day,
Molnar said the Commissioners have some room for interpretation with regard to the courtyard. Staff is basing their
interpretation on some past applications. What is the purpose of the public space requirement? It doesn't necessarily mean it
has to be dedicated to public spaces, It doesn't mean an internal space can't be valued as well.
PUBLIC HEARING
ED & TANYA BEMIS
KEN OGDEN
DAVID WILKERSON
E. BEMIS reminded the Commissioners this project going to be their home. They are very excited about the revised plans,
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 12, 2003
3
;;1., -3
OGDEN said the original findings included reference to the Big Box ordinance. He thinks that just confused the matter. They
have deleted that reference in the amended findings. The application should be based on the merits of the ordinance as they
stood at the time. He distributed a packet clarifying some of their points.
Last week they made a presentation to the Historic Commission and they were satisfied with the level of detail. They have
eliminated the projecting balconies from the First Street elevation. They still have balconies on either side of the main
vehicular entrance that project about nine to 12 inches. The remaining two balconies on the central part of the building are
recessed and fully flush with the building fa9ade. The outdoor terraces are associated with Hargadine. Ogden believes the new
architectural detailing enhances the building. Also, the plans are dimensioned, scaled and have north arrows.
Ogden said one reason they dedicated the permitted use to parking was because of the comments regarding handicap
accessibility. Two of the five: spaces allocated to public use have been allocated as handicap spaces specifically.
Ogden reported they will be able to retain the evergreen tree.
Ogden explained an analysis of the traffic count in the back of the amended findings discussing how they factored into the
development. They met with Paula Brown, Public W orles Director, and she endorsed the numbers.
Ogden said they have satisfied the Historic Commission. They are willing to continually work with the Historic Commission
on this process. They want the Historic Commission's endorsement throughout the process.
WILKERSON handed out a packet of materials containing color elevations and the four wall sections.
Wilkerson said all of the calculations were done using Autocad, measuring every in and out ofthe building to calculate the
gross area. They are hoping the central court will be a place for the public to stop and enjoy public art and other amenities.
They have included all the critical dimensions. The elevations include the 40 foot height limitation and how the building looks
below that height. The plans and elevations correspond with each other.
The request for a variance for the amount of permitted use has been withdrawn and they have 67.5 percent of their ground floor
area in permitted use, including the five parking spaces. Their intent has always been that the handicap spaces would have
access through the elevator to the plaza. The request for an administrative variance from the downtown design standards
regarding the balconies has been withdrawn. The request for the exception for large scale project standards regarding the
separation between buildings has been withdrawn because the proposal is on its own separate lot. They are well within the
building height envelope for the project. The design has been modified according to the comments from the last meeting. The
tall wall on the plaza side has been reduced. The buildings have been more clearly divided and the corner of the building on
First Street backs up, per the Historic Commission's request.
Briggs asked about the math for the 67 percent. Wilkerson said it is contained on the project data sheet in the packet.
Wilkerson submitted a sample of building material types and colors to be used on the bulk ofthe exterior. There will be
varying window styles on each building. Ogden said the three buildings will have different cornice styles along with other
elements that will break up the building mass.
Swales said though he appreciates the break-up of the building mass, he is concerned that the buildings on the other side of the
street step down the hill along the steep street. This building seems to have the feel of a flat roof all at the same level. One of
the design guidelines for the downtown encourages the individual terracing of small buildings, giving a difference in height
between buildings.
Ogden said it would give the:m the opportunity for a 40 foot height on Hargadine if they stepped the three buildings. This is
one structure. If they treated it as three buildings, he believes a 40 foot high building on Hargadine would be more
objectionable.
Ogden said in response to the Historic Commission's concerns about the treatment of the stairwell on Hargadine, they have
kept it visually penetrable so the courtyard can be seen from Hargadine. They will encourage public art and the area will
become a destination point.
Dotterrer asked about the Historic Commission recommendations.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 12, 2003
4
:<<f
DALE SHOSTROM, Historic Commissioner, stated the Conditions should be in their motion contained in the meeting minutes in
the Planning Commissioners' packet. The Historic Commission approved the project in concept (vote - 4/3). It is a large
project and a lot of details are missing. They met with the architects on Monday and the Commissioners asked for more
drawings and more clarifications that will be forthcoming.
Swales said with regard to the building stepping down the street, the four-story annex from the Ashland Springs Hotel is about
45 feet in height from the sidewalk on East Main. The plaza along the front of the proposed building has a fa9ade next to it
that is about 52 feet high. Did the Historic Commission feel this was an appropriate scale for this area? Shostrom feels the
same thing; the building has a very high elevation. On average, it seems to meet the code. The plaza directly related to it is
rather narrow, in Shostrom's opinion. The Historic Commission has had about five weeks to review this large project. It is
overwhelming to address all these issues and there have been many details to gather and review. They've had two formal and
informal meetings. Swales re:iterated that it's not so much with the details as it is with the massing and bulking for the entire
project. On the very tall four-story section, should more than a little corner be removed, but a stepping back of the fa9ade? It
does produce a very tall building on the downside of the slopes. Shostrom agreed it is tall and the plaza space feels fairly
narrow.
DOUG NEUMAN, 951 Emigrant Creek Road, said they are trying to build a building that is the essence of Ashland. They looked
at numerous buildings and photos and this feels like a better fit than the plan presented last month. It is a big building, but it
looks like it could work. It's a challenge to meet all the criteria and still have a residential element.
RAMONA DEVAUL, 865 Palmer Road, wrote a letter to the Commission. She said she was always under the impression that the
downtown and the plaza had a different square footage requirement than other parts of Ashland. She could not believe it when
she saw how large this building was and how it would fit into the downtown. What was the square footage prior to the 45,000
square foot limitation? Prior to the recent change, McLaughlin said it was a 45,000 square foot footprint. It changed to total
gross square footage of the building.
DeVaul wondered if there were members that are a part of the architectural firm that are sitting on the Planning Commission or
did they excuse themselves DJr this? Chapman said Ray Kistler is a part of the architectural firm and he has excused himself
from the proceedings.
Because this project is so large and complex, DeVaul believes it is up to the Planning Commission to have the interests of this
community in mind and try to follow what the citizens would want.
BILL STREET, 180 Meade Street, would like it made clear why the applicants are no longer asking for a variance for the
separation of buildings and how that has changed since the last meeting. McLaughlin said it is because there are two separate
parcels.
Street believes the devil is in the process and the size of the building. The Commissioners all voted last February to limit
buildings in the downtown to buildings smaller than what is proposed tonight. The building will entail approximately 90,000
square feet. About 60,000 square feet will be visible. He asked Molnar if those figures were correct. Molnar agreed.
The Mayor sent out an e-mail in March, 2003 saying he agreed with the Planning Commission's interpretation (re: Big Box)
and in particular he sent an e-mail regarding Cameron Hanson's comments. Hanson is not present tonight, but voted to deny
this application at the last meeting. At the February meeting, Hanson said the interpretation that was advanced and the fmdings
for the Shakespeare building were ridiculous and he expressed they didn't reflect what should have been the interpretation.
The Planning Commission agreed by endorsing the interpretation they passed along to the Council. According to the April
minutes of the Historic Commission meeting, the applicants mentioned they had begun planning this building. He spoke with
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator, and he said there were two informal meetings after the meeting in April, before the pre-
application meeting in August. He viewed the file last week and it was very clear from the pre-application meeting that City
Staff was aware this was a v,ery large building. He believes Staff knew this building would draw the attention of those who
have spent the last four years making sure they had a Big Box ordinance that limited buildings in the downtown to an
appropriate size. The formal application was submitted in September. It wasn't until the Historic Commission meeting in
October that John Morrison, Councilor and liaison to the Historic Commission, even became aware of the size of the building.
At this point, if the Planning Commissioners have concerns about this process, he wishes they would express that and as the
applicant requested, judge the application based on the merits of the ordinance as it stood at the time of his application. When
this application advances to the City Council, they will have a chance to interpret this as the Mayor suggested. At that time, he
hopes they will interpret it as the Commission has interpreted it recently and we will establish once and for all that we really
don't want buildings of this size in Ashland.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 12, 2003
5
/'l""'-'/
(:'~ .:::>
ERIC NAVICKAS, 711 Faith Avenue, said he does not understand the setback. It seems they can make a much better public
space in the corridor building and forget about the public parking by pushing the building out to the edge of the sidewalk and
opening up the irregular triangle. With regard to design, he believes the architects need to look to a certain level of restraint as
we move away from kitchen nostalgia. Ashland Springs Hotel has very little relief and it is a really handsome building. The
proposed building with high baroque facades and extremely heavy, deep articulation doesn't really have any precedent in our
City and is not appropriate for the Historic District.
This is an enormous building. Compared to Ashland Springs, this is a really large building in the downtown. They have used a
short time period after the reinterpretation of gross to mean footprint to get this building approved. Cameron Hanson stated the
Council gave an exemption to OSF to meet their needs. We don't need to change the entire ordinance. We need to stand
behind the original reading of the Big Box ordinance. Let's see if the interpretation holds in court. He would rather see a
building that does fit the scale of our downtown.
BRYAN HOllEY, 324 Liberty Street, said the building is either 90,000 square feet or 60,000 square feet, at least 25 percent
larger than what would be allowed under the current Big Box ordinance. If this application is approved, it is going to lead to
the continuing cynicism Ashlanders now have. Though this application was submitted just four days before the Big Box
ordinance was enacted, the applicants say it wasn't rushed. They must have read articles in the newspapers, City minutes, and
letters to the editor about sentiments in town about Big Box. That didn't seem to influence the applicants at all.
Holley said there was some sense of urgency that many people had about Big Boxes in town. The Mayor made a commitment
that he would let everyone know about this. When this gets to the City Council, Holley is looking forward to Mayor DeBoer
explaining how he could make a commitment and then what happened after that commitment. There is growing cynicism in
town that the Planning Commission and/or the Council will not make tough decisions to protect our quality of life.
Holley proposed an alternative vision for this property - a senior sitting area with terraced gardens, a children's playground,
splashing fountains, a place ~or shoppers to stop - a place for hotel patrons to say how wonderful that Ashland set aside the
property for a community value right in the downtown. Isn't that smart planning? Instead we let capitalism and bottom line
money politics drive every planning decision in this town. Holley is frustrated. He cares about the town. The planning
process is flawed.
JACK HARDESTY, 575 Dogwood Way, said the project is completely out of scale with the downtown and it does not fit
appropriately. He [mds it hard to believe this is the same group that last February turned down the Planning Department
version of the Big Box amendment and even suggested the 45,000 square foot size might be too large. The project may be
legal but it certainly flies in the face of what the Planning Commission discussed and a little indignation would be appropriate.
Chapman read De V aul' s lettt:r into the record.
Rebuttal
Wilkerson read the Historic Commission motion from the minutes and explained how they have addressed those items. He
addressed the criteria from the Historic District Design Standards. The illustrations for massing under IV.C.3 show buildings
all the same height. The massing is broken up to avoid a box-like appearance. They have tried to keep the Hargadine end of
the building lower to relate the size of new structures to the scale of adjacent buildings. There is no way the numbers in the
building add up to 90,000 square feet. Refer to the Project Data Sheet showing that every square inch of the building is 81,212
square feet. No one here can say with any reliability how much of that is exposed above ground.
Wilkerson said with regard to the size of the building, it was their intent to comply with the spirit of the law. The intent of the
new ordinance, as they understand it, that went into effect after this project was submitted was to allow for buildings while
excluding the below grade parking areas, but understanding that buildings of this size will require structured parking. They
have done everything they can to put the parking underground.
Ogden said the pedestrian plaza edge does have some height associated with it. With the articulation of the forms that have
been addressed, he believes the design has taken the scale and broken it up appropriately to break down the fayade and
massing. It is in compliance with the criteria for the heights set forth in this zone.
KenCairn asked how many square feet of the building is commercial space. Wilkerson said the residential square footage is
24,260, the commercial space is 13,206. They are well under 45,000 square feet. The parking partially above ground is about
19,000 square feet.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 12, 2003
6
{).,{;,
Molnar addressed the separation of buildings. There is a standard in the Detailed Site Review Zone that says buildings not
connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the height of the tallest building. That has been a
standard for about a decade. There have been a number of circumstances where they have not applied that to buildings that are
on separate parcels under separate ownership. The ordinance does not specifically say the ordinance does not apply in the
downtown. The new ordinance does. They were trying to be consistent with how it has been applied in the past. He brought
up an example of the difficulty of applying it to separate parcels, creating a pattern very different that what is seen in the
historic downtown.
Swales wondered how legally this works. At the time the application was made, the lot had not been split and was under one
ownership. Molnar said that is true. As part of this application, they are requesting to divide off this portion from Ashland
Springs, creating a separate parcel.
KenCairn asked how this cunent application does not meet the cunent Big Box ordinance. Molnar said, as stated in the
previous Staff Report, that the underground parking is considered as basement level parking and not considered in the
calculation. As you go around the perimeter, not enough of the parking is buried to be considered a basement.
Briggs recommended a Condition that sets up some signage so people will know there are public parking spaces.
Swales said the parking for the hotel will replace the existing parking. He would assume the existing parking is non-
conforming. Wouldn't the parking have to be brought up to the cunent standard for 70 hotel units? Wilkerson said it is their
understanding that the CUP in place for the hotel to have the spaces (68) is not changing. They are just insuring the same
number of spaces will be provided.
Wilkerson said it is also their understanding that the partitioning of the property can't be done unless it is part of a planning
action. This partition is part of this planning action. The applicant is not the owner of the hotel. Two different entities have a
need for separate ownership of the property.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
KenCairn moved to approve Planning Action 2003-127 with none of the variances, attaching the 19 Conditions and adding a
Condition regarding further involvement from the Historic Commission and a Condition addressing signage of the public
parking.
Molnar said the wording for Condition 20 would read: "That the recommendations of the Historic Commission be
incorporated into the final design and approved by the Staff Advisor. The applicant shall continue to collaborate between Staff
and the Commission throughout the refinement of the design. Dottener seconded the motion.
Briggs said she looked every which way possible to deny this application, but she can't find it. It fits all the criteria. She feels
really emotional about the fact that it is more than 45,000 square feet. She hears everything the opponents are saying but they
are not sitting here and they haven't taken the commitment to abide by the criteria. She is ready to approve it, but she has to
say out loud how she feels. She would like to add under Condition 21 that signage in at least two places indicate five public
parking spaces, two of which are handicapped. KenCairn and Dottener so amended the motion.
Fields said the Detailed Site Review standard is an Administrative Variance. This is an unusual case and applying the
ordinance is not an unusual hardship. We could say the other alternative is building 40 feet off the street and stepping three
sections down at 40 feet. That's a whole redesign. What was never clear to him on this project was solar orientation. Where is
the sun in the winter? The crack between the buildings will never get direct sun except in the summer. The plaza area looking
across the mountains gets an incredible amount of shade from the Ashland Springs Hotel and quickly comes around the corner
and leaves the back pedestrian alleyway pretty well protected. He would like to see some building breathing room. If you
extend the eaveline of the roof across to Ashland Springs, looking up a the building from Main Street, the height of the cornice
is actually seven stories high from the Main Street elevation. Maybe decrease the number of condominiums to open up the
diamond. Now it is nanow. What is the wind dynamic? He sees no direct sun. He doesn't see it as a great people place.
Maybe the major season is summer and the shade will be appreciated. He is willing to say we do have the discretion to say this
building should have more of a setback. Somewhere between 52,000 and 60,000 square feet of building could be considered
above grade. Underground parking is a great resource. It's a trade-off. Either you'll have a parking amenity for the people
living there or you are going to have more condominiums to sell. If we could determine the mass and scale of the building,
then they'd have the latitude to work through these issues. Based on that, he would vote for denial.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 12, 2003
7
{)..1
Swales agrees completely with Fields. If Briggs is looking for a way to deny it, one only has to go back to the original Big Box
ordinance. The Commissioners have in front of them the interpretation of the original ordinance. During the discussions that
led up to the final approval by Council [of the big box] there was only one mention of footprint and it was certainly not in the
content of building size. There is no mention of footprint in any of the minutes or proceedings for the original Big Bo. In the
case of OSF, there were two buildings, both of which were very big. The parking structure was 46,000 square feet. The
question was not about a footprint. They were told by Council that they would grant approval provided the buildings were
moved apart any distance. They were moved apart to make them non-contiguous and that's the reason they managed to
comply with the Conditions. There was ambiguity in the interpretation. Councilor David Fine spent 20 minutes reading the 84
pages offmdings and decided it didn't reflect the Council's interpretation and should therefore be sent back for editing.
Swales recalls his conversation with Fine. Fine said, as a lawyer, ifhe spent 20 minutes reviewing an 84 page legal document,
he would be considered criminally negligent. Swales explained that to rely on this interpretation of these findings which was
buried deep within it, and to have never had any prior discussion, either by the Council, Planning Commission, applicants or
those in opposition, is stretching it. First he believes they ought to refer this to Council for interpretation to see what they
actually did mean. What is the actual interpretation of 45,000 gross square footage? Everyone he has heard has never made
any mention of footprint. That was just slipped into the 84 page document and rubber-stamped by Council. Swales continued.
The Council construes "contiguous" to mean "touching". The application contains contiguous buildings and does not meet the
original Big Box.
Morris disagreed. The interpretation was the 45,000 square foot footprint.
KenCairn does not believe w(~ are here to interpret what the ordinance says.
McLaughlin said the City Attorney has stated the Council's interpretation is the 45,000 square feet applies to footprint. It is
disturbing every time we go back to OSF. He wishes we could just evaluate the application on its merits. He believes there are
two separate tax lots. You could have an unbuildable lot. Fields said that would be a hardship. He believes we have
discretion. Where does it say it has to be a separate tax lot? Morris believes each lot has its own setback.
Knox added that the Downtown Design Standards require through design to build to the lot line. Look at the historic pattern.
Fields said the historic pattern is level. When you have a grade going up over a block, it changes. It's not the same and it
requires discretion.
KenCairn likes the project and would rather see this design. She loves parking underground. It is a negative part of the site
that brings some of the parking above ground. She does not think we have criteria to drop the third building. She agrees with
Fields that the outdoor public space is not that inviting throughout the year, but she does not see it as an issue to deny the
application.
Dotterrer agrees with KenCairn and Briggs. He believes it meets the criteria. He likes the design and does not think it will
overwhelm the downtown. He understands the idea about the big box but likes the project.
Chapman thinks it meets the criteria at the time, based on when the application was filed. He believes it will be an asset to the
downtown. It is an efficient use of our downtown space.
The motion carried with Morris, KenCairn, Briggs, Dotterrer and Chapman voting "yes" and Swales and Fields voting "no".
OTHER
RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL ON NOW X 2
McLaughlin said two detailed study sessions have been held with the Planning Commission, looking at potential future growth
areas. They last met with the Council and Housing Commission and heard some varying points of view. The Council asked
that the Planning Commission make a formal recommendation back to them.
The main areas are ADl (90 ac. off Tolman Creek Road & Siskiyou Boulevard) and AD2 (north side ofE. Main, adjacent to
existing UGB). Three areas have been proposed by private property owners: 15 ac. behind Mountain Meadows owned by
Madeline Hill and Larry Medinger, 5 ac. owned by Dr. Young located near the intersection of North Mountain and 1-5, and the
440 ac. Neil Ranch near the Ashland Airport (no public access at this time).
Staff has recommended not including the three privately owned pieces of property. ADl and AD2 each have merits along with
concerns. Both have always functioned as open space and gateways to the community. The East Main parcel is zoned EFU.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 12, 2003
8
~?
CITY OF
ASHLAND
TRANSCRIPT FROM AUDIO TAPES OF THE OCTOBER 14, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
The following is a transcript of Bill Street's testimony presented during the Public Forum at the
October 14, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Sixteen minutes of his testimony were missing
from the videotape. Street requested during the agenda item "Approval of the Minutes", that his
testimony be amended to include more of his remarks than were recorded in the minutes. The
Planning Commission voted to include a transcript of Street's remarks.
BILL STREET (BS): Good evening. My name is Bill Street. I live at 180 Meade Street and you're all familiar with me, uh, and my concerns
about, uh, big boxes in downtown AsWand and also the planning process. Uh, tonight I'd like to talk to you about the planning process, in
particular with relationship to the big box ordinance. We, as a community, have been looking at this for over three years now. It's been a long
and lengthy process. I know that you all have been very frustrated at times and, uh, have heard endless testimony and met many times about it.
And, I want to go over some of the steps that we took as a community, uh, to get where we are today. It relates to what's going to be on the
agenda later, but I think it's important for us to examine the process now so that the people of Ashland can get a sense of where we have come
from and how we arrived at this point. Uh, briefly, you are aware that three years ago we began talking about the big box interpretation. The
1992 ordinance was interpreted (background noise, unintelligible)... Shakespeare, New Theater came before us and the parking structure. And,
that interpretation resulted in a number of meetings in the last three years, uh, in which we examined that interpretation and you, after a lot of
discussion, after a lot of meetings, came to agree on February 11 th of this year, February 11 th, 2003, you came to agree unanimously that the
original interpretation of the big box should stand. That being that the 45,000 number should refer to the gross square footage of a building in
downtown Ashland. Now, throughout this process, I warned the City Council and you a number of times about the urgency of trying to get this
established in law by the City Council. I spoke to City Councilors in public and private, I spoke to the Mayor, I spoke to each of you, uh, I
spoke to you in public, I spoke to you at these meetings about the importance of closing this door, this opportunity, this window. You
remember this clearly. I'm just repe:ating history for you, but I think people on TV may not be aware ofthat. It's been a long process and over
and over again, I've said to you, you need to close the door because somebody's going to come in and try to put a building in AsWand, in
downtown Ashland, which is larger than the 45,000 number, 45,000 square feet. And, of course this is what's happened tonight. We have a
application before us that is going to be larger than 45,000 square feet and it is happening, it is coming before you two days before this law
takes effect. So it's clear that someone has taken care.. . taken advantage of this opportunity, has rushed their application through and is hoping
that tonight you will rule favorably on their behalf. On March 19th, just a short few weeks after the March 11th, uh, the February 11th meeting,
when you voted unanimously to agree that the 45,000 should refer to gross square footage and not the footprint of a building. On March 19th,
the Mayor, Mayor DeBoer, sent e-mail to Colin Swales. Colin Swales had received a number of e-mails from, uh, citizens, I was one of them,
uh, urging uh, the Planning Commission and, uh, the City Council to go ahead and close this door. And, if you remember your minutes from
the February 11th meeting, you asked John McLaughlin to recommend, to forward the recommendations to the City Council to act on this, to
make this interpretation the law of ,AsWand. Now, it was not, uh, presented, at the next City Council meeting. John, you didn't forward it.
(coughing by someone might have blocked out a couple of words) It wasn't brought up at that next meeting. And, as a result, uh, Alan DeBoer
responded to this concern by writing the following: "I visited with Planning today,"... This is March 19th, 2003. ".. . and was assured that any
project that would exceed the 45,000 gross footage would come to Council for interpretation of how we view it. I will honor the Planning
Commission request at gross square footage, not footprint." We did not expect any projects of this size in the next few months. That was in
March. It's now October. In April, I since learned, by looking at the Historic Commission min.. . minutes, uh, of this past week. And, I
believe you've all received them in your packets, is that correct? The Historic Commission minutes. It becomes clear from testimony from the
Bemises that they began planning their project behind the Ashland Springs Hotel in April, six months previous to the meeting last week for the
Historic Commission. So in April after the March 19th letter that DeBoer sent to Mr. Swales, after the February 11 th meeting which you
unanimously agreed that 45,000 should be the limit, the Bemises decided that they would like to go ahead and plan a project that would be
larger than at 45,000 square feet. This raises questions about how we as a community do business. It raised questions about how individuals
do business in our community. And, I really think we should examine that as citizens. When it becomes the clear will of the people of AsWand
represented by you, when every on<: of you says we shouldn't have a building larger than 45,000 in our downtown, and when the Mayor not
only writes us e-mail but then says in public at sis..City Council meeting that he supports your recommendation, he honors it, and he makes it
clear that he will ask the Planning Department to come forward and to make it clear to the Council, me, as I interpret it, and as I think everyone
who read this e-mail interpreted it, ilt would become public knowledge that there was an application that might go beyond that 45,000 so that
the Council could consider that and act upon it. And, my question tonight is, Mac, why didn't you come before the Council and let them
know? I hope you'll address that.
;;{C}
John McLaugWin (JM): We took the, uh, request to the Council at a study session.. .um.. . regarding the...um...Planning Commission's
recommendation and they made some amendments to that and we put it back in the process which ultimately ended up in the ordinance
amendment as you saw.
BS: Right. But, did you mention to them that there was a application or a discussion that was going forward in the Plamting Department?
1M: Council's aware...(interrupted) of this application.
BS: Council was aware of that. But it never became public knowledge. I remember distinctly Chris Heam sitting where you are Kerry, and
mentioning the parking structure in September and Alan looking over at Chris and saying, basically, we can't talk about that right now. He
gave him the look of we cannot talk about that right now. Now.. . (interrupted)
KERRY KENCAIRN (KK): You brought me into this discussion. Um.. .my understanding... (interrupted)
BS: Yes, mmhmm.... Just because you happened to be sitting (interrupted)...in Chris's seat.
KK: Sorry. (interrupted )...
BS: Let me, let me, let me finish though my point. My point is is that Alan DeBoer promised in e-mail and also said in public that he honored
your unanimous recommendation and he also said he had gone to Planning and asked that it be made public knowledge at a Council meeting
and it was not. When you say there was a study session to talk about the big box ordinance, that's not the same as this application that we are
discussing tonight.
1M: That's not my recollection of my discussion with Mr. DeBoer.
BS: Okay, so, that calls into question his integrity, doesn't it if that's not your recollection? It does, doesn't it? And that's unfortunate. Now,
I'd liked to continue. So the Bemises, after knowing how you felt.. . (interrupted by Russ Chapman) yes.
RUSS CHAPMAN (RC): You're startin' to kinda cross the line here as far as it is becoming clear to me and I think everybody up here that you
are speaking in opposition, which is certainly your right, to Bemises application. The Public Forum isn't where we're doin' this. I mean, I, if
you want to come up and have a general discussion about the process by which the big box ordinance was.. .is.. . enacted or approved, that's
fine. But it seems to be totally directed in opposition to Bemises application which means you should come up later (interrupted)...in the
meeting.
BS: I'm going to do that. And, and I will, uh, withdraw my further comments on the Bemis project and reserve them for the, 00, agenda item.
However, I would like to continue to talk about the dates involved. Uh...
RC: Be advised you have 15 minutes, and we are about three minutes away from it. So...
BS: I want to make it clear to the people of AsWand what's happened in the last three years. What's happened in the last six months. And, I
think it will be clear to you when you hear this why so many people in this town are, are becoming increasingly cynical about the process. It's
disturbing to me, it's upsetting to me when people that are the age of my parents and people that are the age of my children express deep
cynicism about what's going on in this town and the process that decisions are being.. .how, how, how decisions are being made in this town. I
feel responsible as an adult. My generation, you, were responsible for the way this process works and how it looks to the people of AsWand.
And, when you see young people at the City Council meeting expressing their cynicism and despair and anger, when you see older people at
this meeting and the City Council meeting expressing their cynicism and despair, when I receive e-mail where people belittle and show despair
and cynicism about the process, I feel some responsibility and I feel upset about that. And, I think we ought to look deeply at what is
happening here. And, we should ge:t out in public what is happening here. And, we should all understand what's happening and how it works.
So, on August 13th a pre-application meeting took place for which you are going to discuss tonight. The Bemis project. A pre-application on
August 13th. That gave John McLaugWin plenty of time to bring this before the Council. On September 12th the application was submitted.
That gave John McLaugWin plenty of time to bring this before the Council. And it was not brought before the Council and I ask you, and I
asked Alan DeBoer, and I asked you why wasn't it?
CAMERON HANSON (CH): What wasn't?
30
BS: Why wasn't notice given to the people of AsWand that a project that was larger than 45,000, a figure that you voted on unanimously
should be the limit in downtown Ashland, why wasn't it brought to the attention of the public?
CH: According to my paperwork he:re, it's not above 45,000 square feet.
BS: If you look at the Staff Report, page 8 andpage 9, it's very clear that it's larger than 45.
KK: Are you including the parking structure and the...
BS: Look at 8 and 9 (interrupted)...
(unintelligible)
RC: It's 15 minutes.. . the 15 minut~:s is over. Let's reserve that for our discussion. Thank you Bill.
BS: It's really important that we all do our homework, that we do the research, talk to the Planning Department, talk to the Mayor, and we
know what the facts are and we know what the process is, otherwise, we'll have a situation like this where we have something before us that
goes against the will of both you and the people of AsWand.
~(
Ron Silverman
1725 Bristol Street P.O. Box 1206
Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 488-3206 Fax: (541) 488-3704
RonMvRon@aol.com
~ \nrrr'~
,.,,"-,-,
I
[ nJ NOV 1 3 2003;. ,
" ,"; I.: I
-l -,._," _~~~ "''''''' i \
lJLn:S\::7L:U--Q L5LV
--~----------~------~---
November 8, 2003
Mr. Bill Molnar,
Senior Planner
City of Ashland
20 E. Main Street
Dear Mr. Molnar':
I usually ,engage in thorough research before offering my opinion about important
matters. There are occasions, however, when it is imperative to be timely, and,
irrespective of the level of my expertise, this is one of those times.
The subject of my interest is the apartment complex being proposed by Ed and
Tanya Bemis for construction on the site of the parking lot behind the Ashland Springs
Hotel in downtown Ashland.
My wife and I have been Ashland residents for seven years and visitors to this
wonderful city fi)r four years before that. During those eleven years, we have witnessed
the changes in the downtown core - new buildings being primary among them - and we
have been strongly impressed by their contribution to the appearance and the vitality of
this city. It is not difficult to illustrate this position by viewing the construction work of Ed
Bemis - buildings that include the lodge on the plaza, the A Street Marketplace, and the
Oregon Shakespeare Festivals' Tudor Guild store. In working with developer Allan
Sandler, each of these buildings has, in my mind, made Ashland a better place to live.
As important as the quality of Ed Bemis' work is the fact that asphalt and
automobiles are never the most attractive view. To have someone interested in replacing a
parking lot with what promises to be a beautiful structure - without losing parking spaces
downtown - is, it seems to me, something to be honored and admired.
As a lover ofthis city, I would like to go on record to support the project proposed
by Ed and Tanya Bemis and to urge the city government to make it possible to see this
project to fruition.
Thank you for allowing me to add my voice to this very important issue.
~
~ ~~~
:00 ~ yerman
3~
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
ADDENDUM
November 12, 2003
PLANNING ACTION: 2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed & Tanya Bemis
LOCATION: 212 E. Main Street - At the rear of the Ashland Springs Hotel
ZONE DESIGNATION: C-1-D
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercia1- Downtown
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.76
18.92
18.100
Downtown Retail Commercial District
Site Design & Use Chapter & Site Design
and Use Standards
Partitions
Off-Street Parking
Variances
18.32
18.72
REQUEST: Land Partition and Site Review to construct a multi-floor, mixed-use (condominium
and commercial) building and underground parking upon the area occupied by the existing
Ashland Springs Hotel surface parking area at 212 E. Main Street. A Variance is requested to
allow less than 65 percent of the total gross floor area of the ground floor to be occupied by a
permitted or special permitted uses. In addition, an Administrative Variance and Exception is
requested to Site Design and Use Standards relating to separation between buildings {II-C-3a(3)}
and to allow balconies on street facing elevations {VI-B-(3)}.
I. Back2round and Additional Information
This application was reviewed before the Commission at the October 14, 2003 meeting.
The application was continued in order to allow the applicant additional time to address
issues raised within the Staff Report, as well as concerns noted by Historic and Planning
Commissioners and through public testimony.
The applicant has submitted 14 pages of revised Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
addressing areas of concern and describing changes to project design. In addition, revised
33
November 12,2003
Staff Report Addendum
Page 1
PA2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed ,md Tanya Bemis
drawings have been included to reflect design revisions as well as other concerns raised
by the Planning and Historic Commissions. The new information presented by the
applicant notes that "all plans now include additional dimensions, square footage
calculations, north arrows and graphic scales. Additionally, the Site Plan clearly shows all
'public space,' including both the widened sidewalk as well as the Pedestrian Plaza".
Finally, a Project Data Sheet has been included introducing pertinent statistics about the
building and site plan.
II. Project Impact
Staff has summarized below the primary areas of concern and discussion raised at the
October 14th public meeting. In addition, revisions associated with a given issue have
been noted as well as Staff's evaluation ofthe changes. At the time this Staff Report
addendum was prepared, Historic Commission comments regarding the changes were not
yet available:. Please refer to minutes from the Historic Commission's November 5th
meeting for their discussion and recommendation on the proposal.
Large-Scale (i.e. "Big Box") Development Standards - Maximum Building Size
On October 16,2003, recent amendments to City design standards effecting large-scale
development went into effect. Since this application was filed prior to the effective date
of these changes, the proposal is evaluated upon the standards effective at that time and
not the amended standards.
Based upon the City Council's ordinance interpretation on maximum building size in the
adopted Findings and Fact from OSF's New Theatre, the standard effective at the date
this application was filed set a maximum buildingfootprint of 45,000 square feet. The
proposed building footprint of 19,633 is well within the maximum foot print allowance of
45,000 square feet. Consequently, this application complies with the standard.
Site Review Approval
The primary areas of concern raised at the October meeting dealt with the application's
consistency with applicable Downtown Design and Detail Site Review Zone Standards,
both included within the City's Site Design and Use Standards document. Specific items
of discussion are included below:
Building Design - Additional Information Needed
PA2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis
The new information presented by the applicant includes additional dimensions,
November 12,2003
Staff Report Addendum
Page 2
3Lf
1111 11 'Inl'1
square footage calculations, north arrows and graphic scales. Additionally, a
Proje(;t Data Sheet has been included introducing pertinent statistics about the
building and site plan. The applicant has met with Historic Commission members
since the last meeting to discuss their concerns about scale, massing, materials and
detailing. In Staffs opinion, an appropriate level of information regarding the
design and details of the project has be provided to determine whether the
proposal complies or doesn't comply with Ashland's design criteria.
Exception to Downtown Design Standards - Projecting Balconies
The initial building design integrated projecting terraces and balconies on the
upper levels of the building. As noted by the applicant in the revised findings, the
design of the building has been revised to eliminate projecting balconies. Fewer
balconies, recessed into the building fayade, have been used to provide outdoor
living space. While recessed balconies along a street elevation still require an
Exception to Standards, the change appears consistent with the direction given to
the applicant by the Commission at the public hearing.
As shown on page 8 of the Downtown Standards (illustration 11), the proposed
recessed balconies do not dramatically deviate from the downtown's existing
context. Each upper story balcony is bounded on both sides by columns that are
essentially flush with the buildings exterior fayade, and extend from the sidewalk
to the: upper roofline. Consequently, a zero setback is maintained along the
majority of the building's two street-facing elevations.
Administrative Variance to Site Design Standard - Separation between
Buildings
The public notice describing the project included a request for administrative
relief from the following standard that requires separation between neighboring
buildings not connected by a common wall.
Detail Site Review Standard II-C-3a (3). Buildings not connected by a
common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the height of the tallest
building.
PA2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis
In similar applications, Staffhas interpreted that the standard does not apply
between adjoining buildings located on separate parcels (i.e. tax lots). The
proposed mixed-use building will be partitioned off onto a separate parcel.
Interpreting the standard other wise, could place an unusual hardship on the owner
of an adjoining, undeveloped parcel, significantly limiting or eliminating the
development potential for the property. For example, in the case of two adjoining
vacant parcels 40 to 60 feet in width, if a 40-foot high structure is constructed on
November 12, 2003
Staff Report Addendum
Page 3
3,
one parcel, 2/3rds to 100% of the adjoining parcel cannot be developed without
administrative relief to the standard. Consequently, Staff does not believe the
standard should apply in this application.
Public Space Requirements
City Site Design Standards (II-C-3b (1) require large-scale developments to
provide one square foot of plaza or public space for every 10 square feet of gross
floor area. In past applications, the amount of public space has been linked to
useable, heated interior floor area. Consequently, the greater the area of occupied
floor space (both horizontal and vertical volume), the greater the proportion of
area devoted to public spaces adjacent to or within the project.
The gross floor area of the building is approximately 43,500 square feet,
excluding area devoted to structure parking. Consequently, approximately 4,300
to 4,400 square feet of public space would be required. The revised Findings of
Fact provide the following breakdown for proposed public spaces:
Pedestrian Plaza = 3,542
Widened Sidewalks = 2,690
Internal Courtyard = 2,068
Total Provided = 8,300
Total Required = 4,400
The Planning Commission has the discretion to interpret as to whether or not the
2,068 of internal courtyard space meets the public space requirement. If access to
the internal courtyard is not restricted by a gate or signs, and allows individuals to
freely flow in and out, the area provides a unique space for residents and curious
pass(~r buyers. Consequently, Staff believes the space can be found to comply with
the standard for public space and included in the total area calculation. This would
yield a public space total area of approximately 5,600 square feet, 1,200 square
feet in excess of the requirement.
PA2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis
Staff is concerned and does not believe, however, that the area associated with the
widening of public sidewalks should be included within the public space
calculation. This opinion is based upon the standards noted for public spaces
contained in the City's Detail Site Review Zone. Specifically, public space is
required to include 4 of the following 6 elements: sitting space, areas of sunlight
and shade, protection from wind, landscaping, water features/public art or outdoor
eating/food vendors. Based upon the graphics in the Site Design and Use
Standards document (pages 23 & 25), public spaces are generally located around
the perimeter ofthe project adjacent to public sidewalks. Consequently, the wider
perimeter sidewalk widths (10-15 feet) associated with heavier pedestrian
November 12,2003
Staff Report Addendum
Page 4
3/
,~
volumes of downtown areas are generally not considered part of the public space.
The public spaces are the areas adjacent to the sidewalk (i.e. mid-block alcoves,
broad street comers, etc) or internal to the project where people can step or
meander away from the normal rout eof the public sidewalk in order to view and
enjoy the surroundings.
Variance Request - 65% ofthe Ground Floor in Commercial Use
Residential Uses are a Special Permitted Use in the C-1-D Zone, permitted outright when
at least 65% ofthe total gross floor area of the ground floor is designated for permitted
uses. The initial proposal requested a Variance to this provision, providing approximately
55.9% oftht: ground floor footprint area as designated commercial space as opposed to
the required 65%.
Given the concern raised at the October 14th public hearing regarding the proposed
Variance, the applicant has amended the application and removed the Variance request.
As noted in the applicant's revised Findings of Fact, the amount of commercial space has
been increased to 65% of the ground floor footprint through the creation of five public
parking spac:es on the First Street level (including 1 standard, 2 compact and 2 handicap
spaces.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for approval of a Site Review application are described in the Site
Design and Use chapter 18.72 as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-
of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards
Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999)
The criteria for approval for a Partition application are described in the Partitions
chapter 18.76 as follows:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be
impeded.
PA2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis
':I. ~'7
~~,".I '
November 12, 2003
Staff Report Addendum
Page 5
C. The tract ofland has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to
the land.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord 2836 S8, 1999)
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be
provided, as determined by the Public Works Director and specified by City documents,
for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage ofthe parcel to
the nearest fillly improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive
Plan. Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the
use of the proposed street. The minimum width ofthe street shall be 20-feet with all work
done under permit of the Public Works Department.
1. The Publil;; Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land
partition when all of the following conditions exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or
arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant
shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject
property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost
of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local
improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street
improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of
utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if
the owner dt:clines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided
from the allt:y and prohibited from the street. (amended Ord. 2757, 1995)
The criteria for approval for a Variance application are described in the Variances
chapter 18.100 as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances, which apply to this site, which do not
typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 S 1, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-
imposed.(Ord. 2775, 1996)
An administrative variance may be granted with respect to the standard requiring
separation between buildings (distance equal to the height of the tallest building) if,
on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the
following circumstances are found to exist:
PA2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis
3?l
November 12,2003
Staff Report Addendum
Page 6
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site
Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site;
B. Approval ofthe variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties;
C. Approval ofthe variance is consistent with the stated purpose ofthe Site Design and
Use Chapter:; and
D. The variance requested is the minimum variance, which would alleviate the difficulty.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
The proposal likely represents the largest single structure ever constructed within the
downtown area. Given the size and scale of the proposal, Staff felt there was not
sufficient information included in the application last month to fully comprehend and
grasp the details of the project. Staff now believes the additional information provided by
the project architects includes an adequate level of detail to determine whether or not the
application complies with City building and site design standards.
Staff feels the application presents an attractive building design considerate of the many
design standards applicable to the downtown, while being true to the proposed uses
contained within the structure. However, determining an application's compliance with
the myriad of design criteria for a project of this size is not without subjectivity. Should
the Commission find that all relevant design criteria have been met and choose to approve
the application, Staff would recommend that the following conditions accompany the
decision:
1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here.
2) That the right of the Hotel and its patrons to use the off-site parking must be evidenced by
a deed, lease" easement, or similar written instrument establishing such use, for the duration
of the use. The written instrument shall be created through consultation with the City
Attorney and approved by the City Attorney prior to signature of the final survey plat or
issuance of a building permit for the new building.
3) That additional right-of-way dedication is provided on the Partition plat so that existing and
proposed improvements associated with the alley are included within the alley right-of-way.
Additional right-of-way, if necessary, shall be dedicated around the perimeter of the project
so that the full widths of public sidewalks are included within the adjoining street rights-of-
way (i.e. 1st and Hargadine Streets).
4) That a public pedestrian easement, approximately 10-feet in width, be dedicated on the
partition plat along the proposed route and location of the pedestrian arcade and public plaza.
5) Street trees shall be installed approximately every 30- feet, using metal tree grates, within the
existing 10 and 1/2-foot wide section of sidewalk adjoining the Ashland Springs Hotel along
First Street. The location of the new street trees shall be included on the revised site plan and
PA2003-127 November 12,2003
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis ,,:::: 1 Staff Report Addendum
Page 7
1111 11 l'rnl'l
installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6) That a 4 to 5- foot wide concrete walkway shall be installed along the east side of the public
alley from the public sidewalk along Hargadine Street to the public pedestrian walkway at
the northwest comer of the building. The design shall be approved by the Engineering
Division and installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
7) That the site plan be revised to include a 10-foot wide public sidewalk (excluding the 6"
curb) along the 1 st and Hargadine Street frontages. Street trees shall be installed,
approximately every 30-feet, along the 1 st and Hargadine Street frontages. Street trees shall
be installed within tree wells using metal tree grates prior to a certificate of occupancy.
8) That pedestrian-scale streetlights, as approved for the downtown Historic District, shall be
installed along the 1 st Street from Main to Hargadine Street, as well as along the project's
Hargadine Street frontage at an interval approved by the City Electric Utility prior to a
certificate of occupancy.
9) That a sign, awning and marquee program for the development be included at the time of
building pernlit review. The program shall identify the anticipated number of signs, locations
and approximate square footage based upon the requirements described in the Sign Code
18.96. Leases for commercial tenant spaces shall note that awnings, marquees or similar
pedestrian shelters shall be consistent with City Downtown Design Standard (VI-I),
reviewed by the Ashland Historic Commission and approved by the Planning Department
Staff Advisor.
10) That the color, texture, shape and building materials be included for all exterior components
of the project at the time of submission of building permit. The information shall be
consistent with the colors, texture and shape of materials and building details proposed and
approved as part of the land use application.
11) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission shall be included on a revised
landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permit. Street
trees shall be from the approved recommended street tree list, while the Planning and
Engineering Divisions shall review and approve the metal tree grates.
12) That the site plan shall be revised to comply with the public plaza/space standard based upon
the total gross floor area, excluding areas devoted to structured parking.
13) That 10% of the residential units shall be affordable for moderate-income persons in accord
with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council. The units shall be
identified on the approved plans and the household occupying the unit shall be approved by
the City prior to occupancy of the unit.
14) That proposed access onto the alley as well as First Street shall be designed by a Professional
Engineer and approved by the Ashland Engineering Division prior to issuance of a building
PA2003-127 November 12, 2003
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis .4 V Staff Report Addendum
i Page 8
permit.
15) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering
Division prior to issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of
all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines
and meter sizes, sewers, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage and catch basins.
16) That all comments and requirements provided by the Fire Department in their August 13,
2003 comment sheet shall be addressed and approved by the Ashland Fire Department prior
to issuance of a building permit.
17) That the information and requirements of the Ashland Electric Utility Service for
Commercial Development shall be provided for review and approval prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
18) That an opportunity-to-recycle site for use by project residents shall be identified for the
project in accordance with the standards described in section 18.72.115 of the Ashland Land
Use Ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit.
19) That bicycle parking is installed in accordance with City standards described in chapter 18.92
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
PA2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed :md Tanya Bemis
-4
I
November 12,2003
Staff Report Addendum
Page 9
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Planning Action 2003-127
land Partition, Site Review, Variance, and Administrative Variance and Exception
212 East Main Street
Ed and Tanya Bemis
Knox noted that this item had been continued from last month, and he added that the discussion at that time had to do with
the lack of detail in the proposal. He explained that the Planning Commission had agreed that more information was
needed to resolve design comments. He stated that the applicants have since provided additional information to the Review
Board, and have attempted to eliminate all variances from the proposal except for the balconies. He stated that there was
one additional area of staff concern, and that he was seeking the commission's help to resolve it. He stated that this would
be a more formal discussion, with plenty of detail presented now including the cut-out's and renderings the applicant had
posted. He stated that the plans presented give some options while the packet information that was distributed speaks to
the prior comments.
Knox clarified that the two relatively minor issues identified by staff as remaining were: 1) the balconies and 2) the vertical
rhythms. Knox explained that the ordinance says that recessed or projecting balconies shall not be incorporated in a street-
facing elevation. He pointed out that the prohibition on balconies in the design standards came out of looking at the
downtown streetscape in its entirety. He stated that there are very few projections into the downtown streetscape, and in
establishing the standards the Martino's building was seen as very foreign due to its stepped-back, recessed balconies.
He clarified that the design standards intend to give the best guidance possible; he cited page 8 of the Site Design and
Use Standards where exceptions are illustrated as showing a balcony that does not dominate the building's appearance
or deviate from the collective historic fayade. He added that the Gen Kai building at 180 Lithia Way had recently been
granted an exception. He stated that staff feels that while the proposed design meets the intent of the ordinance it is still
technically a request for a variance.
Knox stated that the second staff concern had to do with the vertical rhythms. He explained that along Main Street,
properties are typically distinguished by color variations, material treatment, or vertical breaks. He added that in addition
to this pattern, buildings also typically step down with grade. He suggested that the architects need to establish these
patterns here to address staff concerns. Knox stated that staff feels that the application is complete and can now move
on to the Planning Commission with support from the staff. He added that he feels the design represents a wonderful
investment in the downtown urban core with housing, hidden parking, and sustainable design. He stated that the minor
design elements could be resolved here tonight.
Shostrom opened the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.
Applicants Ed and Tanya Bemis and architects Ken Ogden and David Wilkerson of Ogden Kistler Architecture introduced
themselves. Ogden noted that the colored elevation displayed was based on the commission's comments from the last
meeting. Ogden discussed the previous design as a single mass with no breaks and lots of glazing. He pointed out the
changes made to reduce the glazing, repeat vertical patterns, extend columns to the ground, articulate the column caps,
and separate the mass into a building, a core area, and another building wrapping around the side of Hargadine Street.
Ogden noted that the commercial area nearest the hotel would have steel-framed windows with divided lights, and the
central core structure would be slightly different. He stated that the more residential portion near Hargadine would have
wood-framed windows. He discussed the anchored central point, the arches, refined historic details, cornices, and use of
the base to anchor the structure. He noted that the proposal continued to read as one element due to the horizontal aspect.
Ogden presented a new suggested design with a more definitive element in the form of a go-away strip to divide the
structures. He explained that the central portion retains its sense of being the core through its different vocabulary, while
the portion nearer to Hargadine gives rhythm and continuity while remaining distinct. He explained that he attempted to
have each respond and communicate with the other, such as in the use or arches, without copying details. He added that
the light fixtures, windows, and molding would be distinct.
Ogden stated that each building has a clear sense of entry, and he noted that the unit nearest Hargadine had its entry to
Hargadine. He also addressed the erosion of form on the Ashland Springs side of the development, noting that he was
proposing less stair-stepping and modifying the single depth arch element to a cube. He stated that the changes result in
a more powerful feeling of a streetscape with different buildings.
Ogden pointed out that the scale, massing and height are all within standards for the zone. He explained that while there
is some volume, the overall height is less than the Old Masonic building on the Plaza. He emphasized that the varied forms,
the level of detail, and the articulation and undulation were in direct response to commission comments. He stated that
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
4'
~
7
lilT n 'rnl'1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
while there are still six balconies in the proposal, the articulation of the primary face means that the balconies only project
eight inches. He explained that this would soften the face from a pedestrian point of view, and noted that this change was
in response to Planning Commissioner Marilyn Briggs' concerns that the balconies conflicted.
Ogden reaffirmed that this was not the last time the commission would be seeing this design, and he stated that he would
be coming back to the commission as design options presented themselves. He suggested that the applicants, architects,
staff, commissioners, and city will be proud of the end result.
Skibby inquired about the First Street elevation entries. Ogden discussed the retail space and plaza entries, and the entry
on the core retail area. Skibby stated that this retail entry would be strengthened by double doors. Ogden suggested that
these could be recessed back for a more protected feel. Wilkerson noted that the design being shown was a notch up from
the packet materials as it had been redesigned today from staff input in a morning meeting. Ogden emphasized that the
form and imagery better separate the three units.
Knox stated that staff was very pleased with the changes presented. He noted that the Site Design and Use Standards
do prefer recessed entrances. Ogden accepted that this could be made a condition of approval.
Ogden discussed the Hargadine Street edge. He pointed out that there were a series of repetitive forms that steal
somewhat from the Hotel behind. He stated that the design had a solidified base with a solid mass and centered focal point,
broken up by planters, and fairly consistent with the original design but with increased loft area and windows over the stair
tower.
Ogden explained that the alley elevation would mirror the articulation of the new First Street elevation. He noted that where
there were previously diagonal diamond grills to screen the parking, he had now added half-height walls with a horizontal
pattern. He noted that the uphill door from the parking area would be an exit only. He stated that an awning at the
pedestrian plaza would be the only highlight from the alley edge.
Ogden reported that the pedestrian plaza edge had entry elements balanced back with an erosion of the fa~ade and a
centered plaster reveal that presented a public art opportunity. He stated that the artistic elements were yet to be defined,
but he added that there would definitely be solid panels for the elevator shaft.
Knox q'.lestioned whether the applicants would consider offering this space up for the Public Art Commission to design.
The Bemis were agreeable to this request, and added that they felt that the hotel should be given some input as well given
the proximity and orientation.
Leighton question how the Hargadine stairwell would be defined. Ogden stated that he would love something besides
leaving it blank, and suggested that he could bring ideas back to a later session. He emphasized that he was eager to
discuss this item, and drew a proposal on the board with radiused roof forms and cabling to give an airier, open,
contemporary feeling. He stated that he was excited by the opportunity to create an architectural sculpture. Wilkerson
added that this would enliven the streetscape while letting light and air into the parking area. Ogden stated that it would
draw in pedestrians.
Saladoff stated that he felt the element was symmetrical, with the street all at one elevation. He agreed that the street read
as more of a single elevation from Hargadine and stated that he would not be opposed to something contemporary as a
break-up. Skibby stated that he was open to this idea as well.
Ogden explained that the horizontality was overcome by material differences, cap articulation and height variation to break
things up. Whitford asked whether the color changes reflected material differences. Ogden responded that they were
similar materials but with differences in the color, texture and finish. He noted that there was a transition from smooth
plaster to repetitious control joints that gave the appearance of stacked block and back to smooth plaster. Ogden added
that plaster seemed to be the pattern in the downtown. He noted that there would be some plaster moldings but that most
would be pre-cast. He stated that the cornice profile would be unique on each building.
Doug Neuman/951 Emigrant Creek Road noted that he was the owner of the Ashland Springs Hotel and had been
working a long time to bring this project forward. He explained that he had first intended to match the existing hotel
structure on the lot behind but had found that this would be less appropriate and might detract from the existing. He added
that he liked Portland Pearl District and it provided some guidance here. He noted that the last meeting's comments had
redirected the design to a truer sense of Ashland architecture. He emphasized how excited he was with the current design,
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
J/..E
8
CITY OF
ASHLAND
which he feels is appropriate to both Ashland and the historic district. He stated that he was available for any questions
the commission might have.
Shostrom closed the public hearing at 9:45 p.m.
Leighton questioned the opem layout development where each tenant would be able to determine the arrangement of
interior spaces rented. Wilkerson responded that spaces have been allotted to each use, and Ogden added that there was
a new matrix that had been prepared breaking out the allocations. He added that generally the upper two levels are open
for residential use but the cornmerciallayouts are clearly defined. Bemis clarified that tenants will be able to configure their
units uniquely and it gives them the opportunity to design their own interiors. He emphasized that the flexibility was in
interior design details, not wall spacing.
Shostrom questioned the total gross floor area; Wilkerson responded that it was not the 90,000 square feet stated in recent
pieces in the Tidings and was closer to 80,000. Shostrom stated that based on the roughly 19,000 square foot footprint
and three levels it is roughly 60,000 feet. Wilkerson and Ogden concurred with that assessment. Shostrom expressed
his concern with the volume and scale, but noted that it was well-mitigated since the last meeting as the applicants had
addressed the eighty foot vertical rhythms.
Wilkerson responded that they had tried to address the design within an Ashland context and had tried to look to the Plaza
for similarities. Shostrom and Skibby agreed that this was moving in the right direction. Wilkerson reiterated that the
separation was based on comments to reduce the scale.
Whitford suggested that the applicant had made huge strides in two weeks, with the appearance of three separate, smaller
buildings. Ogden added that they were continuing on in that direction.
Skibby reminded the applicant to clearly define the entrances on the First Street elevation and added that the motion should
reflect this.
Krippaehne agreed that well defined commercial entries from the street side are important. She expressed her
disagreement with the arbitrary breaking up of the structure. She stated that this is a sham that does not make a better
building. She emphasized that the exterior should reflect what is going on inside and that in this case there was no reason
for the separation except for the standards. She agreed that the applicants had come a long way in getting to the standard.
She reiterated that the arbitrary separation was not her preference, but added that the applicant had done a lot to meet
the city standard.
Shostrom stated that he appreciated Krippaehne's comments, and he suggested that there had been so much change to
the design that the members did not have for the other three sides that they must interpolate. He stated that he was fearful
that the applicants' malleability could lead them in the wrong direction. Ogden stated that they could take a step back.
Bemis expressed his concern that a design by committee process could be nonstop. He emphasized that the design is
already generating calls from prospective tenants at this stage, and that he feels that the design presented tonight is "it."
He added that there did not seem to be a collective input being provided but rather a collection of individual opinions.
Krippaehne emphasized that she felt the applicants had done a great job in designing to city standard, and that she was
merely questioning the design standard as focusing on frosting. She stated that she has a philosophical disagreement with
the standard here, and she added that one building should not have to look like three separate buildings.
Saladoff explained that the project represents a type and scale that had not been seen when the standards were set. He
noted the community's resistance to the big box idea, and he added that his reaction is that he does not want the look of
one big box. He recognized the applicants' concern that the commission was not speaking with one voice. He stated that
the applicants' malleability could lead to getting mired in details, but he added that this is pushing the design to the
standards. Saladoff pointed out that historically development did not come all at once and the separation is a reflection of
that. He agreed that it can seem artificial on a project built from scratch, especially when done only to meet the code, and
he acknowledged Krippaehne's trepidation. He added that he likes the direction the design has taken.
Bemis stated that he feels the appearance is very pleasing; he pointed out that while the fire station demonstrates the
requested separation the library does not.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
4'1
9
1111 n I'rnl"
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Knox noted that the standards were adopted to give the commission a "place to hang its hat" in decision making. He cited
the Bard's Inn as an example of a design by competing interests, and he agreed that this was unfair to the applicants. He
stated that the standards am fair in that they represent an objective goal post. He added that the standards represent a
commitment by the community.
Skibby stated that he likes the direction taken to date with the Site Design and Use Standards as a guide. He added that
he would not be for a single, solid structure and he finds the current design to be an improvement over last month.
Whitford suggested that the applicant has affirmed that approval will not end the commission's involvement, and he stated
his belief that the applicants are committed to true design collaboration.
Ogden stated that he had created appropriate imagery for Ashland and had shown on the elevation provided that he has
the technical ability to develop the other three elevations accordingly. He reiterated that he would run other design features
by the commission throughout the project. He suggested that commissioners look at the big picture, and rather than seeing
responsiveness as too malleable seeing it as being comfortable with working in a committee setting. Ogden added that
he is able to glean valuable iinput from group comment through his experience with designing schools and hospitals and
dealing with their committees and boards. He emphasized that the tools for a great design are here and he expressed his
hope for a little faith on the part of the commission.
Skibby agreed that the architects had established their credibility.
Shostrom clarified that his statements about malleability were meant positively.
Skibby added that having exterior designs were important to ensuring compatibility.
Morrison noted that the big box ordinance as recently clarified by the council intended to limit size while making allowance
for parking, as provided here,. He suggested that this application meets the intent of the ordinance and that the applicants
were doing a very good job through their design. He added that he found the appearance of three separate buildings quite
pleasing. He noted that frosting is important, or more cakes would be sold without it, but agreed that the exterior
appearance should harmonize with the interior workings. He stated that he felt the applicants could articulate this through
their design, and he noted that there are other large buildings all around, some of which are huge and ugly. He concluded
that this proposal is a step up.
Whitford/Skibby m/s to approve Planning Action 2003-127 with the understanding that there would be continued
collaboration between the applicants, staff and the commission throughout the remainder of the design process
to address recessed entries to the commercial areas, clarify the stairway along Hargadine Street, work out the
plaza view elevator shaft treatments, and resolve other details as established.
Discussion:
Knox suggested that there would be a typical condition recommended by staff that the final design incorporate
all recommendations of the Historic Commission.
Saladoff questioned the process for addressing further detail on the remaining elevations if the action were
approved here and now. He asked whether those elevations were necessary prior to making a decision.
Whitford stated his trust in the architects' explanation that the other elevations would reflect the changes made
in the First Street elevation and added that he was comfortable that these changes could be carried out in good
faith.
Skibby concurred with Whitford and he added that there would also be additional opportunity for review of the
final design through the building permit approval process.
Knox pointed out that the applicant might be able to complete the remaining three elevations prior to next week's
Planning Commission meeting. He suggested that one member of this commission could attend and comment
of the final elevations.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
+5"
10
1111 n 'rDI'1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Morrison stated that the concern expressed at the last meeting was that there was a lack of detail and he
suggested that the question now is whether there is enough. He emphasized that the issue must be whether
commissioners feel they have enough detail at this stage.
Shostrom expressed his reservations with granting approval at this stage based on the level of detail presented
here. He emphasized that he has confidence in the ability and responsiveness of the architects, but he stated that
he was fearful of granting approval without seeing all of the completed elevations.
Ogden briefly noted how the new First Street elevation related to the other elevations and would tie into the floor
plans.
Skibby reiterated his feeling that there was enough detail to move ahead at this point.
Skibby/Leighton m/s to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Leighton/Saladoff m/s to extend the meeting to 10:45 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Shostrom emphasized that he could not support approval with this level of detail. He added that he appreciated
the concerns expressed by Krippaehne and would like to have time to discuss and consider the issues they raised.
Morrison clarified that he was not being critical, and was simply asking members to consider whether they were
comfortable with the level of detail being presented.
Knox expressed his opinion that there was enough information to accept the application. He added that design
is a subjective process with the devil in the details. He suggested that the applicants should be told what more
is needed. He concluded that staff supports the commission in reaching a decision either way.
Skibby suggested that the commission had approved projects before contingent upon resolving details. Shostrom
clarified that this reservations had to do with working out details given the scale of this project. Saladoff noted
the information that was lacking last time. He recognized that some of the details would not be set for sometime
in the process, but he added that the commission still had not seen three of the four elevations in the detail needed
or how the floor plans relate to these elevations. He noted that the applicants had addressed the concern with
the balconies. He stated that he would be more comfortable with another continuance given the size of the
project. He emphasized that he was confident the applicants would get it right.
Ogden stated that he could prepare the other elevations to reflect the new revisions and to match the floor plans
by next week's Planning Commission meeting. He emphasized that he felt the applicants had addressed the
information requested by the commission, and added that they simply had not worked out all specific details as
they are not at that stage in the project yet. He emphasized that they were at the conceptual design stage at this
point.
Knox clarified for Skibby that this action would be considered by the Planning Commission next week at the
Planning Commission meeting on November 12th.
Ogden reiterated the architects' willingness to improve the designs through input from the commission over the
course of the project. Wilkerson emphasized the level of detail that had been added to the upper levels since the
last meeting as a good faith illustration of their willingness to incorporate commission input.
Bemis suggested that based on staff comfort levels and the proposed conditions that the commission allow the
project to move ahead. Knox added that staff would draft a condition holding the applicants to their commitment
to ongoing discussion with the commission over the course of the project. He added that this condition would
involve finding an acceptable level of design deviation that would trigger bringing the project back to more formal
review.
Ogden emphasized that they would be back throughout the project because of the intensity and scale involved.
Wilkerson noted that the architects would also continue to work under staff oversight. Skibby asked if staff could
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
Jf~
11
1111 11 l'rnl'1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
provide verbal updates to the commission on the progress made in dealing with the applicants as the design
develops further.
Shostrom noted that an approval at this level of detail would set a precedent. Knox reiterated that staff was
comfortable at this point, but he emphasized that the commission must be comfortable with the design too. He
added that the applicants are putting themselves on the line in committing to ongoing collaboration throughout
the project.
Wilkerson emphasized that the architects were not trying to alter the process or set precedent. Knox noted that
the process usually involves one building, and he added that normally only small details are left to be resolved
on follow up. He clarified that designs are typically at 65% complete or more when they reach this point in the
commission's review, and he explained for the applicants that normally details being looked at would involve
plans with scalable trim and other specific detail.
Shostrom questioned what format an ongoing collaborative process would take. Knox suggested that there could
be recurring off-agenda items as needed. He added that he felt the scale of the project was too much for Thursday
review board consideration.
Ogden stated that he believed they would be bringing in material samples. Krippaehne suggested that this could
be done organically at an appropriate point in the process.
Leighton stated that it might be too early for a decision in her view.
Krippaehne explained that the commission may be expecting an inappropriate level of detail for a site review. She
agreed with the need to have things come back through the design process. She emphasized the need for an
organic coming-together of the design, and she stated that the design here was understandable with refinements
to follow.
Morrison stated that this will be a large building that he felt would be a credit to the community, but he added that
with the scale of the project comes an increased level of scrutiny. He suggested that commissioners must be
scrupulous in their decision. He emphasized that if commissioners were not comfortable he would suggest taking
more time rather than truncating the process given the degree of scrutiny expected.
Skibby clarified that the commission normally has finalized plans at the point of when they make a decision. He
added that there was a motion on the floor yet to be voted upon.
Voice vote: Krach, Krippaehne, Skibby, and Whitford, YES. Leighton and Saladoff, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Leighton/Krippaehne m/s to extend the meeting to 11 :00 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
OLD BUSINESS
Review Board - Following is the November schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at
least 3:30 p.m. in the Community Development & Engineering Services Building at 51 Winburn Way:
November 6th
November 13th
November 20th
November 26th
Skibby and Krippaehne
Skibby, Krach and Leighton
Skibby and Whitford
Skibby and Saladoff
NEW BUSINESS:
Lloyd Haines and Architect Dave Richardson informally presented a proposed design for new building located at 88 North
Main.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 11 :07 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
Lf1
12
1111 "
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC .'- \RING on the following
request with respect to the ASHLAND L USE ORDINANCE will
be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING ~OMMISSION on October
14,2003 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CNlC CENTER, 1175 East
Main Street, Ashland, Oregon,.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon
law states that failure to raise an objection conceming this application, either in person \)\'
by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an
opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board
of Appeals (LUBA) on that Issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection
is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the
applicant to raise constitutional or other Issues relating to proposed conditions of approval
with sufficient specifICity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an
action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, ~" cto~uments and evidence relied upon by the applicant and
applicable criteria are f 'lIe for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if reque: A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection
seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All
materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main
Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those
in attendance conceming this request The Chair shall have the right to limit the length
of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless
there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing,
the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have
questions or comments conceming this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates
at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 541-552-2041. Our TlY phone number
is 1-800-735-2900
~~':'!"'~J!!f)___._._---..___.~____._...:....__..___~_.
~".!!:l!!JO'~.._n_n_.._n
.. . - .
--------..--_.._-.~.......;..--_..-----_..-.._...__._.._--_._-------------.._-_._--------------~-------.._..._.._---_....__._.-
.. .'.' . . --
.Jl!IIJ:I.tlI.W___.._________
NOTE: !ills Planning ~ction will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on October 8, 2003, 7:00 p.m.
m ~e Commuruty Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51
Wmbum Way.
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on October 9,2003 in the
Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way
at 5:00p.m.
PLANNING ACTION 2003-127 is a request for Land Partition and Site Review to construct a multi-floor, mixed-use
(condominium and commercial) building with underground parking upon the area occupied by the existing Ashland
Springs Hotel surface parking area at 212 E. Main Street. A Variance is requeste~ to allo~ less than 65 per?~nt of
the total gross floor area of the ground floor to be occupied by a permitted or speCial permltt~d uses. In a?dltlon, an
Administrative Variance and Exception is requested to Site Design and Use Standards relatmg to separa~lon
between buildings {1I-C-3a(3)} and to allow balconies on street facing elevations {V1-B-(3)}. ComprehenSive Plan
Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-1-D; Assessor's Map #: 391 E 09 BC; Tax Lot: 100.
APPLICANT: Ed & Tanya Bemis
lID n 1111'
4-';
CRITERIA FOR MINOR lAND PARTITION
(Section 18.76.050)
The criteria for approval of a Minor land Partition are as follows:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the reminder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter on
Subdivisions.
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as determined
by the Public Works Director am:! specified by City documents for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer,
and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully
improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be
improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum
width of the street shall be 20.feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department.
1.
The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land partition
when all of the following conditions exist:
~-
a. The unpaved street is at least 20.feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or
arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree
to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to
remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street
improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improv~ment district 10 cover
such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb,
gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the
signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the applicatIOn shall
be denied
H. Where an alley eXISts adJacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided frolll the alley and
prohibited from the street. (amended Ord. 2757, 1995)
~1
SITE REVIEW
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met.
C. The site design complies with the guidelines .adopted by the City Council
for implE!mentation of this Chap~er.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access
to'and througn the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991)
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE
The critera for the approval of a Varinace are found in 18.100.020 and are as
follows:
1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site
which do not apply elsewhere.
2) That the proposal's benefits will be grater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of
this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord. 2425 S1,
1987)
3) That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely
self-imposed. (Ord. 2775, 1996)
SECTION 18.72.090 Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards.
An ~dministrative variance to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the
requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 if on the basis of the
application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances'are found to 'exist:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design
Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site;
B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties;
C. ~lroval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter;
D. The variance requested is the minimum variance w~t' would alleviate the difficulty.
liD n In I,
391E09BC901, PA#2003-127
ASH~AND ITY OF
CITY H L
ASH , OR
97520
391E~09BC400 PA#2003-127
ASHLAND TY OF
CITY H L
ASHL , OR
97520
391E09BC600, PA#2003-127
BANKE THEODORE H/LOIS E
150 E MAIN
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC700, PA#2003-127
CONNOLLY ALLEN
142 E MAIN ST
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BD4500, PA#2003-127
CRATER NATL BANK OF MEDFORD
PO BOX 7788
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
92658
391E09BAI0500, PA#2003-127
GARLAND GERALD G TRUSTEE
921 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS CIR
ASHLAND, OR
97520
39IE09BC6201, Pft#2003-127
HOW~EH S L TRUSTEE
PO BOX 7
ASHL , OR
- 97520
391E09BCI00, PA#2003-127
MARK ANTONY HIST PROP LLC
953 EMIGRANT CREEK RD
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC6200, PA#2003-127
NUDELMAN RICHARD
244 HARGADINE ST
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC300, PA#2003-127
POTTER EARL
CITY HALL
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC800, PA#2003-127
ASHL.~C OF
CITY HA
ASHL , OR
97520
391E09BD5300, PA#2003-127
ASHLAND HISTORIC PROPERTY
437 WILEY ST
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC5900, PA#2003-127
BUFFINGTON JANE N
1800 SE 1 OTH AVE SUITE 400
FT LAUDERDALE, FL
33316
39IE09BC5600, PA#2003-127
CONSERVANCY LLC
625 B STREET
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC5400, PA#2003-127
EDWARDS OREN R
219NMOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR
97520
39IE09BC5100, PA#2003-127
HOWE CHARLES L TRUSTEE
PO BOX 786
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC5700, PA#2003-127
KELL GEORGE
333 MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTS 78
TALENT, OR
97540
391E09BD4600, PA#2003-127
MOUNTAIN PARK DEVEL LLC
953 EMIGRANT CR RD
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BD5200, PA#2003-127
OREGON SHAKESPEAREAN
POBOX 158
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BD4700, PA#2003-127
SAVAGE K LYNN
2773 BUSH ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 51
94115
391E09BD4400, PA#2003-127
ASHLAND LODGE #944/B P 0 E
POBOX569
ASHLAND, OR
97520
39IE09BC6100, PA#2003-127
BYERS TERRY P/JOYCE
173 LOWER TERRACE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94114
391E09BC6000, PA#2003-127
CON~ERV CY LLC
625 B S
ASH , OR
_ 97520
391E09BC5500, PA#2003-127
EDW~S N RALPH JR
219NM AIN
ASH , OR
97520
391E09BC6300, A#2003-127
HOWE CH ES L TRUSTEE
PO BOX 6
ASH , OR
97520
391E09BAI0600, PA#2003-127
KEY BANK OF OREGON
PO BOX 560807
DALLAS, TX
73556
391E09BAl1000, PA#2003-127
NELSON CLYDE J
145 E MAIN ST
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BD5400,P A#2003-127
OREGON ~SPEAREAN
P 0 BO~58
ASH~, OR
. 97520
391E09BC500, PA#2003-127
SCHWEIGER JOHN C TRUSTE FBO
1644 ASHLAND ST
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BC5300, PA#2003-127
SVENDSGAARD LARS D III (LE)
183 VISTA STREET
ASHLAND, OR
97520
39IE09BD4690, PA 003-127
TEITELBAUM ERT TRSTE FBO
196 WINDEM PLACE
ASHLAND, R
97520
391E09BC200, PA#2003-127
WILLIAMS F AMIL Y LLC
5500 COLVER RD
TALENT, OR
97540
ED & TANYA BEMIS
POBOX 1018
ASHLAND OR 97520
HOFFBUHR & ASSOCIATES INC
3155 ALAMEDA STREET
MEDFORD OR 97504
rnn n ' 1111'1'1
391E09BD4800, PA#2003-127
TEITELBAUM ALBERT TRSTE FBO
196 WINDEMAR PL
ASHLAND, OR
97520
391E09BA10900,
TEITELBA
196 WIND AR PL
ASHL , OR
97520
39IE09BA10400, PA#2003-127
YAMAOKA RONALD/CARRIE
2422 33RD AVE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94116
MARK ANTONY HISTORIC PROPERTY
LLC
953 EMIGRANT CREEK ROAD
ASHLAND OR 97520
ZBINDEN-CARTER ENGINEERING INC
104 N 11TH STREET
KLAMATH FALLS OR
5;l-
391E09BD4900, PA#2003-127
TEI~ELBA 'ALBERT TRSTE FBO
196 MAR PLACE
ASH , OR
97520
391E09BC5000, PA#2003-127
THORMAHLEN P A TRUSTEE FBO
10 MONTECITO RD
SAN RAFAEL, CA
94901
391E09BC5800, PA#2003-127
ZIEMINSKI BERNIE
PO BOX 552
TALENT, OR
97540
OGDEN KISTLER ARCHITECTURE
2950 EAST BARNETT ROAD
MEDFORD OR 97504
GREG COVEY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
295 EAST MAIN STREET #8
ASHLAND OR 97520
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon
97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On September 25th, 2003 I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a
sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached notice to each
person listed on the attached mailing list at such address as set forth on this list under
each person's name for Planning Action #2003-127.
~ ;jJ 5-e~
Derek D. Severson
City of Ashland, Planning Division
SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this
/-'~-03
OFFICIAL SEAL
NANCY E SLOCUM
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 371650
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 18. 2001
PA #2003-127
Bemis
212 E Main Sf
53
liD n ' In 11
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
OCTOBER 14, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Russ Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Dave Dotterrer, Marilyn
Briggs, John Fields, Mike Morris, Colin Swales, Cameron Hanson, and Kerry KenCairn. Ray Kistler was absent. Staff present
were John McLaugWin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox and Sue Yates.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chapman said there would be a Planning Commission "Chat" on October 21, 2003 at the Community Development and
Engineering Services office at 51 Winburn Way at 4:00 p.m.
McLaugWin announced that Thursday, October 30, 2003, will be a kick-off meeting for the downtown design charrette for the
Copeland Lumber block, including the City's parking lot (corner of Lithia Way and Pioneer). The Council has authorized City
participation at looking for options for redevelopment of the entire block. The developers are having a charrette process to talk
about the initial issues. McLaugWin believes this is a key meeting for the Commissioners and citizens. The charrette is
scheduled for the first week of December (time and place to be announced). This initial meeting will take the place of the
regularly scheduled Planning Commission Study Session on October 28th.
McLaugWin announced a study session with the City Council regarding Now X2, regional planning. The Council wanted to
look at the future growth areas one more time and have a discussion with the Planning Commission. That meeting is scheduled
for Wednesday, October 22,2003 at noon at the Council Chambers.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Hearinas Board - The Minutes and Findings of the September 9,2003 Hearings Board were approved.
Reaular Meetina -The Findings for PA2003-105 (National Guard Armory on East Main) and PA2003-112 (pacific Western on
Clover Lane) were approved..
Minutes of the September 9. 2003 ReQular Meetinq
Swales noted in the testimony that the armory does not have its own liquor license but they could have functions where alcohol
is served because the caterer can have a liquor license. Swales asked the minutes be amended to more closely reflect that Lt.
Col. Chilton was referring to a Hispanic festival for families with minors in attendance and that was the reason for denying a
liquor license, and that by no means was any discrimination intended. The Minutes were approved as amended.
PUBLIC FORUM
ROBERT OWENS, 67 Y2 Alida Street, said he is a frequent user of the existing public pathways in AsWand, and of particular
interest is the public walkway commonly used across the railroad tracks. He is also interested in the area between the railroad
tracks/Oak StreetfHersey StreetIMountain Avenue that is soon to be developed.
KenCairn told Owens about Ashland Woodland Trails Association and encouraged Owens to attend a meeting and talk about
the urban connection and his perspective. McLaugWin said the A WT A works with the Parks Commission and they are
currently working on a master trails plan.
BILL STREET, 180 Meade Street, spoke about the planning process with regard to the big box ordinance. He reviewed the steps
taken over the past three years and the meetings held to get to the place where the big box was adopted. The Planning
Commission agreed unanimously on February 11, 2003 that the original interpretation of the big box should stand, that the
45,000 sq. ft. should refer to the gross square footage ofa building in downtown Ashland. Throughout the process, Street had
warned the City Council and the Planning Commission about the urgency of getting this established as law. It is clear that
someone has taken advantage of this opportunity, has rushed their application through and is hoping that tonight the Planning
Commission will rule favorably on their behalf. He cited e-mails, conversations and meetings with various public officials and
was led to believe that if an application were to be made for a building greater than 45,000 square feet, that the application
would be made known to the Council and public before being reviewed by the Planning Commission.
sLf
Mclaughlin took the request to amend the big box ordinance to a Council study session regarding the Planning Commission's
recommendation. The Council made some amendments and put it back through the process that ultimately ended up in the
ordinance amendment.
Street wants to make it clear to the people of Ashland what has happened in the last three years and in the last six months. It
will be clear to the Planning Commission why so many people in this town are becoming increasingly cynical about the
process and how decisions are being made. He feels responsible for the way this process works and how it looks to the people
of Ashland.
Why wasn't notice given to the people of Ashland that a project larger than 45,000 sq. ft. was moving forward? He said it is
really important that we all do our homework, do the research, talk to the Planning Department, and talk to the Mayor or we
will end up with something that goes against the will of both the Planning Commission and the people of Ashland.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION 2003-127
REQUEST FOR LAND PARTITION AND SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-FLOOR MIXED-USE (CONDOMINIUM AND
COMMERCIAL) BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING UPON THE AREA OCCUPIED BY THE EXISTING ASHLAND SPRINGS
HOTEL SURFACE PARKING AREA AT 212 E MAIN STREET. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW LESS THAN 65 PERCENT
OF THE TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA OF THE GROUND FLOOR TO BE OCCUPIED BY A PERMITTED OR SPECIAL PERMITTED
USES. IN ADDITION, AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE AND EXCEPTION IS REQUESTED TO SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
RELATED TO SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND TO [1-C-3a(3)] AND TO ALLOW BALCONIES ON STREET FACING
ELEVATIONS [VI-B-(3)].
APPLICANT: ED & TANYA BEMIS
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
KenCairn was contacted twice regarding the project and encouraged to review various parts of the submittal. She feels she can
be impartial at this meeting.
Chapman agreed. If the public has any comments regarding planning actions, to send them to mac@ashland.or.us and do not
contact the Planning Commissioners. The information will then be included in the packet.
Hanson had a site visit and received a couple of e-mails he did not read.
Swales had three e-mails, did not open or read them, but replied to them and referred the senders to get in touch with John
Mclaughlin.
Morris, Fields and Briggs had site visits.
Chapman had a site visit and received two e-mails he did not read.
Dotterrer had a site visit. He received an e-mail from Jack Hardesty and read it. He read it to the Commissioners.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar said the request involves a Land Partition to split the property in half, a Site Review to evaluate site improvements and
building design associated with the new building, and a Variance request to allow approximately 56 percent of the ground floor
of the new structure to be in a permitted commercial use such as retail or office rather than 65 percent, as required by
ordinance. Two exceptions to the design standards have been requested.
This is a multi-faceted proposal located on the existing surface parking lot behind the Ashland Springs Hotel. The proposal
includes multiple levels. The two uppermost levels will comprise 14 condominium spaces, 12 identified for residential use and
two for commercial use. Below those two floors are approximately two and one half floors of structured parking. The parking
structure will accommodate approximately 90 spaces, 68 to 70 for the existing hotel use and another 20 spaces for the
residential condominiums. The area closest to the rear of the hotel is approximately four stories or 50 feet to the top. The
average height is about 40 feet - the requirement for the downtown commercial area.
In addition to the condominiums and parking, the floorplans identify commercial tenant spaces. There are retail and
professional tenant spaces identified along the perimeter of the project along First Street. The public pedestrian arcade
walkway is between the back of the existing Ashland Springs Hotel and the new proposal. It will link up to the plaza and
pedestrian ways behind the New Theater, ultimately connecting the public sidewalk along First Street all the way through to
Pioneer Street.
The major component of the project includes site plan and building design review. Given the location of the project in the
downtown, that it is located in the Historic District, and the scale of the project, it is subject to Ashland's Design Standards in
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
OCTOBER 14, 2003
J5.S
their entirety. Staff believes a decision at tonight's meeting would be premature based on some ofthe items identified in the
Staff Report. While the building is multiple stories, depending on which side of the project you are on, three and one-half
stories are exposed above grade (50,000 to 60,000 square feet of building area). Staffs feeling is the information submitted is
to some degree conceptual. While it gives Staff a good idea of what the building design looks like, there is not enough
information to decipher some of the details along the building fa9ade. Specifically, Staff sees a lot of changes in the building
(columns, balconies), however, what is the difference in the depth of many of the elements from adjacent building design
elements? If there is a projecting balcony, how far does it project from an adjoining column? Additional information is needed
to make those distinctions clearer. If the proposal is approved, they don't want any questions at the building permit stage as to
what was proposed at the plarming level. Because the downtown is a pedestrian environment, many of the details on the
building and site improvements can really influence how the downtown operates.
Yesterday, the planning staff met with the applicants and the project architects and additional information was provided to
address some of Staffs concerns. One drawing they provided shows better awareness of the depth and dimension of the
exterior fa9ade. There are also details of the building fa9ade showing exact projection of items, widths of cornices and other
building elements. That has made the picture clearer to Staff, however, the Planning Commissioners are just seeing it for the
first time this evening. He believes this information was not available to the Historic Commission at their meeting last week.
There is an exception to the downtown standards relating to projecting balconies. The standard is that projecting balconies
shall not be incorporated on street-facing elevations. There are a number of projecting balconies proposed, primarily for the
residential condominiums. New information has been provided showing the projections at four to five feet from the building
fa9ade. The information raises some new questions. The projecting balconies along the street elevations would also project in
some locations, halfway over the public sidewalks. Staff is identifying sidewalks along First and Hargadine Streets at ten feet
in width. We have not evaluated that information yet. There are a number of new street trees to be planted in tree grates along
the public sidewalks. Given the size of the building, the street tree species will tend to be narrow or columnar. How will the
placement of the street trees relate to the projecting balconies? Everyone involved in a project of this size wants to have a very
clear idea of how this building is designed and what can be expected if it is constructed. Staff believes the balconies can
enhance the living spaces and will serve to provide more visibility on surrounding streets.
The applicants are asking for variance to the percentage of ground floor area required to be in a commercial use. They are
proposing 56 percent and the requirement is 65 percent. The site is currently asphalt. The downtown plan looks for a strong
pedestrian environment an element currently lacking. A proposal that adds retail and commercial space on the ground floor
along a public sidewalk, Staff sees as advantageous. The proposal sets those areas along First Street, Hargadine and the public
plaza area.
The applicants have requested a potential Administrative Variance to a design standard requiring that buildings be separated by
a distance equal to the height of the tallest building. If separate parcels are being developed by individual property owners,
can one property owner really be held hostage to another possibly rendering a parcel difficult to develop? Staff does not think
this applies to separate parcels under separate ownership, that is was intended to apply to an area like the Tolman Creek
Shopping Center where there are multiple structures in one development.
Swales said this parcel is under one ownership. How does it apply? Molnar said they are proposing to partition the property as
part of the application. Swales said that is the owner's choice. Doesn't that make it self-imposed? Molnar said, in a sense,
yes. Self-imposition or unique or unusual hardship does not apply to an Administrative Variance. Does the design still meet
the purpose and intent of what the downtown standards and site review standards are trying to accomplish? Staff feels there
are many separate parcels in the downtown. Swales said since there is no minimum lot size, the lots could be subdivided
infinitum, making this part of the design standards completely meaningless. Molnar said it was noticed as a Variance and the
applicants have addressed it in their fmdings and have really tried to meet the spirit of the standard in their application.
Molnar said another issue raised in the Staff Report is the public space requirement calculation. For large scale developments
of greater than 10,000 square feet, one square foot of public plaza space is required for every ten square feet of gross floor area.
The application identifies about 2,400 square feet of public plaza space. That calculation was based on one square foot for
every ten square feet of footprint area or 19,600 sq. ft. Based on the Council's past interpretation offootprint area as the
maximum size of the building, that is how the public space required would be calculated. There have possibly been past
applications where the public space requirement was based on interior gross floor area. In this case, the public space
requirement would be around 4,500 square feet. In this application, open space for public use runs between the two buildings.
The public space need not be dedicated right-of-way. There are some areas within the project that the applicant can identify,
depending on the Commission's interpretation, that could go toward the public space requirement. There is an area in the
center of the building that allows access to individuals.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES ~ /,
OCTOBER 14, 2003 -....J J.eo
Staff is requiring that additional property be dedicated to expand the six foot sidewalks an additional three to three and one-half
feet around the perimeter of the project, as well as looking at a public walkway along the public alley to allow for pedestrian
refuge along the alley.
Overall, Staffhas identified several positive elements of the project. The Historic Commission had two motions. One was for
denial based on the submittal information that was deemed too conceptual. The other was to approve the design in concept
with need for additional details and return to the Historic Commission. The second motion passed. Staffs position, even
though new information has been received, is that given the scope of the project, additional evaluation of the information is
needed and they believe there might be more new information needed. Some of the new information has raised additional
questions. There is site information that has not been discussed in the application (i.e., electrical transformers on the corner that
appear as landscape areas on the plans). Staff has recommended that the application be continued until additional information
can be reviewed by this Commission and the Historic Commission. If the Planning Commission chooses to consider an
approval, there are Conditions added.
Briggs wondered if Staff's recommendation is for ten foot sidewalks on Hargadine and First Streets, won't that make the entire
footprint smaller and all the numbers change? Molnar said that was a Staff concern also. There may be some planter areas that
could be removed to accommodate the wider sidewalk, but Molnar advised Briggs to ask the applicant.
KenCairn wondered on what Staff was basing their plaza calculation. Molnar said they based it on the interior floor space of
the building devoted to heated, occupiable space - the two floors of condominium and the retail areas on the third floor. They
did not include the parking structure. Staff believes it should be based more on the volume exposed above the basement.
KenCairn said the interior gross floor area used for living is 40,000 sq, ft, or less. That would take the plaza to 4,000 square
feet or less. Molnar said living floor space and commercial space below would exceed 40,000 square feet.
Hanson asked if the top story of the parking structure underneath wasn't included in those figures, why might it be included in
the gross floor area? Molnar said that, based on changes to the big box amendments that go into effect in two days, parking
areas that are not considered a basement are included in the gross floor calculation. The uppermost level of parking looked like
more than 50 percent was exposed by more than six feet, therefore, it would not be considered a basement parking level for the
purposes of maximum building size. That is how Staff came up with roughly 59,000 square feet, based on the new ordinance
amendments that will go into effect. This is a new hybrid that we've never had a chance to apply the standard.
Swales is concerned that the applicants and to a certain extent Staff, seem to kind of cherry-pick between the original ordinance
and the amended ordinance as it suits them. What do we base our decision on tonight? Molnar said the application is subject
to the ordinance already in effect at the time application was made. That is the existing ordinance, not the new one coming up
in two days. McLaughlin said state statute says that the rules in effect the day application is made, are the rules that apply.
The applicants do not have a choice
PUBLIC HEARING
ED AND TANYA BEMIS, P. O. Box 1018, Ashland, OR 97520
Ed said he and his wife found the site behind the Ashland Springs Hotel and thought they would like to build there and live
there.
Tanya said there were a number of challenges posed to the architectural firm. They had to replace the parking at the hotel and
deal with the slope. They have brought a mixed-use design to the downtown core. She is pleased with how they have been
able to incorporate a lot of trees, shrubs, and green spaces into the pedestrian corridor and into the internal plaza area entering
from Hargadine. It is visible from all the units. They did not want to build a new building that looked like an old building.
They want it to compliment the historic buildings. She believes it has a look that says it is from a different era, yet has a
modern flair. There are arches and columns that replicate some of the features in the hotel and across the street that have been
incorporated.
DAVID WILKERSON, OgdenKistler Architecture, 2950 East Barnett Road, Medford, OR 97504, handed out additional
information. They designed over 11,000 square feet of retail/commercial space at ground level, two commercial
condominiums and 12 residential units, including one affordable unit. Another element included is the pedestrian plaza that
links from OSF to First Street. Wilkerson said they want to enliven and enhance the pedestrian way and the streetscape. They
have replaced the surface parking with enclosed parking, hidden from view. They have provided dwelling units in the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
OCTOBER 14, 2003
4
57
downtown core, in accordance with the Downtown Standards and Downtown Plan. They have provided affordable housing.
The design and scale of the building is compatible with the neighboring buildings and with the downtown fabric.
Wilkerson showed a couple of wall sections through the exterior of the building on First Street and through the pedestrian areas
showing the setbacks and projections of the balconies. This is a result of the meeting with the Historic Commission. The 3-D
perspective shows how the building is responding to the Downtown Design Standards.
KEN OGDEN, OgdenKister, said currently the sidewalk is five or six feet wide and that is where the property line occurs. Staff
has asked them to increase the sidewalk to approximately ten feet in width, but the balconies do not project beyond the
property boundaries. The additional sidewalk width could be allocated to the public plaza requirements should the
determination be that it is ba"ed on gross square footage. It will not alter the building footprint, because prior to the sidewalk
width they have now, there was a landscape strip that has been removed. The tree wells and tree grates have been reconfigured
to conform to a more standard size that meets the requirements of the Tree Commission.
Wilkerson said the drawings indicate that exterior public space square footage is 5,178 square feet. That includes space around
the building on all three sides. The mid-block plaza link is 2,359 square feet.
Ogden said they have also included benches along the pedestrian link and the sidewalk along First Street.
Briggs asked about the electrical boxes. Ogden said they are looking at cleaning up the site and relocating the boxes.
Wilkerson said currently the property is all on one lot and owned by the AsWand Springs Hotel. It does not need to be
partitioned to get around any design standards, but the Bemis' want title of the property.
Ogden said the Historic Commission encouraged the concept of their proposal and were very supportive of this type of
development going in. He would encourage adding a condition that they will meet with the Historic Commission two or three
times during each phase of the architectural process to make sure they are in conformance with their intent for the project.
Ogden said they are working toward bringing more residential to the downtown area, enhancing the pedestrian pathways with
commercial opportunities, and internalizing the parking for the building. Where the building does butt the residential edge
along Hargadine, the scale has been kept very residential. The front forms are articulated so there is relief. The treescape will
buffer this building and across the street. First Street is a branch off the Main Street core and there is an opportunity to vary
from a harsh street front by using balconies. The articulation creates more interest in the architectural elements, but it also
responds to the element of outdoor space for the multi-family units. It makes it a little more visual and allows the good
relationship between residential and the street activities happening below.
Dotterrer asked the applicants how they calculated the gross floor area. Wilkerson said the gross floor area under the current
ordinance is 39,303 sq. ft. (occupied or heated space).
Briggs would like to see this proposal done without a variance to the 65 percent commercial space requirement. It looks like
we are obliged to go with the old ordinance. Could the affordable unit have one parking space instead of two? Add the
parking space to the retail. Ogden said if there is an opportunity to do that, they would be willing to make the adjustment.
Fields asked why they can't get the 65 percent. Ogden said in the initial go-around, they were looking at parking spaces as a
valuable commodity, especially for the residential units. If it means the success of the space, they can wrestle with it. Also,
the slope of the lot and access was a factor. It was a decision to balance parking and retail. Fields asked if the diamond at floor
level was accessible. Is it just windows into the courtyard? The gate could be moved and put into the commercial space.
Swales said his major concern is that the application should include floor areas of the condominiums, floorplans, and
dimensions.
Hanson believes a project of this size and scope deserves a lot more attention that we can give it tonight.
KenCairn is inclined to follow the lead of the Historic Commission. The concept is right but this is a really big project and it
means a lot to a lot of people and she does not believe they have seen enough yet.
Ed Bemis believes there is a lot of detail on the drawings they presented tonight that meets the requirements.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
OCTOBER 14,2003
5
52
Tanya Bemis said precise floorplans have not yet been drawn because they would like to offer them as shells so people can
come in and design their own spaces.
S wales said none of the conunercial spaces have been given any square footage. Most projects have a list of data and it's just
not here.
Chapman is not prepared to make a decision tonight because he wants to respect the process of the Historic Commission.
KenCairn asked if they are committed to doing rooftop gardens. Where is the access? Are they expecting people to go up and
participate? Ed Bemis said there is a stairway out of the basement and the access would probably be in that area. Wilkerson
said the purpose of the rooftop gardens is to provide a green roofmg system. They are still working on it. They can increase
the insulation value of the roof envelope, decrease the amount of storm water runoff and decrease the heat load. Wilkerson
said they will try to capture as much rainwater as they can and perhaps do raised bed. It is not intended as outdoor living space
for the residents. KenCairn asked them to clarify what they plan to do on the roof.
Morris would like to see some proportions. On the third page of the handout, there are no dimensions as to how the face is
broken out.
Swales asked for a clarification of the landscaping.
DOM PROVOST, 4224 Hwy. 66, said it would be nice to get behind these people because they are putting a beautiful project on
a piece of land that is not very pretty. The project they are presenting will enhance downtown AsWand. He hopes the Planning
Commission will approve it.
DOUG NEUMAN, 951 Emigrant Creek Road, felt the additional businesses would add to the downtown area. The benches and
water features will be a nice addition. He also believes it will add to economic diversity of the downtown. He likes the idea of
more pedestrians using First Street.
ERIC NAVICKAS, 711 Faith Avenue, does not like the building design. He is concerned about the variance to the setback
requirement. The project does not meet the requirements of the Site Design Standards.. There is no need to allow balconies in
the downtown.
BILL STREET, 180 Meade Street, does not believe the design reflects our historic patterns. If you walk up the hill toward Vista,
Gresham or Iowa, you don't see an 80,000 square foot building, 15,000 of which is hidden, and 65,000 that is visible to the
naked eye. He believes John Fields' building on Second and Main has made good use of local materials, a building that steps
up the hillside, and it's in the context ofthe other buildings that are modest.
Street applauds the Planning Commission for wanting the applicants to come back with more details. It is interesting that the
one affordable unit is in the middle on the side overlooking the parking structure. Will teachers, planning officers, insurance
men be able to afford the units? He would urge the Planning Commission not to approve this application in concept.
He referred to page 15 of the applicant's fmdings. It refers to the Administrative Variance, (A, B, C, D). He would like to
focus particularly on item D - variance requested is the "minimum variance". What does that mean? It is his understanding
that this is the largest building to be built in Ashland yet it has hardly been mentioned in the papers. Hardly anyone knows
about it. The process is flawed.
BRYAN HOLLEY, 324 Liberty Street, noted the disconnectedness of this project. This is assuming that all businesses open and
do well. He does not believe there will be affordable housing with this proposed project. He questioned the building square
footage.
Molnar said the building footprint is just under 20,000 sq. ft. The three stories combined calculate out at about 59,000 square
feet. Add another 30,000 square feet for the underground parking.
Rebuttal
Ogden said the drawings that have been provided meet the checklist of items in the Site Review Standards. Their willingness
to provide additional information is there. He would like an opinion of the prospect of the project moving forward
conceptually. Does the Planning Commission endorse it? They would like to hear what information they need to respond to.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
OCTOBER 14, 2003
6
51
Chapman noted the following items: Historic Commission items, Staffs concerns, the rooftop space and what will be
happening there. The Planning Commission does not give conceptual approval. He would love to see this parking lot
developed and developed with the residential and retail mix.
Dotterrer agreed with Chapman. He approves of the concept. He has some concerns about the exception to the design
standards with regard to balconies. He would like to see more detail so he can get a better idea of what it will look like. He
would like Staff to explain why that was included in the design standards. He would like to know more about the size of the
building.
Briggs would like to see the 65 percent variance eliminated. She has mixed feelings about the balconies. Perhaps they would
be alright on Hargadine. She is having trouble with them on First Street because of the slope. The balconies projecting will
have the appearance of bumping your head on them. She is not too troubled with the distance between buildings. Will the
conifer at the back of the hotel by the alley be retained? Ogden said they would try. Briggs noted the affordable housing looks
onto First Street.
Fields said for him it is what the ordinance was and is and is going to be. The Council's misinterpretation of what is gross and
not, the Commission agreed unanimously that we stretched it and that we should go back and look at it. The original intent to
the ordinance was that it was gross not footprint and it is not being reinstated. As far as he is concerned, a denial forces the
applicants to come back under the new ordinance. He thinks we have the authority to deny. It has been a long ten year
discussion of what big box means and what it means in the downtown. He thought we decided it. If we did decide it, then it
leads him to denial. It may be losing downtown parking or some condominiums, but that affects the mass and scale of how big
the building is going to be. He thinks the Commission's clear, consistent, objective standards have already been defined. The
Council re-interpreted the ordinance, it took several years to redefme it and the applicants have applied from the Council's last
interpretation. That is the area of concern. He would like to see it come back under the new ordinance. The land value and the
parking needed for the hotel is in direct connection to the value of the land and it is not up to the Commission to subsidize that.
McLaugWin said the Commission has the authority to approve or deny. They have to use the criteria and standards in place at
the time the application was filed. They can't use the new ordinance as a hammer.
Fields believes this is an unusual circumstance.
Morris would like to see it go forward. He would like to see more detail. Right across the street is a recessed balcony. He
would like to see some dimension.
Swales has a lot of concerns with this. There has been a lot of discussion tonight about whether this is footprint or square
footage. The determination that Council made is that the building would comply with the gross square footage if they were
split apart. His recollection is that the architect gave the square footage of the Hargadine parking structure as 46,000 square
feet. McLaughlin chose to instruct the Council to interpret that with the inside walls so it is now 45,000 square feet. That is
the way the Council interpreted it at the appeal. If we use the old ordinance, we count it all. If we count the new ordinance,
they would get away with a basement story of parking. That would be grounds for denying it. A more philosophical reason for
denial is that the applicants have done a rush job to get this in under the wire in order to make use of the old ordinance rather
than the direction the Council has given for the ordinance amendment. He believes that it should be judged by this and judged
harsWy by this. He thinks the timing is calculated to make sure that it can be interpreted in the best possible light. If they want
to be held to that interpretation, they should be held to that interpretation. If they choose to thumb their nose at the ordinance
amendments that come into place in two days time, then that is their choice.
Swales has other concerns with regard to what has been constantly touted here by the applicants and by Staff about how we
want to encourage residential in downtown, even affordable. The adage about having 24 hour eyes and ears on this
neighborhood is an argument he has heard with regard to large cities. We have a very vibrant downtown with traffic going
through it all hours of the day and night. We have bars and nightclubs, bookshops and theaters open until late at night. We
have numerous restaurants. He doesn't see where our little city needs 24 hour surveillance. He read the purpose and intent of
the commercial area. He thinks the ordinance is saying that our downtown core is commercial and it encourages residential
uses on upper stories. He thinks this development provides the wrong mix (19,000 sq. ft. ofresidential/ll,OOO sq. ft. of
commercial) for this site. It is taking advantage of not having to provide parking for the commercial. All the parking spaces
are private for the hotel and residential condominiums and there is no handicap parking in this neighborhood. The whole
development speaks of self-interest rather than outreach. He also believes the applicants have misinterpreted what the
ordinance says about balconies. The ordinance tries to discourage balconies and verandas on the fayade of the building. It
doesn't preclude outdoor spaces that could be provided by terracing the building back. That would seem more appropriate; to
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
OCTOBER 14, 2003
0,0
110 11 '11I1'1
have a building that steps down, providing views and terracing on the roof of the unit below. He worked off the drawing and
found the building height is about two feet over the maximum. With regard to the pedestrian plaza, he believes that is
stretching the defmition of a plaza. In fact, there is a pedestrian walkway with a 50 foot faryade on its north boundary and it
will get very little sunlight. It should be re-worked in conjunction with the Historic Commission taking into consideration the
citizen input heard tonight. He believes the building should be more deferential to the existing historic grain and nature of our
downtown. He would recommend either denial or in the interim it should go back to the City Council for interpretation for
exactly what they intended the 45,000 sq. ft. under the existing ordinance.
Wilkerson said there are handicap parking spaces shown on every level of parking. Swales said there is no handicap parking
for the general public. Ogden said some of the parking spaces could be allocated to the handicap spaces that could be available
to the public as a way of meeting the 65 percent criteria.
Hanson likes this project and wants to see it built. However, Staff has reservations as there are too many variances, and the
bigger the project, the more scrutiny it deserves. He believes the applicants are going to have an uphill climb with the current
design.
KenCaim likes balconies. She doesn't want to see them hanging out over the sidewalk, but she likes open space on the
building faryade. Staff and the Historic Commission are uncomfortable with the level of detail. She would like to see the
building happen. She would like to see the applicants work it out further.
Briggs liked Swales' idea about terracing. Perhaps the cornice could be stepped back so the mass is diminished on the four
corners and that could be terraces for the condominiums. Dotterrer does not want to see it stepped back too much.
Ed Bemis said one of the most important parts of this building is that these are single level units.
Tanya Bemis said there was no attempt to rush anything or get away with anything. One of the considerations in terms of
time, when this project is under construction, there is no parking for the hotel at that point. They thought the best time to shut
down the parking lot would be during the low season.
Ed Bemis said they did not know when the new ordinance was going to be approved. It could have been two years from now.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Fields said the whole thing is based on massing. Is it too big for Ashland? Is it compatible? The variances are directly related
to massing. The variances are all about maximizing square footage. He moved to denyPA2003-127. Swales seconded the
motion. He added that the footprint never came into the discussion of the OSF building. It's more than 45,000 gross square
feet and out of compliance.
Swales would like to see the applicants given a choice to apply under the new ordinance amendment. McLaughlin said they
have submitted under the ordinance in effect at the time. He said unless they deny it, they are bound to the existing ordinance.
The applicants have the option of withdrawing and reapplying. The Commissioners are bound to apply the rules that are in
effect the date that the applicants applied. They have to view that in an unbiased way, looking at the evidence submitted in the
record.
Swales asked ifthe interpretation of the existing ordinance is still up in the air. McLaughlin said, no. The written findings
adopted by the Council enumerating their interpretation is what is in effect. The Council, could, if this was appealed, choose to
change their interpretation regarding this action.
The motion to deny failed with Fields, Swales and Hanson voting "yes" and Briggs, Dotterrer, Chapman, Morris and KenCairn
voting "no".
McLaughlin said the application is still active. The public hearing is still open. We will not be mailing out additional notice.
The public hearing will be continued to Wednesday, November 12,2003,7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers.
OTHER
McLaughlin reiterated that the charrette will be a perfect chance to look at the specific development in the downtown, giving
people a chance to get specifically involved with their input for a much larger area than the application tonight. This should be
extremely valuable.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
OCTOBER 14, 2003
" /
8
l~n fI
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
October 14, 2003
PLANNING ACTION: 2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed & Tanya Bemis
LOCATION: 212 E. Main Street - At the rear of the Ashland Springs Hotel
ZONE DESIGNATION: C-1-D
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial - Downtown
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.32
18.72
Downtown Retail Commercial District
Site Design & Use Chapter & Site Design
and Use Standards
Partitions
Off-Street Parking
Variances
18.76
18.92
18.100
REQUEST: Land Partition and Site Review to construct a multi-floor, mixed-use (condominium
and commercial) building and underground parking upon the area occupied by the existing
Ashland Springs Hotel surface parking area at 212 E. Main Street. A Variance is requested to
allow less than 65 percent of the total gross floor area of the ground floor to be occupied by a
permitted or special permitted uses. In addition, an Administrative Variance and Exception is
requested to Site Design and Use Standards relating to separation between buildings {II-C-3a(3)}
and to allow balconies on street facing elevations {VI-B-(3)}.
I. Relevant Facts
Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
The "Ashland Springs Mixed Use Development" proposal is a multi-faceted
project that is proposed upon an existing 70-space surface parking lot. The
application requests to construct a mixed-use development, consisting of
commercial space and residential condominiums atop 2 11 floors of structured,
private parking.
PA2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis
6) . October 14, 2003
.. Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 1
Through a land partition, the project site will be separated from the parent
property containing the Ashland Springs Hotel. The new structure will appear
two stories in height from Hargadine, with the two upper floor levels consisting of
14-condominium spaces. Two interior spaces adjacent to Hargadine Street are
identified as commercial condominium spaces, while the other 12 spaces consist
of residential condominiums. One of the 12 residential condominiums is required
to be affordable for purchase or rent to a qualified household under the City of
Ashland Affordable Housing Guidelines.
The structured parking floors beneath the condominiums will accommodate
approximately 90 parking spaces. Sixty-eight to 70 parking spaces will be
reserved for the existing hotel use, with the Ashland Springs Hotel right of use
maintained in perpetuity through a lease, deed or a similar recorded written
instrument. While not required within the Downtown Commercial District (C-l-
D), approximately 20 additional parking spaces will be allocated and reserved for
the occupants of the residential condominiums.
The building design and exterior building elevations incorporate divisions and
changes in building mass, surface and finish. Exterior building materials include
cast stone and pre-cast concrete wall panels, painted steel window and door
systems, exterior light fixtures, wrought iron balcony railings and planter boxes.
A public pedestrian plaza and walkway is proposed along the northern edge of the
building, between the back ofthe Ashland Springs Hotel and the proposed
development. This public pedestrian corridor provides a mid-block connection
between East Main and Hargadine Streets, linking 1 st Street to the pedestrian
walkway and plazas adjoining Oregon Shakespeare Festival's New, Angus
Bowmer and Elizabethan Stage Theatres. East and west entrances to the proposed
pedestrian plaza and walkway will be marked by a glass canopy with painted steel
structure. The walking surface will consist of colored, scored-concrete. Benches,
two water features and landscape planters are proposed adjacent to the walkway
route.
II. Proiect Impact
The application includes the three following components: A Land Partition, Site Review
for new construction and Variance to the provision requiring 65% of the ground floor
level occupancy to be in a permitted use. The potential impacts and benefits of each are
discussed below.
Land Partition
The request to partition the existing property is relatively straightforward. The subject
property will be divided roughly in half, with the existing Ashland Springs Hotel on one
PA2003-127 ~3 October 14, 2003
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 2
parcel and the proposed mixed use building with underneath structured parking on the
other parcel. Both parcels have access to fully improved City streets, as well as to needed
public facilities (i.e. sewer, water, electric, etc.) necessary to serve the existing and
proposed developments. While required hotel parking is located on the adjoining parcel,
this is permitted through the recordation of a permanent parking easement.
Site Review Approval
The construction of the mixed use building with underneath structured parking is required
to comply with the requirements described in the Site Design and Use chapter 18.72. In
addition, the project's site and building design is subject to City Site Design Standards for
commercial developments, as well as Downtown Design Standards.
Overall, it is Staffs opinion that the applicant has presented an attractive building design
that embraces and complies with the vast majority of City Downtown Design Standards.
The introduction of the Downtown Design Standards section notes that it is not the intent
ofthe Design Standards to freeze time and halt progress or restrict design creativity, but
rather to provide a guide for new and re-development proposals so that the project is in
context with its historic surroundings. With this in mind, Staff believes the height and
setbacks of the proposed building is consistent with existing and preferred developments
within the downtown area. The conceptual design reflects the horizontal and vertical
rhythms of other main street buildings, offering a clear division between ground and
upper floor levels and using changes in surface details to divide the building fayade into
smaller areas or volumes distinctive ofthe downtown core.
The City's Downtown Plan and Design Standards note the negative impact that large
surface parking areas have on the downtown pedestrian environment, and encourage the
redevelopment of such areas in order to reflect historic development patterns.
Specifically, the Downtown Plan discourages locating parking lots along key pedestrian
routes, while advocating the introduction of housing on upper stories. Additionally, City
Detail Site Review standards states that infill of buildings adjacent to public sidewalks
and within existing parking lots is desirable and should be encouraged. In summary,
existing downtown parking lots are seen as potential redevelopment sites, providing key
opportunities for mixed-use projects without necessitating the need to expand the
downtown's boundaries. The combination of a mixed-use building (i.e. residential and
commercial) with underneath structured parking represents a redevelopment project that
serves to strengthen the downtown area while accommodating and screening required
parking within an attractive building design.
Building Design - Additional Information Needed
PA2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis
Staff believes the proposed site plan and building design reflect the design criteria
described by the City's Downtown Standards. In our opinion, however, additional
~ it: October 14, 2003
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 3
information is needed before the Commission should consider approval of the
application. While attractive, the submitted building elevations are identified as
"conceptual", accompanied by a small material list that highlights only the
primary design elements of the building. To avoid confusion and interpretation at
the time of building permit review, additional detailed information is needed with
respect to materials, colors and the shape, texture and depth of all building
features (i.e. cornice, columns, base, railings, light fixtures, windows, etc.). A
final material and color board should be included with the application, identifying
the color and type of material prescribed for each building design feature. Such
information is needed to understand the distinctions between the main building
fa<;ade and the depth of adjoining features, such as cornices, columns, projecting
balconies and the horizontal bands used to distinguish between upper and lower
floor levels. In addition, Staff would suggest that the applicant explore and
identify the signage needs of future commercial tenants to insure compatibility
with building design and consistency with the City Sign Code.
Staff ConcernIRecommendation: Staff recommends that additional information be provided
before the Commission considers approval of the Site and Building Design. Given the conceptual
nature of the exterior drawings, Staff feels more detailed information is needed to understand the
distinctions between the main buildingfa(:ade and the depth of adjoining features, such as
cornices, columns, projecting balconies and the horizontal bands used to distinguish between
upper and lower floor levels
Administrative Variance to Site Design and Use Standard
The proposed building and structured parking facility is separate from Ashland
Springs Hotel building. The applicant has requested administrative relief from the
following standard that requires separation between neighboring buildings not
connected by a common wall.
Detail Site Review Standard II-C-3a (3). Buildings not connected by a
common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the height of the tallest
building.
The mixed-use building will be partitioned off onto a separate parcel. In similar
applications, Staff has interpreted that the standard does not apply to adjacent
buildings located on separate parcels. Interpreting the standard other wise, could
place an unusual hardship on the owner of an adjoining, undeveloped parcel,
possibly rendering the property unbuildable.
The application includes written findings addressing the justification for the
variance. The application notes that the property is unique in that it is adjacent to
the tallest building in Ashland, built prior to current zoning regulations that
establish a 40-foot height limit within the downtown. Under the strictest
PA2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis
~ 5 October 14, 2003
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 4
110 1I 'ID 1'1
interpretation of the standard, the proposed building could be no closer than
approximately 110 to 120 feet to any portion of the Ashland Springs Hotel
structure. Such an interpretation would preclude building on a significant portion
of the site, limiting any redevelopment to the back 1I3rd of the property closest to
Hargadine Street.
The applicant has attempted to comply with the spirit of the standard by
separating the closest edge of the proposed building from the base of the tower by
approximately 120 feet. The placement of the public pedestrian plaza and
walkway between the buildings provides separation between the two building
masses, permitting the public to meander between the two buildings in a space
that connects the 1 sl Street commercial corridor to the public plaza spaces
adjoining the OSF Theatre complex.
In Staffs opinion, the standard should not apply to this application because the
new building will be constructed upon a separate parcel. Strict adherence to this
standard in the downtown under any circumstance is contrary to existing policies
and design criteria governing downtown development that generally advocate zero
setbacks between structures. Additionally, it should be noted that the City Council
recently approved amendments to the City's large-scale building standards, and
eliminated the application of this standard in the downtown.
Exception to Downtown Design Standards
Terraces and balconies have been integrated into the upper levels of the First
Street and Pedestrian Plaza facades. Consequently, the application requests that a
exception be granted with respect to the following Downtown Design Standard:
Downtown Design Standard VI-B (3). Recessed or projecting balconies,
verandas or other useable space above the ground level on existing and new
buildings shall not be incorporated in a street facing elevation.
The information provided makes it difficult to determine the dimension of the
balcony projection or step back from the plane of the main facade. Therefore,
Staff cannot thoroughly evaluate the merit or lack of merit to the exception
request, without the applicant providing additional details as described earlier in
the report.
PA2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis
Staff is not opposed to including balconies on upper level living units if the
overall building design reflects the elements described throughout the Downtown
Design Standards. The provision oflimited outdoor space in conjunction with
residential uses enhances downtown living by providing views to the surrounding
hillsides and the downtown environment. Further, these spaces allow residents to
provide round-the-clock eyes and ears on surrounding areas, improving
c., C October 14, 2003
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 5
neighborhood security and reducing the potential for crime and vandalism. These
outdoor spaces, however, should appear incidental and subordinate to the primary
"Main Street" development pattern.
Sidewalk Widths and a Pedestrian Walkway alongside the Public Alley
Staff has recommended through conditions of approval a few changes to the
proposed site plan that would result in a slight reduction to the proposed building
footprint. Proposed sidewalk widths should be characteristic of existing sidewalks
within the downtown area and of adequate width to account for high levels of
pedestrian traffic. Accordingly, Staffhas recommended that the sidewalk width
along the perimeter of the project be no less than 10 feet in width (excluding the
curb). This is consistent with the sidewalk width adjoining the new City parking
structure, as well as the sidewalk width adjoining the Ashland Springs Hotel along
1 st Street. The lO-foot width allows for the installation of metal street tree grates,
while still providing the minimum distance acceptable to allow pedestrians to pass
each other.
Staff has recommended that a 5-foot concrete sidewalk be installed along the east
side of the public alley, from Hargadine Street to the public pedestrian
plaza/walkway proposed at the north end of the project. The location of the
proposed building bounds the alley on both side with formidable structures,
providing no pedestrian refuge to either side. Public alleys within the downtowns
are identified as key pedestrian routes, providing convenient mid-block access
between Main Street and local neighborhood streets. The location of the existing
public alley represents a key route for pedestrian traffic originating and departing
from a variety of locations in the area.
The City Parking Structure and the proposed 90-space structured parking facility
account for approximately 200 spaces that derive some form of access from the
alley. City Site Design Standards (II-C-2c (2)) note that protected, raised
walkways shall be provided through parking areas of 50 spaces or more. In Staffs
opinion, the public alley is similar to a two-way driveway aisle serving a large
parking lot. The high volume of pedestrians associated with the downtown area
creates the potential for increased conflicts between pedestrians and motorists
seeking parking.
Staff Concern/Recommendation: Staff recommends increases in sidewalk widths around the
perimeter of the project, as well as separated walkway adjacent to the public alley serving the
parking structures. The required changes to sidewalk widths and the suggested installation of a
walkway will necessitate changes in the proposed buildingfootprint. Consequently, Staff would
recommend that the site plan and building elevations be modified to reflect these issues prior to
the Commission approving the project.
PA2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis
It; 1 October 14,2003
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 6
lID . . ID II
Public Space Requirements
City Site Design Standards (II-C-3b (1) require large-scale developments to
provide one square foot of plaza or public space for every 10 square feet of gross
floor area. Page 40 of the application notes that 2,359 square feet (12%) of public
space has been provided based upon a building footprint area of 19,633 square
feet. In other large-scale development applications, the standard has been
calculated based upon gross interior building floor area, not the area of the
building footprint. Under that interpretation, the amount of public plaza space is
linked to useable interior floor area and building mass. Consequently, the greater
the building mass (both horizontal and vertical volume), the greater the amount of
area devoted to public spaces adjacent to or within the project.
If gross interior building floor area were applied to the project rather than
footprint area, the result would be significantly different. The building appears to
consist of approximately 40,000 to 44,000 square feet of gross interior floor space
(exclude structured parking area). Consequently, 4000 to 4,400 square feet of
public space would be required.
Staff believes the application does an admirable job of incorporating some
important public space. The proposed public plaza and walkway provides the final
critical link, finishing the mid-block pedestrian corridor between 1 st Street and the
OSF public spaces adjoining Pioneer Street. If the Commission believes the public
space requirement should be based upon gross interior floor area, additional
public spaces and areas will need to be integrated within the project or the
proposed plaza area will need to be expanded in size.
Staff ConcernIRecommendation: Based upon past applications, the area within the project
devoted to public plaza space may need to be increased. Assuming approximately 40,000 to
44,000 square feet of gross interior floor space, 4000 to 4,400 square feet of public space could
be required, rather than 1,963 square feet (based uponfootprint). If the Commission believes
public space is based upon gross interior floor area, the site plan must be modified to comply with
this standard. As a result, approval of the application should be delayed until such changes are
made and evaluated by the Commission.
Variance Request - 65% of the Ground Floor in Commercial Use
According to section 18.32.025 ofthe Retail Commercial District, Residential Uses are a
Special Pem1itted Use in the C-I-D Zone, permitted outright when at least 65% of the
total gross floor area ofthe ground floor is designated for permitted uses. The applicant
requests a Variance to this provision, providing approximately 55.9% ofthe ground floor
footprint area as designated commercial space as opposed to the required 65%.
PA2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis
t >t October 14, 2003
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 7
In Staff's Opinion, there exist unusual circumstances that apply to the project site that are
not typically found elsewhere in the downtown. Specifically, the project involves the
redevelopment of an existing area currently committed to a private surface parking lot,
required as part ofthe previous hotel approval. The existing topography of the site and
the need to accommodate existing hotel parking through structured parking accessed from
the elevation of an existing alley, provides additional design challenges. Additionally, 1 st
Street represents the primary commercial frontage, with the property's public alley and
Hargadine frontages considered less desirable for commercial use due to location and
grade changes that reduce pedestrian foot traffic and present potential conflicts between
the existing residential area along Hargadine Street and the proposed commercial uses.
Staff supports approval of the Variance request. In Staff's opinion, the standard is
intended to insure that the majority of the area of the ground floor is dedicated to
commonly permitted uses found in the Commercial District, such as retail and office
space. The application appears consistent with this goal through integrating commercial
space within the building design along the ground floor frontages of 15t and Hargadine
Streets. Consequently, the project design incorporates attractive commercial frontages
along its two primary streets, 15t and Hargadine Streets. These environments are further
enhanced through the incorporation of the proposed public pedestrian plaza and walkway
along the north end of the development. The scored and colored concrete walkway runs
alongside new retail space and incorporates two water features, benches and landscape
planters to add interest along the route.
Given constraints ofthe site, Staff does not believe the variance to reduce the required
percentage of commercial space will result in any negative impacts on the development of
adjacent uses. In fact, the benefits of the proposal would appear to outweigh any potential
negative impacts at this time. Many of the positive elements of the project have been
discussed earlier in the report. These include: the City's desire for mixed-use projects that
utilize existing public infrastructure, the accommodation of additional housing close to
the downtown, the redevelopment of existing surface parking lots with buildings whose
design integrates elements of a human-scale and the promotion of a healthy pedestrian
environment through the establishment of key pedestrian corridors that promote access
and provide interest.
Large-Scale (i.e. "Big Box") Development Standards - Recent Amendments
On October 16, 2003, the recent amendments to City design standards effecting large-
scale development go into effect. Since this application was filed prior to the effective
date of these changes, the proposal is evaluated upon the standards effective at that time
and not the amended standards. In anticipating questions regarding this matter, Staff felt
is was worthwhile to briefly explain the difference between the standards in effect at the
time the application was filed and those amendments applicable to applications filed after
October 16, 2003.
PA2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis
October 14, 2003
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 8
If the application for this proposal was filed after October 16,2003, it appears that the
current proposal would be affected by two of the recent amendments. First, one of the
ordinance amendments repealed the provision requiring buildings to be separated by a
distance equal to the height of the tallest building. Consequently, the current project's
request for an administrative variance to this standard would no longer be needed. The
current proposal, would have been affected by the below changes defining maximum
building size:
2. Inside the Downtown Desiqn 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., including roof top
parking, with the following exception:
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the
total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any floor level below the first story in
a building. First story shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code.
The proposed building footprint of 19,633 is well within the maximum foot print
allowance of 45,000 square feet. In Staffs evaluation ofthe project, however, it appears
that the uppermost level of structured parking would be considered in the gross floor area
calculation. Since it appears that more than 50% of the outside perimeter ofthe upper
level of structured parking is exposed by more than six (6) feet above grade, the upper
parking level would likely be considered a story, not a basement. If that were the case, the
gross floor area calculation for the project would be approximately 58,899 square feet.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for approval of a Site Review application are described in the Site
Design and Use chapter 18.72 as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-
of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards
Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999)
The criteria for approval for a Partition application are described in the Partitions
chapter 18.76 as follows:
PA2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis
-t tJ October 14, 2003
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 9
IUD . . ID II
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be
impeded.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to
the land.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord 2836 S8, 1999)
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be
provided, as determined by the Public Works Director and specified by City documents,
for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to
the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive
Plan. Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the
use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work
done under permit of the Public Works Department.
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land
partition when all of the following conditions exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or
arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion ofthe unpaved street does not exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant
shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights ofthe owner of the subject
property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost
of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local
improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street
improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of
utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if
the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided
from the alley and prohibited from the street. (amended Ord. 2757, 1995)
The criteria for approval for a Variance application are described in the Variances
chapter 18.100 as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances, which apply to this site which do not
typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 SI, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-
imposed.(Ord. 2775, 1996)
An exception to the Downtown Design Standards is not subject to the Variance
PA2003-127 71 October 14, 2003
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 10
fm II
requirements of Section 18.100 of the Ashland Municipal Code. An exception may be
granted with respect to the Downtown Design Standard discouraging projecting
balconies if all of the following circumstances described in Section VI-K) of the City's
Downtown Design Standards are found to exist:
1) There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due
to a unique or unusual aspect of the site, an existing 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 (Illustration:
Recommend 11).
3) The exception requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of
meeting the Downtown Design Standards.
An administrative variance may be granted with respect to the standard requiring
separation between buildings (distance equal to the height of the tallest building) if,
on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the
following circumstances are found to exist:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site
Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site;
B. Approval ofthe variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties;
C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and
Use Chapter; and
D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
The City's Downtown Plan describes the goals and policies that define the community's
shared vision for the downtown, while the Downtown Design and Detail Site Review
Standards represents some ofthe tools intended to make this vision a reality. The
proposed Ashland Springs Mixed Use Development strives to meet many of the
community's goals for downtown development through the integration of a variety of
desirable elements within one project.
In Staff's opinion, the application includes several features that benefit the downtown
core area. The project provides new housing, retail and office space within the existing
downtown core and within a short distance of public transit. The project makes efficient
use of an existing surface parking lot situated within the downtown's finite land supply,
and utilizing existing public infrastructure. Existing parking, as well as additional non-
required parking is accommodated within an attractive mixed-use building that integrates
a multi-level structured parking facility. And, the downtown pedestrian environment is
PA2003-127 .:0, 4 October 14,2003
~' ~.
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 11
IUD I . ID II
enhanced through elements of human-scale building design, the integration of a public
pedestrian plaza/walkway, the widening of public sidewalks and installation of street
trees and pedestrian-scaled streetlights along the I st and Hargadine Street frontages.
Given these features of the project, as well as consideration of additional information
found in the application and Staff Report, Staff supports the proposal and believes the
project will provide benefits to the downtown considered desirable based upon existing
Plan Policies and implementing ordinances.
The proposal, however, represents a compact project of significant size and scale on a
relatively small piece of property. There are many details noted earlier in this report that
deserve additional attention, evaluation and discussion. Consequently, Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission delay any decision on the application until the additional
information and recommendations suggested in this report and by the Historic
Commission are incorporated into a revised site plan and exterior building elevations.
Should the Commission find that the record includes information of sufficient detail to
approve the application, Staff would recommend that the following conditions
accompany the decision:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here.
2) That the right of the Hotel and its patrons to use the off-site parking must be evidenced by
a deed, lease, easement, or similar written instrument establishing such use, for the duration
of the use. The written instrument shall be created through consultation with the City
Attorney and approved by the City Attorney prior to signature of the final survey plat or
issuance of a building permit for the new building.
3) That additional right-of-way dedication be provided on the Partition plat so that existing and
proposed improvements associated with the alley are included within the alley right-of-way.
Additional right-of-way, if necessary, shall be dedicated around the perimeter ofthe project
so that the full width of all public sidewalks are included within the adjoining street rights-
of-way (i.e. 1st and Hargadine Streets).
4) That a public pedestrian easement be dedicated on the partition plat along the proposed route
and location of the pedestrian arcade and public plaza.
5) Street trees shall be installed approximately every 30-feet, using metal tree grates, within the
existing 10-foot wide section of sidewalk adjoining the Ashland Springs Hotel along First
Street. The location of the new street trees shall be included on the revised site plan and
installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6) That a 5-foot wide concrete walkway shall be installed along the east side of the public alley
from the public sidewalk along Hargadine Street to the public pedestrian walkway at the
northwest comer ofthe building. The design shall be approved by the Engineering Division
PA2003-l27 7 ~ October 14,2003
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 12
and installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
7) That the site plan be revised to include a lO-foot wide public sidewalk (excluding the 6"
curb) along the 1 st and Hargadine Street frontages. Street trees shall be installed,
approximately every 30-feet, along the 1 st and Hargadine Street frontages. Street trees shall
be installed within tree wells using metal tree grates prior to a certificate of occupancy.
8) That pedestrian-scale streetlights, as approved for the downtown Historic District, shall be
installed along the 1 st Street from Main to Hargadine Street, as well as along the project's
Hargadine Street frontage at an interval approved by the City Electric Utility prior to a
certificate of occupancy.
9) That a sign program for the development be included at the time of building permit review.
The program shall identify the anticipated number of signs, locations and approximate square
footage based upon the requirements described in the Sign Code 18.96.
10) That the color, texture, shape and building materials be included for all exterior components
of the project at the time of submission of building permit. The information shall be
consistent with the colors, texture and shape of materials and building details proposed and
approved as part of the land use application.
11) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission shall be included on a revised
landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permit. Street
trees shall be from the approved recommended street tree list, while the Planning and
Engineering Divisions shall review and approve the metal tree grates.
12) That the site plan shall be revised to comply with the public plaza/space standard based upon
the total gross interior floor area.
13) That 10% of the residential units shall be affordable for moderate-income persons in accord
with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council. The units shall be
identified on the approved plans and the household occupying the unit shall be approved by
the City prior to occupancy of the unit.
14) That proposed access onto the alley as well as First Street shall be designed by a Professional
Engineer and approved by the Ashland Engineering Division prior to issuance of a building
permi t.
15) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering
Division prior to issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of
all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines
and meter sizes, sewers, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage and catch basins.
16) That all comments and requirements provided by the Fire Department in their August 13,
2003 comment sheet shall be addressed and approved by the Ashland Fire Department prior
PA2003-127 "74 October 14,2003
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 13
to issuance of a building permit.
17) That the information and requirements of the Ashland Electric Utility Service for
Commercial Development shall be provided for review and approval prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
18) That an opportunity-to-recyc1e site for use by project residents shall be identified for the
project in accordance with the standards described in section 18.72.115 of the Ashland Land
Use Ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit.
P A2003-127
APPLICANT: Ed and Tanya Bemis
15 October 14,2003
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
Page 14
ASHLAND STREET TREE COMMISSION
SITE REVIEW
Applicant E&~~~--B€~Y\I~ Date lD(C1/o,?
Address d I~ t:: . f-lo.. (VI Commercial v Residential v
Proposed Action:
~~ttcrv--~;S~~ I VClNaN\ce
.. Y'YULt-ti-f(cc,r-( Mtte& lLS~
. Recommendation:
,.,. Ail {f'ees ~ baJ-h ~~(V\e<{.. Fi rs+ a..lcmcj--U1e..
~kl~ ~ea.. afe ~~ dead D\ l V\ ~ctt:LS
de:lt Y\ e. '-4- s \i)ould kJe ~o/\ooed Y--h (Duj V\. ~e " 0e e
RGvn~ proc.esS' .-
:>> 4U v\9u)f0ee.s oJanq<-l--he~fred~es(;)~ to'€-
CD~ so as to b~~b(e WL% ~e ~~ (0+
.' llV)e~dlOY\ .
*\V1e(~ ~s00LJd IoQ rEsc.J:J~cd w~
p~ 5pECL{fC~ t~fred Qcc.LJrdtf'Q +0 mlnl WLuIw'\
S~S. ~
Fell!.. tip:
.-,\1. AA -l(TI~ ~ nQ~ -6 be subvnd;(RJ bxfd.
()Y\VV\(f\(~ 5~dasd5 .' .
1~
October 31, 2003
NOV
3 2003
Mr. Bill Molnar, Senior Planner
City of Ashland Planning Department
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Bill:
Enclosed please find the revised portions of the Findings ofF act and Conclusions of Law for the Ashland
Springs Mixed Use Development project. These findings have been revised pursuant to the recommendations
and suggestions made by the Planning Commission during the October 12 public hearing on this project.
Please note the following important changes to this project which are reflected in the revised findings:
. The Request for a Variance from the required amount of permitted use has been withdrawn.
The amount of commercial space has been increased to 65% of the ground floor footprint through the
creation ofxx public parking spaces on the First Street level (including 2 handicapped public
spaces). The number of parking spaces for residents of the project has been reduced to xx.
. The Request for an Administrative Variance from the Downtown Design Standards has been
withdrawn. The design of the building has been revised to eliminate the projecting balconies.
Instead, fewer balconies - recessed into the building fayade - have been used to provide outdoor
living spaces.
. The Request for an Exception to the Large Scale Project Standards has been withdrawn as
inapplicable to this project. As noted by planning staff during the public hearing, this standard
applies only to multiple buildings on the same property. As part of this planning action, the subject
property will be partitioned so that it can be sold to the applicants. The adjacent parcel containing
the Ashland Springs Hotel will remain under the current ownership, and is not a part of this project.
. The concerns of the Historic Commission have been addressed with an appropriate level of
information. Through a series of meetings with the Historic Commission, the design of the
building has been developed and modified to address their specific concerns about scale, massing,
materials, and detailing. As noted during the last public hearing, our office will continue to meet
71
rm 11 'ml'l
Bill Molnar, Senior Planner
October 31, 2003
Page 2
with the Historic Commission during the remainder of the design process, to ensure that the final
project meets with their approval.
. All references to the recently enacted amendment to the"big box" ordinance have been
removed. In an effort to address potential questions about this issue, our original fmdings included
references to the proposed amendment, as it stood at the time of submission. Since the ordinance
was changed before it was fmally enacted, this infonnation is now invalid. And as noted by the
commissioners during the public hearing, this project falls strictly under the jurisdiction of the
ordinance in place at the time it was originally submitted, so the point is moot.
In addition to the revised findings, we have modified our drawings to reflect the revised design as well as
other concerns raised by the Planning Commission. All plans now include additional dimensions, square
footage calculations, north arrows, and graphic scales. Additionally, the Site Plan shows clearly shows all
'public space,' including both the widened sidewalk as well as the Pedestrian Plaza. For your reference, we
have included a Project Data Sheet that lists the pertinent statistics about the building.
We wish to make the enclosed information part of the public record for this project, for consideration and
review by the Planning Commission during the November 12 public hearing. If you have any questions about
the information we have provided, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
J .12:.Q "''''t 0-
J. David Wilkerson, II AlA
Associate
enclosures
cc: file, Bemis
NOV
3 2003
1?
c:
..... 0
c: C)
Q) Q)
E 10..
0.0
o ...
_'t:J
Q) c:
> cu
(2)-
c~
Q)<(
U) ...
:JU)
.....
't:J Q)
Q) Q)
.~ J:;
~~
U) c:
C) .-
c't:J
.- cu
10.. C)
0.10..
UJ cu
't:J:I:
~olS
- .....
.s::: U)
~~
.....
Q)
Q)
.s:::
UJ
CUM
.....0
CU~
C_
..... M
U ...
Q) Q)
._.0
o 0
10..-
o..c3
frig~~g~gN
N. I!), CD I!) CD 0 (\') .....
'<t0'> A(\') NN0500
N 00
en
.::s:.
ro ro
N 3:
ro CD
c:: :2
C (f)
.~ "0 "E
...... CD ro
~ g t
"0 :2 ~
~ ~ 8
......
C
'C
<i. .9- CD Qj
~ g g> ~
.... LL- Q; a-
OCDo>>(f)
.!::! .~ 0 g
~~;g~:o
en .3 ~ .3 6:
"0
CD
.!::
"0 ~
CD 0-
"0 CD
'> 0::::
o CD
'- u
0... ro
CD a-
u (f)
~ .~
(f) :0
.~ 6:
~ E
0... ~
E
ro 'c
(5
~ ~
<l.
I-
o
I-
z
o
~i
...JU
:JW
U:!:
IX
U
(\,)NO'>oooNCD'<t
o'<tI!)CD'<t.....o.....
'<to 00 I!) I!) 00 N N I'-
'<tooO'>O'>oo.....(\')N
~ "'r"'"" ~ "'r"'"" cx:>
CD I!) N I'- CD CD
I!) (\')00 NO 0
I!). '<t ..... N '<to 00
..... N '<t (\') .....
.....
I'- I'- CD
o '<t (\') I!)
l"oo_N~
C)CNLl"i(\')
Z 8 ..........
S2__
0:: a;
<C-
o. 0
.r::
~ g
<C .-
- .::s:.
U ...
ffi ~
:!: .~
:!::a
8 5
I III
...J E
~ ::l
U 'c
0:: ,-
W E
:!: 0
:!:"
o g
U CJ
I III
-
<l. g
oJ::
0:: E
W 0
:!:1ii
:!:=
oS
U E
('II
~
I
...J
<C III
j:::!:
Z C
W ::l
C
Ci)
W
0::
<i.
~
o
C)
z
o
..J
::>
m
(\')
I'-
I!)
.....
I!)
.....
I!)
c.O
o 00
I'- '<t
..... 0'>.
C'i......
00 N 0
..... '<t CD
00 '<to N
05 I!) ~
..... N
Q)
>
CD
....I
CD
Q) U
> C
CD ro
....I ~
'>.. c..... N
~. UJ Q) Q)
...... Q) Ci5 > >
ro > CD CD CD
c: CD '- ....I ....I
...J CD ....I U5 00....1
Wenro "O"O<C
>cNiiicc~
W 0 ro .!:: 0 0 0
...J () c:: LL- () () ~
71
o
'<t
0'>.
.....
(\')
(\')
I'-
I!)
I!)
.....
I!)
c.O
00
......
.....
Ll"i
'-
.2
"0
CD
.!::
"0 ~
CD 0-
"0 CD
'> 0::::
o CD
'- U
0. ro
CD a-
u (f)
~ro
(f) 'e
ro CD
"[; E
'- E
CD 0
E ()
g E
() ~
ro .~
+oJ .~
~ ~
CD
en
::>
"0
~
E
'-
CD
0...
ro
'(3
CD
a-
(f)
...J 0'> CD '<t 0 0 0'>
<C '<t (\') 00
I-
0
I-
C)
Z
S2
IX
<C
0. 0'> CD (\') 00
...J '<t ..... CD
W
I-
0
J:
C)
Z
S2
0::
<C
0.
U I!) I!)
:::i
al
:J
0.
C)
Z
S2
0::
<C
0.
...J
<C CD CD
j:: ..... .....
Z
W
C
CI)
W
0::
Q)
>
CD
....I
CD
Q) U
C
> ro
CD '-
....I C ..... N
~ W Q) Q)
...... Q) Ci5 > >
ro > CD CD CD
c: CD '- ....I ....I
...J ....I ...... ....I
W CD (f) 0 0 <(
en ro "0 "0
> C N iii C C ~
W 0 ro '- 0 0 0
...J () c:: IT: () () ~
>-
a
Z
~
c:=l
c:=l
N
M
.C(
~
o
C)
z
52
D::
<
a..
ADDENDUM TO
Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL
for
ASHLAND SPRINGS
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
First & Hargadine Streets, Ashland, Oregon
(Structured Parking with Residential Units and Retail! Commercial Spaces
to be constructed on an existing parking lot adjacent to the Ashland Springs Hotel)
TL 100, Assessors Map Page 39-lE-09BC
OCTOBER 31, 2003
Submitted to
CITY OF ASHLAND
PLANNING COMMISSION AND PLANNlNG DEPARTMENT
Submitted for
ED & TANYA BEMIS
Prepared by
OGDEN KISTLER ARCHITECTURE
NOV 3 2003
0"".,
lJV
ADDENDUM TO Findings of! and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED u.:SE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 1 ofl4
PROJECT DIRECTORY
1.1 Owner
Mark Antony Historic Property LLC
212 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
1.2 Applicant
Ed & Tanya Bemis
P.O. Box 1018
Ashland, OR 97520
1.3 Consultants
OgdenKistler Architecture
2950 East Barnett Road
Medford, OR 97504
Hofbuhr & Associates, Inc. Surveying
3155 Alameda Street
Medford, OR 97520
Zbinden - Carter, Civil & Structural Engineering
104 N 11 th Street
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
Greg Covey, Landscape Architect
295 East Main Street, #8
Ashland, OR 97520
1.4 Property Description
Tax Lot 100, Assessor Map Page 39-lE-09BC
1.5 Current Zoning
C-1, Commercial Retail with Downtown Overlay,
Historic District Overlay, and Detail Site Plan
Review Overlay
1.6 Current Use
Surface Parking Lot for adjacent hotel use
1. 7 Proposed Uses
Structured Parking for adjacent hotel use
(existing conditional use to be maintained)
Professional Offices / Retail Storefronts
(permitted use)
Multi-family Residential, including affordable unit
(special permitted use)
1.8 Request
Site Plan Review for new residential and
commercial development
Preliminarv Approval of Minor Land Partition of
existing tax lot
'6J f
NOV 3 2003
ADDENDUM TO Findings \ ~ and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED uSE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 2 of 14
PROJECT NARRATIVE
~
2.3 Site Coverage
Based on the proposed partitioning of the property (See Exhibit 2, Drawing P.l - Preliminary
Partion Map), the project site will contain 24,253 square feet. The gross building area footprint
is 19,560 square feet. Thus, the building occupies 80.6% of the site. Public spaces, in theform
of a Pedestrian Plaza, widened sidewalks, courtyard, and other pedestrian amenities, comprise
8,300 square feet, or 10.2% of the gross square footage.
2.4 Available Public Facilities, Services, and Utilities
The project site is well served by a full range of public utilities and transportation services.
Utilities include municipal water, sanitary sewer service, electrical service, natural gas, and
underground storm drainage. The existing overhead electrical lines along Hargadine and First
Streets will be removed as part of this project, and the existing underground electrical lines
(which were upgraded as part of the New Theatre project) will be used to service the facility.
Additionally, new underground storm drainage lines will be run to the existing 10" line located
in East Main Street.
Since the project site is located on First Street only a half block from East Main Street, it is well
served by public streets. The site is also served by a public transportation bus stop located in
front of the Ashland Springs Hotel, near the comer of East Main and First Streets. According to
research data obtained from the Department of Public Works and based on conversations with
Paula Brown, City of Ashland Public Works Director, the slight increases in traffic generated
by this project will not tax the public streets beyond the level for which they have been
designed.
NOV 3 2003
?d_
ADDENDUM TO Findings of" and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED u::>E DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 3 of 14
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
3.3 C-l Retail Commercial District Regulations (18.32) - excerpted
18.32.020 Permitted Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Professional, financial, business and medical offices, and personal service establishments
such as beauty and barber shops, launderette, avd clothes and laundry pick-up stations.
B. Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services, such as a
department store, antique shop, artists supply store, and including a regional shopping
center or element of such center, such as a major department store.
C. Restaurants. (Ord 2812, S2 1998)
Finding:
Finding:
Professional service establishments are an outright permitted use in this zone.
Stores, shops, and restaurants are outright permitted uses in this zone.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the professional offices (commercial
condominiums), retail storefronts (commercial tenant spaces), and public parking
spaces included in this project are outright permitted uses in this zoning district.
18.32.025 Special Permitted Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of
this section and the requirements of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards.
D. Residential uses.
1. At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of
the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted
or special permitted uses, excluding residential.
Finding:
I Finding:
I Finding:
\ Finding:
The residential units included in this project are a Special Permitted Use,
permitted outright when at least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground
floor is designated for an outright permitted use.
The total gross floor area of the building footprint at its maximum extents is
19,560 square feet.
The plans indicate that a total of 13,206 square feet at the various ground floor
levels of the building is designated as commercial space.
Therefore, a total of 67.5% ofthe ground floor footprint area is designated as
commercial space.
g.3
NOV 3 2003
ADDENDUM TO Findings o. t and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 4 of14
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the amount of space at the various ground floor
levels designated as professional offices and retail storefronts exceeds 65% of the
ground floor footprint area.
2.
\ Finding:
Finding:
I Finding:
3.
Residential densities shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-l
District, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-I-D District.
Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design
standards as for permitted uses in the underlying C-l or C-l- D District.
Off-street parking shall not be required for residential uses in the C-I-D District.
If the number of residential units exceeds 10, then at least 10% of the residential
units shall be affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the
standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through
procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units required to be
affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit.
4.
5.
12 residential units are included in this project. The site is approximately 0.5
acre. Therefore, the density is 24 dwelling units per acre.
The residential uses comply with the setback, landscaping, design, and parking
requirements of the C-I-D district.
12 residential units are provided. One unit has been designated as affordable..
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the residential units indicated on the drawings
comply with the criteria 2 through 5 above.
18.32.050 "D" Downtown Overlav District
A. In all areas within the "D" Downtown Overlay District, all uses are not required to
provide off-street parking or loading areas, except for hotel, motel, or hostel uses. All
parking areas provided shall comply with the Off-Street Parking chapter and the Site
Review chapter.
Finding:
I Finding:
Finding:
Off-street parking is not required for the commercial spaces, and none has been
provided.
Off-street parking is not required for the residential units, but has been
provided as a convenience to the residents.
Off-street parking has been provided as required for the adjacent hotel use (i.e, in
the same quantity as the existing surface parking lot).
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the project meets the above applicable requirements
for projects in the Downtown Overlay District.
gif
NOV 3 2003
ADDENDUM TO Findings of. and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED u::;E DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 5 of 14
3.5 Site Design and Use Standards (18.72) - excerpted
18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone
A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted
pursuant to Section 18.72.080.
Finding:
This project is situated in the "North Main Street, Historic District, and Oak
Street" Detail Site Review zone.
B. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards
adopted pursuant to this chapter, which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100
feet in length or width, shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure.
Finding:
The length of the proposed building is 160 feet.
C. 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 3 00 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.
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted "gross square footage of
45,000 square feet" as meaning 45,000 square foot footprint, and not the gross
floor area square footage (Planning Action 2000-074).
This project contains two floors of commercial and residential units located on top
of a parking structure that contains 2 ~ floors of enclosed parking spaces. This
parking structure also contains some retail storefronts, as required by the AULO
and the Site Use and Design Standards.
According to the interpretation of the City Council in effect at the time this
project was submitted, the calculated size of the proposed building is 19,560
square feet (gross square footage footprint size at maximum extents).
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project is subject to review under the Type 2
procedure and the Detail Site Review standards.
Conclusion: The applicantfurther concludes that, according to the interpretation of the City
Council, this project complies with the size limitation outlined in criterion C
above.
l~n II . !II 1'1
~s
NOV 3 Z003
ADDENDUM TO Findings t and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 6 of 14
18.72.070 Criteria for Avvroval
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
e. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council
for implementation of this Chapter.
Finding:
The proposed development meets or will met all applicable City ordinances,
applicable requirements of the Site Review Chapter, and applicable portions of
the Site Design and Use Standards, as outlined in items A through C above.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-
of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards
Options.
Finding: Adequate capacity of City facilities and utilities are provided to the project site.
The following existing utilities are referenced on the survey plan prepared by
Hofbuhr & Associates (see Exhibit # 3):
. Water: There is an existing underground water line located in First Street and
Hargadine Street. There is a fIre hydrant in the sidewalk adjacent to the subject
property, at the intersection of First and Hargadine Streets
. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 10" underground sanitary sewer line in Main
Street, and a 6" line in Hargadine Street.
. Urban Storm Drainage: An 8" underground storm drain line exists at East Main
Street, with a catch basin on First Street at the mid-block alley.
. Electricity: The electrical lines are located overhead along the Hargadine
property line and the First Street property line. Underground electric lines are
located in the alley adjacent to the parking garage.
. Natural Gas: An underground natural gas line is located in First Street and the
adjacent parking garage alley. .
. Transportation access: The nearest public transportation bus stop is located near
the comer of East Main and First Street, approximately Y2 block from the subject
property.
Finding: Based on research data obtained from Ray Smith (Engineering Tech II) 552-
2416 and the City of Ashland's Department of Public Works' records, this
project will not tax the public transportation facilities beyond the level of
services for which they have been designed.
~,
NOV 3 2003
ADDENDUM TO Findings of! and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED lJ~E DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 7 of14
Finding: Existing Traffic Loading is as follows:
- Between 1st and 2nd on Hargadine 869 vehicles! day
- Between Pioneer and 1st 1043 vehicles! day
- Between Hargadine and E Main on 1st 808 vehicles! day
- Between Pioneer and 1st on E Main 13093 vehicles! day
- Between 1st and 2nd on E Main 13349 vehicles! day
Finding: Residential units generate 10 trips per day. 14 residential units would generate
approximately 140 additional trips per day.
Finding: Since there are no specific tenants for the commercial spaces, the following trip
generation data is based on the closest breakdown for 10,000 square feet of
general office area. The commercial area included in this project is
approximately 11,000 square feet, so actual trips should be within this range.
According to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, an additional 246 daily trips
should be expected. Approximately 32 trips will be generated between the peak
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 34 trips will be generated between the
peak hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that, based upon existing traffic loading and the slight
increases in vehicular traffic that will be produced by this project, the existing
street capacity and available public transportation will be more than adequate.
Paula Brown, City of Ashland Public Works Director, reviewed this project in a
meeting on October 16, 2003, and agreed that the trips generated by this project
would not impact the public street infrastructure.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this application meets all the criteria required for
approval of the application.
. 18.72.090 Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards
An administrative variance to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to
the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 if, on the basis of
the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are
found to exist:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design
Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site;
B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties;
C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use
Chapter; and
D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty.
Finding: The design of this project incorporates balconies in a manner that complies
with the Downtown Design Standards.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that an Administrative Variance is not required to
allow the balconies shown on the design.
87
NQV 3 2003
1m II
ADDENDUM TO Findings I. t and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED LlSE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 8 of14
3.8 Variances (18.100) - excerpted
18.100.010 Variances - Purvose
Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general
purpose of this Title may result from the strict application of certain provisions thereof, variance
may be granted as provided in this Chapter. This Chapter may not be used to allow a use that is
not in conformity with the uses specified by this Title for the district in which the land is located.
In granting a variance, the City may impose conditions similar to those provided for conditional
uses to protect the best interests of the surrounding property and property owners, the
neighborhood, or the City as a whole.
Finding: According to AULO Section 18.32.025, Special Permitted Uses, residential uses
are a Special Permitted Use in the C-I-D zone, permitted outright when at least
65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor is designated for an outright
permitted use.
Finding: In this project, at least 65% ofthe ground floor footprint area (as calculated in
Section 18.32 above) is designated as commercial space, including retail
storefronts, commercial space, and public parking.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that since the amount of space at the various ground
floor levels designated as commercial space exceeds 65% of the ground floor
footprint area, a variance is not required.
NOTE: The remainder of this sectioll is 10 10llger applicable to this project.
3.9 Procedures (18.108) - excerpted
18.108.160 Ordinance Interpretations
A. When in the administration of the Land Use Ordinance there is doubt regarding its
intent, the suitability of uses not specified or the meaning of a word or phrase, the Staff
Advisor may interpret the provision in writing or refer the provision to the Commission
for interpretation. The Commission shall issue an interpretation in writing to resolve the
doubt. Neither the Staff Advisor's interpretation nor the Commission's shall have the
effect of amending the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. 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.
~~/
NOV 3 2003
ADDENDUM TO Findings of: .md Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED u::lE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 9 of14
B. The interpretation of the Staff Advisor shall be forwarded to the Commission who shall
have the authority to modify the interpretation. The interpretation of the Commission
shall be forwarded to the Council who shall have the authority to modify the
interpretation. Whenever such an interpretation is of general public interest, copies of
such interpretation shall be made available for public distribution.
Finding:
The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted "gross square footage of
45,000 square feet" as meaning 45,000 square foot footprint, and not the gross
floor area square footage (planning Action 2000-074). No further interpretations
or ordinance amendments have been issued as of the date this project was
submitted.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this interpretation may be relied upon in submitting
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (this application) for this project.
NOTE: The remainder of this section is 10 longer applicable to this project.
NOV 3 2003
31
ADDENDUM TO Findings o. t and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED uSE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 10 of 14
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
4.4 Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects (II-C-3) - excerpted
Developments (1) involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet or a building
frontage in excess of 100 feet in length, (2) located within the Detail Site review Zone, shall, in
addition to complying with the standards for Basic and Detail Site Review, shall conform to the
following standards:
II-C-3a) Orientation and Scale
2) No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings shall exceed a gross squarefootage
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 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or
kngffi. .
Finding:
The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted "gross square footage of
45,000 square feet" as meaning 45,000 square foot footprint, and not the gross
floor area square footage (planning Action 2000-074).
Finding:
According to the interpretation of the City Council, the calculated size of the
proposed building is 19,560 square feet (gross square footage footprint size).
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that, according to the interpretation of the City Council,
this project complies with the size limitation outlined in criterion 2 above.
3) Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the
height of the tallest building. Ifbuildings are more than 240 feet in length, the separation
shall be 60 feet.
Finding: This project contains only one building. Since the site must be partitioned in
order for the applicants to take ownership of the property, the adjacent Ashland
Springs Hotel will be situated on a separate parcel
Finding: According to the direction of planning staff, this criterion applies only to
buildings on the same property, or on separate parcels that are part of the same
planning action.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that, since there is only one building on this site and
included in this planning action, this criterion does not apply. The applicant
further concludes that any other interpretation of this criterion would render
this site, and most sites in the downtown area, completely undevelopable
10
NOV 3 Z003
ADDENDUM TO Findings of: and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED uSE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 11 of 14
4) All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate a streetscape which includes curbs,
sidewalks, pedestrian scale light standards, and street trees.
Finding:
The new public plaza and the existing sidewalks have been enhanced by the
introduction of the street trees, landscaping, seating amenities and lighting as
demonstrated in the drawings in Exhibit 2 and described above.
II-C-3b) Public Spaces
1) One square foot of plaza or public space shall be required for every 10 square feet of
gross floor area.
Finding:
The existing parking lot is not landscaped, nor does it provide any public plaza.
The gross floor area is 81,212 square/eet. A new 3,542 square foot Pedestrian
Plaza has been integrated into the design. Additionally, a courtyard and
widened sidewalks, including benches and seating areas, have been provided
on First and Hargadine Streets- behind the property line on the subject
property - to provide an additional 4, 758 square feet of public space. The
pedestrian plaza and public spaces represent 10.2 % of the gross floor area.
2) A plaza or public spaces shall incorporate at least 4 of the 6following elements:
Finding:
Finding:
a)
Sitting Space - at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet shall be
included in the plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of16 inches in height and 30
inches in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum depth of 30 inches.
Approximately 40 sitting spaces have been provided in the Pedestrian Plaza and
at the widened sidewalks. This equates to 1 space for every 490 square feet of
building footprint.
b)
A mixture of areas that provide both Sunlight & Shade
The building entrances and overhangs, and the seating areas located beneath trees
provide opportunities for shade.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that a mixture of sunlight and shaded areas has been
provided.
Finding:
c)
Protection from wind by screens and buildings.
The plaza is inherently protected from the wind from the North and South by both
the existing hotel and the proposed structure. Alcoves within the plaza, adjacent
to the building provide some EastlWest screening.
d)
Trees - provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of 1 tree per 800 square
feet, at breast height.
q/
NOV 3 2003
ADDENDUM TO Findings of t and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRlNGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31,2003
Finding:
e)
Finding:
f)
Finding:
Page 12 of 14
Four trees have been provided in the public plaza, this equates to 1 tree per 590
square feet of plaza area.
Water features or public art.
As shown in Exhibit 2, drawing L.l - Landscape Plan, two water features have
been incorporated into the public Plaza.
Outdoor Eating Areas or Food Vendors.
An area has been allocated for a coffee or snack vendor, within the retail space
adjacent to the new public plaza.
4.9 Downtown Design Standards - excerpted
VI-B) Setback:
3) Recessed or projecting balconies, verandas or other useable space above the ground
level on existing and new buildings shall not be incorporated in a street facing elevation.
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
This project is a mixed-use project that includes residential units above
commercial enterprises, in keeping with the stated goals of the City of Ashland's
Downtown Plan.
While the subject property is "downtown", it is not contiguous to a row of
existing buildings where a continuation of prominent storefront architecture is at
issue. This building addresses the design standards that meet the requirements of
the downtown core in terms of massing, roof articulation, setback and commercial
frontages.
Certain elements o/the city's Multi-Family Residential Development Design
Standards have been incorporated into the project, to enhance the livability of
the residential units. Terraces and balconies have been integrated into the
upper levels of the First Street and Pedestrian Plaza facades in a discreet
fashion that diminishes the mass of the building and that does not detract from
the building's appearance.
These terraces also differentiate between the ground and upper levels, as
required in section VI-E2 of the Downtown Design Standards. The detailing of
these terraces, with wrought iron railings similar to those found on other
downtown buildings, articulates the fafade and reduces the massing of the
building, in keeping with numerous other design standards for projects in the
Downtown area and the Historic District.
9~
NOV :3 2003
ADDENDUM TO Findings ot . and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 13 of 14
Conclusion: Based on the mixed-use nature of this project, and based on thefindings
outlined above and conversations with planning staff, the applicant concludes
that an exception to this particular criterion is not required.
VI-K) Exception to Standards:
An exception to the Downtown Design Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of
Section 18.100 of the Ashland Municipal Code and may be granted with respect to the
Downtown Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
1) There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due
to a unique or unusual aspect of the site, an existing structure or proposed use of the site;
Finding:
The specific requirements of the Downtown Design standards have been met
through the design of this project, including the creation oflimited outdoor
spaces that do not create a balcony or terrace.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes, and planning staff concurs, that the use of balconies
and terraces as o.utlined above does not trigger the requirement for an
administrative variance.
NOTE: The remainder of this section is 10 longer applicable to this project.
13
NOV 3 2003
J:I0326_BEMISIDWGlx0326ee1,dwg, 11/0310303:09:37 PM. David Wilkerson
~=-
0-
!:l.'"
0-
g-~
.;-<=-
~a
~c.a
a
2:'"
==-a
(1) -""l
'" -.
=t=
<'Du::::l
~'"
'"
....
a :<: (I)
2-><
",l'!:::r-
::rPi~
_lI-
e ~~
= .:.,
a.. .
Q
'"
=-
-
a
==
a..
...
:3
-.
><
(1)
a..
c
'"
(1)
CL.
(1)
<
(1)
-
o
-c:::s
:3
C'D
:::s
...
o
-
(1)
(.Q
o
==
-
:::;;.
VI
-
VI
-
....
(I)
(I)
-
c-
o
n
::0;-
-
....
o
::z
-
(I)
CD
<
Q
-
o'
::z
~
-K
2
C)
<:
~
N
C)
C)
C",.)
is
:~
12
19-
,0
~
Ii.
rn
12S:'
,,,
...
!g=
!![.
".
,"
~
''''
!~
~
."..
:s.
'<D
;'if
:~
!~
!e
,,,-
."
a
.f [
o !
i." !:!.
" "
~ a-
ID ~.
..,
~ ...
~ ~
Q ~
'f
g-
"
"
,.,.
~
"..
"
.g
"-
j~r
,,,
,n
Ii}
Ii"
:~
~
,,,
\~
~
:~
:s
'''-
1.!!..
l~
I=.
I;;
!~
!~
i?
:9.
.m
~
'c
!g;
~
!~
,<>
r
-
I
~-
~
e:=I=1l
--
10
l:lJ;$:H
IIH ltt:rLlil III !pnji II
. "~ ;i~~j
, !m T'I ~,qJ, 'I
; i:'1 i ,-:1": ,~!.l" ,;,1'" :.1
,',//',.:; ~'.I .."I~, :1
: ,'... !IHi:-.:,,) IRt~\ II:
:' t'~'~~:;~::~' ~i:I~~:' ~ :"f~:ITI,~':' II
._1..L " ",II I ;:
""I .~j '. . ',:, :!':ii: ,.. :,'.'; '" ~il':;
~" , . Ifl:" , ". " . hi;~
.. ":" ," ',~ 1"1
1 i '11: Et~ ."':i'\\ : ~": :ii'!
1-=.-;1 6 ijil:: :::-~ . ~; 'zj :. ~
; 1 ~J W,.II' ..1jII ,,;:11 I""" ..j
I' 'f/I '. ,. .; li)i ,', ~;Ii .!
,; .' ,I'i" 't'lli
...-_--1 ~' :OJ'f. rll~
~ r-7'- : 'II. ,,'F::'. I" .U:::.
" '"-,,... ti." -l rII ~~l. ;
J.<: '.~--' l~i':;I~L;!":\il:
: ~ .' !11ftf2::"'j I~ r
./:,fll";", _.t
,~ r.!WJ ~ )
f'II'I" 'I': ~- ! --I
I',! .11 :.! II : I :.
i:li! '. ~ ill: IFR=n, ~8~1- -.
"':j.l:i '.T .itf." ~gft11 IFltrr
illE6L L;-!1~ -iLft.l_~ M
tI,
[S7
'!:::;'-
...... I
;!',[,)"
rT lJr-::--11
" ,,'r'~ i
j \W
:! ~~!
I ~jij,
'I'):
: I i .J
I ,
,"
,"
Q..
'"
:!f
,!!,
; -..
I !il ~!h
: I ::J:~l \
:l ,I. I i
:1 I I:' ;.-
:1 . ,'j
!, il~l:
ill "1:
I'~'~ J (~I,;._.
"~i;:~'!
-
1111'1'
=~
rnOJ
DJ[D
rnrn
...
c.
,.
:t;:
: IS:
,,,-
l :i"
.""
" I!
<>
: g o.
n '-
" '0
g- '"
2- !~
~ '-
: ! !~
.., 'w
In !~
... ii
.... :-=:-
.... It
~
""
...
,,...
. (r~:
:~
r~
ill
,~
I:!
,~
\~
"I 1--11
a
~
)-
I ~
III i III1 i-II
c=JD
T IIf
l~- IIf
CIJ
r=.=
I[
I[
lOJlrI
BI~
~-
DI
IDI
D
a
ICI
Ii) ~
IlL q 1JiW...
III BIIIl-..
I
I
~
J:I0326_BEMISIDWGlx0326ee1.dwg. 11103/0302:42:55 PM. David Wilkerson
'""- _ :<;(1)
....0 -- ..... ~ ><
g.;:;l '" :;, ::r
o - ::r::F2:
g- t10 _--::-
~ :r Q 9~
g~:::s ~
W(,Q c::L- t.."
Q
~'"
= "'1:S
<D ....
'" --
::::::s
<Dca
<D __
Cri -"
....
::!:'
\ri
-
'"
-
...
(1)
(1)
-
~
(1)
-
CI
Q
'"
:r
is""
=
Q..
...
o
...
CD
(,Q
o
=
3
_. !:!L
>< ~
C'D So
c::L- o'
::I
C
'"
C'D
c::L-
C'D
<
C'D
-
o
"'1:S
3
C'D
:::s
....
"Z\
~
z
C)
c::::::
~
N
c:;)
c:;)
t.,..)
i
~
1ii
~
'"
~
:r:
I
:r:
!!
m
o
m
i5
z
o
tC
C.
t'D
'::::J
"
-.
en
.....
......
C'D
.,
nn 1'1 111I1'1
::r-
a-
n
~
i3
3
.",
@
- .".. "I. .', I
. <~ '__.: ~>~,.1
r'-II~]r:-"lr'
,,= ,. ,". .
1~~=;:~:-.~:,:!t~~!1
r >--,/._~-d...
I, T F.~
II 11.,,:1 ,I!:.' I
; I 11'1\...
I: .__..!;__~J --.. .Jl~. :
1_. -l_--~_L-' :lL_j
,n ] --fit
,
% cii.
::I =r
~ -
8:
c -g
~ ~
~
::I
'L I ____ S
~lI=::l=B!
J 1_ _J
, -/
I
~
'I ~
L____
I. +---t
I no ! .,
Ii --11--' l,.... :i n__:
I_,:.JL_ .t....c.L. ...:_
i-~'..]~J;. -.=.. !;.~~~.!I'.'~~. j
-:-'T:!-,'~ ::-~-'i:-'-'-l
~."lJ~J--:-.-.,
".:"
"Ii..
'-- "-===='r' ,
_______ __1 ~ ;
I :
---. . I
-:. . ":':.::. I! --'!I ':1 . I
'~''-~~~. ;1;. "-~---'-~=.~-:i!l~
~ .:~_::.c>::Ji.. '
......~... :.: :: ';~ 'IJ'"
~~:~ ~:: -~:'!'.'.;::~,-;!. ,
-...--. I" :1..., J'
--- -:}..:--:.=....:.---=.=...:..:......-..
dl==l
I" II .. r' [1\
I, ,,:: :i, i' \
, ;.. :~=Il -, -ell .----"'i:,. i -
\'I....,;.,l.-='I: '-~.;I i
I:: i! U
1~_.li ..._L~l~' u
I ~
:1
il
L
II
i
@
;: '.!::: 1\\
; . Ii i' \
I Ii.'
Ii _~=.J, ~-~, L~:- ,~--'\
L_,,~J__'] .._j i
11-'.. If- "If.... 'fi .
II'" II";' II i
!;-,..-,:.:_~:, ~L ~- ~l..
'.'" "'-11
'I' II :1
.!, :! I .
. J.: ._(, j _J
~.]L_.:.. -:l~]L -,
:~ ': -- r-'-':! -- j
. ,. , I
. I! II
=,~..,~~L+:
.- -._- --- --El
@
@
!i I
J __
f1IN
__ L_ '\;
"\j!/f.
:~_-Jj~- :.
! ~
"~I
---,-~!..
I 1---r-~1 [" - i I
II rt~!i CJ
) i ~ ~ ~ ii
,,1 ..a a::;o tD I
(.~ i r ~:: Ii
I-;Z-'!!:. gg=St"
, "'CI t (; ~.::5! (1) 0
b;[ b.;- g"3 ~g.
~s...~5!~.a ~~
10- 1ft . ~ "'1:1 '" (1)
~;;: ~cE g, m ~::
:,>:;:!\ .\>::0-
; ::1jll" :,~~-li' -:~:".:;:
1.,:_, ..,_,. I~..._ !" _.
. II IJ~ 'If:' ,:.:..,1'1-- ~~I ~-~~1';1 ._~\
' - ,.," I',
'i 1- 'IL.--::J.. -=,.~,L-;.,::...J
I - r-,-:r.~T :-"1\"",'..1:, II
1\ ~..';:il. ."Cl!:._..jl __\.
._ _L ._,;!..__.._..::'
r-~]:::~".]j :_~,ti_ .~
I--~r= .1,.--,- "'I~-.l~"i
.? ls..... -1..... :I_~', :1' .
::~',!f."-,J~:;~'.r-'<' .J.
r
I': ,
, ,
'i ---1
I:
'I
II
I--~
Il~
\: ',.
'!:I i!r-
.! I,.
. I.. '1:
II'}:'~:'!I':"I'LI:":"'II!I
,I ;),1." ,;, I
I -- ,.---- ..."
,:"':ffl':'-9Ii...:-\!
t --. .-. .--.- .1
Il":'t. Ii --'-'1.' --'--'1:' i
I ',"-.' _...:. -.,1 I
"n:_.. 'I--m...----.II' I
__ I I~_.,-:J;- '_;=!:''-o;=:,i~~
I nt'1!~' 11. II .
I IL;i L -~~,. ),1
'I' r . -li '~'. - 1'1'
': __ ':_ ...1_.. .-- L ..--J: _
Ii -(- .. ." 111"
~ i' 1. I
-- '! .,..Il
~,.:~ ...11 uli
':'":.1
"Cl
c-
::I
!i
'" .", n '" ... '" '"
m if g, m c- m <D'
!!!.. CD ~ !!!.. ~
!i '" ~ ~ -
i3 0' CI CI
S ::I e- ::e a e-
3 '" 3 g, :3 3
CD e- '"
'" ;;I - :i" ::e S.
0' <D' c ... C
::I ... 3 CI S. s
iil 8 '" ::I Q...
- "a ca ~ ~ 3-
e '" CI c
!!l CI '"
3- ::I .:< a-
ll!... a. ~ ~ ~
::e ~
:i' @ m o.
a- '" :3 ::1_
0 c- ~ ~
::e c-
'" CD S' ::I
-::i CI
a- '" 3
m CCI c
'" C- CD
3 it a
:e CI
-- a- ::I:
~. "" CI
.. s-
c ... CD
c- :r a-
ar "" 0'
a- :e
CCI
c- , n g,
... 0 ...
S' I ::I CI
"" ~ a.. ::I
0 !!!..
~
~ !!!..
~
c-
o
..
I
,
,
I I
I: :
,-- : I
: ,
,
I
,
,
I
I
,
I
,
.n '
\ I
\ :
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
I
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
I
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
I
,
I
,
,
I
,
I
I
,
,
I
n ,
CI ,
; I
g I
CD I
Si I
::I
n- I
lD ,
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
,
,
I :I
I CI
, !'"
I ~
: e;:
L~
~~
~f
I
~
J:I0326_BEMISIDWGIx0326ee1.dwg. 11/03/0302:47:08 PM, David Wilkerson
:3
-.
><
(t)
a..
o c
c; '"
ca(t)
o
= a..
(t)
<
(t)
-
o
-a
:I
CD
::s
...
CI
'"
::r
-
CI
=
CL.
...
III~I
.
I
I
~
~
.",.:.",
"",,,'::<;:';".,
:.','\, ..,",,", .w>. ,rf,
''''''.''= ,',
-
o
o
]- "
'Ii
i
!
-I--
I ~
~ ~Hc
_ IDIiIIIJ
A
!.,l1Il' 'I J~, 1.~..~U,~"
i I . ! ~ : I
;, _ ..__ ._---1..., _oo_i~
J. " ,i1o::rD1L Ii ii:' -:' " ._,. :
I~ IL[ ..,
'-;'llT r-, I ,'''--' .... 1"-
., . . j';<:-' 11Ij;
l"~:;~~~;~lll:':' ':":;< :~.. _.,~j . . :
r..:;."""':<: ..J : "'-. .. ,-" . J ,
: L"':.: 'fI":. II ; :.'-.1 'I i!
. '. . I . ., -1. . -, '"I; 'I. -F;' I il
I "; ; i "! I ~ . I I' J : j" i ;:
L \~!!,: ':' '.' ,111.:III~:' :;II~;:I~'
'\ :, '," 11"jl'.::: I:
~~\r:':' ooll:L;1..1kl il"":: .;! "II i!i:':,; I il Ii::
~ ji~~!\' ~':',',~j ,. J \i .~ ....~=~J 'i;l:
~ . :<!,!I!f~ ~.- I 'I::',-:,~ . ;:;:i,
l~ !il.. !i!'II'!";',1Ia "1: '!: IIII ;'1' Ii 1", 1'1i1!11
:11. '. I... 'if': .'. . I' i'!"1
li:I, :' '[:.:' 'fl
!1h;!' ".' I.,!i . 1::!li,l.
.'{J II '. I,I,,!: 11':1"
r ,I : ' , ~ ' 'II; : ~ .: ! i
, ' II,:!. ' ':'.,
,,' .:JJ'" ..:1 ,
:j i I .;:: i..: ':...:, I !
" I-- I
.._.il
t;ni '-jTTT'J
, . I i ,1 :tt',
:: , ',.
jt
.'
,
"
,
.; . ~
':.--='1-:0,
- .....J
, I
'=r'~ ,!
!, ,.),try !'
I Ii
l~
: II I
0"1' I
.. ~.":+~ 111\
i
,
I II
~'T.l L_'.
: r'f'~'
r I I
t,..LL-
I f"
I
H
I ! i \I
. I, I
~ 1--
;...:.. t--,
Ii
[ i :~ :, I
I!
I J.L
T01
r I !
o
II
! 0 1:81
il ., 1 I 1 ~
, ILLL~ '-H
, ~ I --Ii
I ' " I; .~~
,:. ':-~::.: II
. :=t. 1,1
-
.' I. i
/ .......... I
;~i; .
, '
", !
".,1'1
;..1.,
'I,
Iii 'I I
~
"
1-....._
...1.. __n
%
C>
<::
w
f')
t::)
t::)
(,.0.)
8
~
o
'"
;!j
<:
IT1
~
...
;a
g
o
:I:
I
:I:
o
Z
IT1
en
-!
o
lJl
l5
z
o
to
C.
CD
., ...
., ..J
"
--
en
.....
.....
CD
",'
)>
J:I0326_BEMIS\DWGlx0326ee1.dwg. 11/03/0302:47:33 PM. David Wilkerson
~-
-0 -.
~;;;
--
8-Qo
IV
~- =-
l;;Q
C) _
""(CI
Q
=='"
="'D
(t) -e
'" -.
:::=
(t)u:::::t
~'"
'"
....
~ :<: CD
... !- ><
'" ::. ::r-
_coer
- li-.
-~.....
Q ~NI
= .:.,
cz.. ~
c
(j)
-=
CD
(j)
<
C
=
o
::::II
\
Q
'"
=-
a
=
Q...
...
o
-
(t)
(CI
o
=
3
-.
><
CD
a..
c
'"
CD
cz...
CD
<
CD
-
o
"'D
3
CD
=
...
~
,~~
z
o
a::::::
eA
N
C)
C)
r..,.)
8
~
:0
~
~
>
."
;g
~
:J:
I
:J:
o
~
c
rn
Gi
z
o
U]
a.
to
::J
~
--
tn
r+
,.....
to
..,
H== m
.----1-.., .--
I I
I ;
I I
_~ .---1.-___ !
-~~m -
_N_'
\ iill _= [i
~.r[[ ;
--m....- : ., I 'i
!!. . I ',: I II ..... :1
, lll_. fiflj' --I .- - j
1- :l~ !~j\
- ,- - I
I !.,~~: I 1';-..1 i
:lo::rrJ - i:d .ILl!
:JI.Lt.-.U iJ""I. J....:r:u
l=f=l
-=cf.;j),
l=f=l
>--
PK
rst;2
"
u
~
i;
"
l
,~
\:..: :.
1
!
1-. ....
! r-
@
;;
11
~
~
,d
....---.. --
l....--___
-
- ,
.. __. ...1-: 1
~
~
! r-1I1
acIIJli" Ial I I .- ~
aD~ 8CCfLI
I IIH-t--" IIR-T-f H
~. 1 ~
~1:I:t:I.._ III I I
d~i~ L ~
, --
131
i2J :~.:~JI- II~ --"--~;~
~.- - II~
. .,: 11"'-= -.-- ...
: !e-I. , I
-". .-~
i Ii
~
" II
I
.I",.,J,.....
L..J..,..,.,
..J
'--'1..
ft-=i---".
Ir--,--
\ 0 0
\ -- _T~
\ IIIflJ .~~
\ -I -~
o
o
\
\
\
~~
I
=r
\
J:I0326_BEMISIDWGlx0326ee1.dwg. 11103/0302:47:54 PM, David Wilkerson
~- ~ :<:(1)
....0 -- ~ ~ ><
0'" '" :;.::::r-
~ ~ :::r-;;; c:-
:r fl)O _ ~ ::0:
~ ::::r- Q ~ ":I
g~ = ~
""(Q CL. i""
c
e:-",
='"'CI
C'D ~
\It -.
:::t=
C'Dca
$.",
\It
....
C
\It
::::r-
-
c
=
c..
...
o
...
C'D
(Q
o
=
3
-.
><
(1)
CL.
C
'"
(1)
CL.
(1)
<
(1)
-
o
'"'CI
3
(1)
=
....
'"CI
(1)
c...
(1)
lit
-
...
i:i"
::s
'"CI
C
....
c
CD
CD
<
c
-
o'
::s
~
-~::
!: tU
If': .;
L" ...._...
BI--
;-,~~_.._..:
~L "j
ro"...
:I., .,.
I, "
'Xl
". ~'. ~ 1 "
J:\0326_BEMIS\DWG\x0326ee1.dwg. 11/03/0302:48:17 PM. David Wilkerson
""-
..g -.
0....
...'"
0-
g-QO
~:r
~C
C~
""cca
c
e:-",
="'C
(I) """I
'" -.
:::::s
(l)u::::::a
a",
'"
...
c
'"
:r
-
c
=
c..
..
o
....
(I)
cca
o
:::s
,.... :<: (I)
iIIIIi e. ><
'" :: ::r-
_Ole:-
- 11-.
- --:: ....
a ~~
::s ~
CL. 0..
::r-
CI
~
C'.CI
CI
cz...
:i"
(I)
'"
-
~
(I)
(I)
-
3
-.
><
(1)
CL.
C
'"
(1)
CL.
(1)
<
(1)
-
o
"'C
3
(1)
::s
.....
(I)
CD
<
CI
-
o.
:::s
~
..~
%
0
<
e..:>
N
c:;:)
c:;:)
w
~ 0
0 ~
~ c.
<
'" tD
~
;l! :::::J
~ "
I -.
:3: en
0
z
~ .....
0 .--
fTI tD
en
is -,
z
J:\0326_BEMIS\DWG\x0326sp1,dwg. 11/03/0303:04:11 PM. David Wilkerson
;:::; :::::!':' C "ct1
~ ..... ffi-><
CD VI "'" "::r
-s. - =r-~~
CD 0 '-
5.-:::l C~t--.:)
_~ C- . I
...., ::::r- :::J 9 ~
go C- O
<....:> ..... V>
to "'" -
8..-c CD
"t::I
:::s ~ CI
-.
(t) :::J :::I
VI
- c:.c::2
.....,
(t) "'"
(t)
- 3
VI
-.
0 ><
VI CD
::::r-
0 C-
:::s c::
C-
"'"
0 CD
.....,
(t) C-
to
0 CD
:::s <
CD
-
0 ~
-c [ .f ~[
3 ,l!' ~ ; S'
~ ! ~ !!"
"B i 1
CD .. ;; i
J
:::J If "'
~ i " ..
--t- ~ ~
.. ;
J!. . .. I[
. .
.. I[ .
~ if
"'-
~
\)
Z
:0
<
~
N
C)
0
,..,..)
~ 0
to
~ C.
"' (I)
"D
... ::J
'"
~ "
::J:
I -.
::J: en
!f
~ .....
<:> ,....
"' (I)
lJl
i5 ..,
z
J l
\ I
_ _ _ _ -ss[ ~ ~ ~ ~:-_-;;_-~~ -: ~ ~G=s~ = = =~ ~s- ~ ~~-_~: -:~= = =: =~=2~s:~-:_-_-_~sG~ ~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~1: ~~ ~=~: -_-_-~~~~~-
I ~ ---- _-1
I ~ - I
I 1 HAR-G-A-Dl1H STREET / I
(;l I _--- _--r-8' (;l
, ,----Wl -----Wl -----Wl --7oC-Wl -----Wl -----Wl -----Wl --.",.....,--Wl -----Wl -1--+--W1 -----Wl -----1
I : --1-II~1 I Iku' l)f(jll Il'r --- I I
I 1 _ E -'I' E E I~!II I E I~Q'JI 1;15ill I J4'--Efl~--E-----E'
'U--""-i. ' '1"11'-;1-1-::' .-11-.1-1+. - ......."._ ~ . _1.1_ -. L.J:;', I I j
1 I I 1 1- \ X. J,,~ -~ ~'" I if
I I!< '1-J:' ----..:-I~ ~
I I :: /_----~- 1\" L... '~i t+- i
I I I ~ - /- 1 It If 1 !.
r ~ ~ 1 ~I ,,1/ m~ ~ ~ ,I
: ~j IF 1- lA i
,r 1 ~/- , ~ J/ ic t y
i-_;=---ss..---- h I r; , _-/1 .'L~~
I I I .., ~ j \ 1\ _ - - ------- I ~ ~ 1
I' I ----- ~ I~I
~ I I J _-----J "'7\ \ '--- li'l
1 ~ "I I. -/------ i: 'f Vr:\"t 'f ~ ii] '=" if:
I -- ~ ~ '1.1 J W ~ ~ f ~ I , "..
t I: 1m * "II \\ * ~ i! 1- : + ~
I I T I:l:l ~i j! ~ ~j( 'I "- [a \" };*iE~ i ~ ~ i I -<
"-.1 ~ _1lS,,/ f:l:j a ~ ~ - c. I I
1- ~I- i ~ J\' q g- g- ~!i I
! i i ~~ ~~~\ - /ill Ji!// '~\t
I ~ :.J ~ 1- [ ~ ~U 1 - - lf, ~ I I
I ~> B.a!" ___"(" - I I
'I '~- ~---------- ~/ Y. i ,
I ____ ~II= \ \/ \, , I~ I
I / / ^ I' i.LI
'i'l/"'" : f---~- II ~\ illl ,f Jf r
: I ',',-- /" A ,'-('
I ,l, '~:.:::'..... #' I I
~ ~ f-- L / I~
: _/--- <? :
I ~t1 ---,,// lqa II
: I / / ~I'~---\ I .// i~~ .) 1,
<r. ~ _,,~I- ] "--~_~ .1/ Lyf
I -1- I I m'"./ f--t-, I
t 1 ~ '> ->qIWI~ m~~:'-'~t::,+,*u:nm~.' . ,h'!li
I I ~ >!'""'" ~' ;~t,;':II~f,"~if':.r-;JOr~f{-l--t~iii'ii"~<: >' ,r - A~ :i!11
t I ;:0 I ":~r>5<JI%v--.... ," J<<L-.ili_i..l::i..l-1 I~!n-H-UIVI !!l~ ..., r /" l' I ~~II
I I rT"1 I (" " "/~L..-- ---'. fJ(" ....-1 --f-f--l-...}.-~"':- U_..J._I..I:'t..U+___n ","'" --- I~II
. \ '/ "I' ) I [ l.\ ~\ ...&.l I 11-1 I II Jl '(::-')1 11-..- I ..
J I rn .....PI. / ~/" : (/ A~;'~(~ltl I llrr--::"C.-;r~ 1~::=~-Jfii-...J1 It, "'~:tJ' or=_J 11~li
I --{ III I1rtlll r ' ,j! Jill).. ,"}, .. _:llJ1
~ J/ ,...dn!n "A t, Ir.:.~-l..111L)...Y":: if...' IJ~~I
G~ _ ,H'~ 'Jo1;\1
" II II I lJJ Sml1rllm Ii I,
L,. !.I II ~
0_ ,
"II
I! b,
II,'
II I '
~i ,I
,'II
1111
I'"
I'll
",~
II I
:g-II
,'II
1!!.1:t>
II ~I r-
I !t: I::;:;
!.I~II -<
01, I
I i~11
II bl
Ii I'
'III
1- I
~III
11'1
k li!.~
'I ;1
1116
~II
Ii I
II!.
Ii -
nil'
Hid
~ 01 I :r
a 1- ~
S I I!. ~
I ~ -
1'1
",
II
J l
exisling residential R.2 zone
-...
-...
~"-:i-'l;~,
!l-i:~F~'~:'
;;.il!.n."~~
~1l-l!:.... t\.
:~~ !ii
!~i ~i-j
!.g i i-I
!i ~ <iI ::.
[~ if 1:
i !Ii
~ '"
~
'"
t
if
~
S' ....
= a
~ ~
!~
2 '"
~
lL
-<
.--
a
~
~.
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
,I
_I
:r' I
.. ..
fi
I
I
I
~
I
I
1
I
I
~ ~
I
I ~
I ~
,
~ ~
I ~
I
,
I
,
~
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
1
I
""
<!J
'"
s-
.
'0
]
fL-:1I
;~ ~
~~ ;~
i
i
r
~
b
~ g
g~
-,
r
tl
~J
t-..:IE:
~. ~~.
=-<[
..... !:!:.
a ~
c ::::-.
~.a
~~
d
~I
[
[
]
E':a~
11~.l
11=
-f"
fit
c
~.
~. ~ l
=-<~
I
;:;
=
o
I
:]
o
[:J
~ji
D[
1
~
"-
l
~
j}j
!!!-
'"
1 I='
r-
III rllllilnl
de" ";
. 1 I
- . .
-
\
fWl~mJr' ~ I "-
I I
o I
:::r-
I
MAIN STREET 11
r ~
-----50 -----50 -l__-so -----50 -----so -----so ------so -----50 -----so -----so -- f-SO -----SO ------SO -
I
I
I
b
-----ss -----ss -l~':..-ss -----ss -----ss ------ss -----ss -----ss -----ss -----ss ---___ss -----ss -----ss -
~
~
~
(
J:I0326_BEMISIDWGlx0326basO.dwg. 11/03/0302:31:55 PM. David Wilkerson
~:::t:' C ~ ~
8. a ~ :~
g.. ___::::r. ~ ~
CD K- - It--+-
-::'::T C :s I...;)
g~ ::::J "~
c..>tQ c.... (::,
o --.
CI- "" 0-
:5' ""C ~
(1) --.or -c
V'1 -- 0-
=r::::J :::J
(1) co '
~ "" .-.
VI 0
~ 3 ~
V1 __ :2
~>< s-
o C'D ~
~c....-=
Ci)
o c: ~
-. ""
Jg C'D =r
o 0
:::3 c.... cD
C'D Ci)
<:: -<
C'D ~
-I...;)
o ~
""C
3
C'D
::::J
......
r -, - -. - -. - -. - -. - -,- -. - -.- -. - -. - -.- -.- -.- -.- -,- -. - -,- -.- -',
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-------,
g. 8 ~
~ :::I ....
~g-8
=. -- --t
o::ro
:s9.-i
~ CD ;I>
- - r-
~~ -
CI' ~ C'"J
~,.,..Vl
_ -' ""T'1
- :::1-
?:-~
Ca
....
......
~
.p I
~ I
L_______.J
m
H
}~
to ~
P\i
-
{
o
"C =>
~~
:::i" :::r-
to i
12'.6"
ov
:>: "
~
~~'1'
20'.J'
_6T-"
~e;~
~c=J D
/\ /\
'i X
\,
~i
r~
1/
/ ~
-'1;'
\ / \tlr
-7 ~\ /fr~
i ~ 1\ 7 j ~
. 0::'
1/ \ '\ l
I,.~~
I 1\1/ Ii \/\;'F=
1\ Jt..>a
I r' :'l ~
cu ::r.
=> =>
~<O
y/ \
II
IX ~rll ~
V~ -~
~\m/, ~ ~
1-\J ~
X XD
.~
'"
~
~
~
I
I
I
: L
i
I
I
n i
c.!1
".0'
..~
71'-71'
~
n
,
~I--I--'_-I_-'--'
A
/OOlll
-t
J
\tIL
L]_
[
~
"-
-<
~
u
Ir.I'
~m
g] ~
3 ~ Jf
-
V
I
L
]
_- m
o H
~ ~
:<.5
a-i5
-<Li:.
~ ~.
a-~
r
:;d
1
It;
........
(~
.........
D D
~
l-
}-
~~ lAD .
1\ . -;; L-
=
~
~~[ [
~ ~~.
b
~m
g E ~
3 ~~.
II rn=l
lli'-lL~~ \J',
~ p
I III1
a[Jl
l:::J
lQf
:2
0
0::::::
e..:>
N
~
C)
w
8 0
~ to
~ C.
< CD
fTl
~
;g ::J
~ "
:I:
I --
:I: en
0
z
~ .....
....
0 CD
Cl
i5 ..,
z
r\~
-
-
-
-
~~
l- I
l- I
I- -
I- I
I
\,2
15:J J.,f \
110 1.1
/;
"'-
r j
I I
3 ~ f\ ~----~----j ~
o !.: ~~~f[)
~
tT~-
:::I -0
~ g:~.
~~~
.l=O
o _
: c
::r :::I
-
I - ~.l,
~ IC':;:
,'LlI.-
/~
~ - ~
IAU/\to
1l37:i~
'Zllll0'
:::I -
o ~
,~r=
~
~
~
_ c;:
::r '"
J:I0326_BEMISIDWGlx0326bas1.dwg. 11/03/0302:23:31 PM. David Wilkerson
~:=!':' C ~ ~
0..... V\ ..:::r
g.CD =. :::r- B ~
iJlt- - ,r-+
-~ ::r C -:,,1....:)
::50 ~ "'i~
8cci Cl.- --'
c _
c... V\ 0-
:5" "'C ~
(t) ----.: -c
~:::s g
(t) CO
~V\
VI
o
VI
::r
o
:::J
_C-
O
.....
(t)
c.c
o
:::J
3
-.
><
CD
Cl.-
c:::
V\
CD
Cl.-
CD
<:
CD
-
o
"'C
3
CD
~
--to
-c
C
N
C
CD
-<
~
:::r
o
-
~
CD
-<
~
~
r-'- -,--,- -,- -,- -,--,- -,- -,- -,- -,--,--,--,--,--,--,- -,- -',
.J.
U I
:jl"
:::l ]
cr- t i '" ~
'" ~. ~
0-
:IE ::i" ~
r'-~
f~
~f
~
I ,
I I
I g e: ,
, ~~. I
, I
, ~. [ I
, I 1
, f1 ,
, ,
I
I
-
I
I ~
0
I ,....,
I
-
11/1 ~
I =
Vl
f-o- I
II _c-
=
II ~
I -
i =
- if
g.
I
'-0- ~-
.T:- 11,\
: ~ 111
ala.
~!! II
~ ;; 'I
~ ~ Il.
g
-~ 1:1 if
~ 1- g.
I
fro=- PI [Q] lI;!f
4- V'~
lJ><i!<- ---- ~.. .!.i ~
~>~~
r L -.. 0"
g. ~ 1---.1
.q 1----1-
-<~
"P ~
~
3~
a
-H
-h
.~
.
.
J.---
;. II
- II
I
I
",fj
o.!I'
I
;
.
'" I
\) ED
v
I
I
i
-
::'2;
0
0::::::
e.,:)
I'J
c:;:)
c:;:)
!....-.)
8 0
~ U2
~ C.
<
'" (I)
~
" ::J
:a
0
~ "
I --
:t: en
0
z
m ~
" po-
'" (I)
en
i5 ..,
z
=
III III III
tx~ ~
~I~ X
o .J~
~ I
1--1- ~~.
~ ~.
I ~
f--I-
'" -
o ~
=- '"
--
I -- --
I
I~~~P
/ I
",~L
II
...
<?
9
~
, ,
~-~
L~__J i-
5:: ~
s::-
,..:0--,
~-i I-
L--~D
~
down 2' - 5.3%
Q...
o
:IE
::>
~
0..
;t?
""
,....,
C.:J
,....,
ov
oil
Q...
0
:E
::J
..."
0..
:::: ;t?
Vl =
- Vl
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\ ""
II -..a ...,
11 co So
:: ~~
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
1\
::
UMopdWDJ
Qv @"" Ii (~
~[ ~ AI
~ ~i
"'X~ :
N 7" """~ /l-, ,
X ../ ~ "r-' :
~ l[g vP<~~~ 1
~ ~ tiFft~ S> i
o 1== v ~ 0( ~ 0=.1 ", I
== ~" 5 ~ / ' ,
m t--...... / to /, /
c l><~ -<.....~/~
[Q] =!c I Dv [QJ J;!, J;!, cr- ~
~~ \ ,/~---o-~~b,k<> ~_I~~J~/ /1)KI~~i
/'( '" J-IT'i=~I/[7~ )t<~I]:: ,--)K /f-f
~ 1I ~~i!. % g~' [Q] I I[Q]
~ ~~ ~ t ~~ E
_ ~'I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i
1\ / II '"11" "'" ~.~t ir
I 11 IlTTmMOp "f! rr - ~
II
;-a.i3
o ,g. l!!:
s.
l
[g]
=:r!:!.
~;:;.
~
[ -
~
L
I
/ ~F=
I-
-
I--
[~
... ...
'\
~
Ir--n-n--~--l
_I :;' 0 0 0; I
I' 2 ~ i5..eol
t S CD ..g.,. ~I
I: ~r a. i5-d
-, .J;:lo.9...Cit~,
Ii ~~~~:
I' V1 ~ ~-I
_, .p ~ ~ ~ I
,i ;=I='_<>>=.:!!l
I' :::::; u:: I
-1 ~~:
I: ~::::':
I' . -f' I
I ;=I=' I
-, I
I: :
I: :
iL__________J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ ,
, ,
It
j I
I
I
,
,
-t
I
I
[
1-
I-
I--
l.c
d
~c=J r, ~
))
"~...-!r===
J:I0326_BEMISIDWGlx0326bas2.dwg, 11/03/0301:50:44 PM. David Wilkerson
~~
a> !a.
o
g-R'O
-~ :::r-
:::So
8tCj
c
c... \In
:;'-C
CD """""li
.......
~ ::::::J
CD CO
~\In
.......
C :<: ctI
9..><
\In "'::T"
:::r- B ~
-It=.......
C -;el--.:l
::::::I ~:...,
c.... ~
-0-.
o
o
-.
-=
C
::::>
~
VI
-
V1
-
......
CO
~
CO
:::l
-
......
C
:::l
,....
CO
CO
<
~
o
.......
:::r-
o
~
c...
(:)
-.
CD
CO
(:)
~
3
-.
><
CD
c....
c::
v-,
CD
c....
CD
<
CD
-
o
-C
3
CD
::::::J
--to
::T"
o
CD
CD
<
~
~
~
tJ
~
~
o
<:
c.:>
,....;)
c:>
c:>
~
~
o
~
<
'"
~
;g
o
i'i
:I:
I
:I:
~
~
o
l:l
Gi
z
o
to
c..
(I)
c' :::J
A
--
en
......
.-
(I)
..,
'i r ,--- JI
4 .l5""
I~'
![~
o ~
:E -g
CD
~
C
:::l
o
-c
::<
III
I' /
'-...
f4r1'
I------
1------11
1----.
-
'i 'r-
/' I
3 i
..a ~ ~
c: CD
CD :::l
-:$
c-
o
ca
"- <...I
4',:::"'i]
~II I
: 1
: 1
3 -c I
B ~ : I
~ co : I
i~~(~
~I/I 1
'i PtJFt-'
V It
1
I
'i
~ t--
'i
~
~
122'.,'
-f-'1\
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(r-;'
_1_ _,_ _1_ _,_ _1_ _,_ _1_ _, _ _, _ _1_ _,_ _,__
r~-~-~-~-..:.'
10 0 ::;" 0 ....0
133e~1.n
:~ ~ g ~ ~
: g- g. g" [ d
I':::::::':::::...t-..:J~>
:-g ~ ;;:; -g ~
C"'"ct--:l-.C')
:~=~;r~
l-g"':..o co-
:~ c;; ~
l:::l ~ Co
I~ ~
~i :~
Il~
L_________J
1
1
'\ / [j ~
~ w=
:E ~~ =
[!..21;r ~
-g'- - ~
/ IT.O' " Q ~
"*"
/ '" "" :::::1""
V1
'i
I I
~-;
1 I
L___J
~~
rJF--l!..,
I I
i-i-
~--1:J
-
9'.10"
~
~
~
-c> ~
.... CD
"" -
~~
~
if
1 u
,
<A> 1
V1
(( 1
1 I I ))
I
I 1
I
1 I <? CD
I ..
<> I ~ ~ -C g;.:
C
1 ~~
I <>
I I :::l 0
1 <C V1
20'-0" 1 1 .."
i
~ ~ I ))
~
:Ii
,..,
r-.
~
,..,
r-.
~ 0::1) )
Xl
JU1:0 I
4S'--D"
41'.0"
I I
I, ~
,LJ ~
17'.6'
<?
<>
~
~
=
VI
if
18'.4"
kDJ]
I I
,..,
r-.
I
w
~CJ))::]
:Ii
L7
~r~
=
='t:;
=::!:
=
=
".10'
)'.6"
,-..
oJ
~
- -c ~
<A>Cc
~~5-
"" :::l 0
<C --
~ :;;r
.p ~ s.
~~~
<A>
V1
20',8"
f-ot--
r------
1
r---------...I
I
I
I
I
18~ u...-g
:V1~~V: ;-j~
I - ~ 5'
I . <C
,f' ./\/\ 1\ 1\ I' 'A, I ~
:> r- rvI ~~
\ ~ V;;
0<" ~, X C- ~ ~ 'Or"
~,' .~ q, ~ ~O= I"
",'~ [.. -,,-14"1-<: ItpJll", I " ,..
".l. '.' ".1jj' ,.
@)'"
::<:"'0-
'-O~V;~
~-
~~
-
'i
n
I
r----
-C
c:
e:
--I n'
1
1
.
.
1
1
1
1
1
:.;
17'.11"
1- .1
1_ 'il
:d
'1
- ,
H
- 1
:Ii i
~ 1
- .-
~
~ CD
=<:;"
= -.
",,-
~ 0-
-=-
a
~
,..,
r-.
,..,
:::I:
<:
2:::
~
I I I
~-; ~-
1 1 I
L__....-o::f L___
~ !2:"
r--~ ~-..--
g=!~-~ ~-
L J L
C
Qrv
Qrv
C
C C
l. ~ ~ -.,~ 1J
Ct--1D
J 5''1. ,
'f
',0' 5'-'1"
173'.6'
~
u
:E c- <C
a ~ ~
~=E~
- CD
:;. ~
o
:::l
~ ~
_CTJ ~
-<
'"
I'
c
'I
=
v
I II
II
[g]
[
fl
1
~
IlEa [
1 ~ ,
1 ='" ~.
i ~ 5'
-
~ L
,
~
~ ~
.= I
.= / -
I
,,- 1
r= 1
1
,
- ~ I
:::l -C ~[ 1
0 - ~ ~. ag. ,
~ = 5!..:;;' 1
- C
:;;r:::l 1
~ 1
.=
- 1
,
.= 1
... 0 I
I I I I r- ....
:::l -
0 ~ I I I I
~
- <= ~ AlIlP L 'V I: l:l
=- CD ~ 5P7 -kf.::j 0 -=
, \
Wt 'ZlJAY "-llt.) '\~- . '11 ,,1 '~T=
~~ ~ W
0
J:I0326_BEMISIDWGlx0326bas3.dwg, 11/03/0302:05:49 PM. David Wilkerson
=:: :::::!":"
O~
0. -+
g-~
-~ ::::s-
~O
=.....
"'""c.c
o
c... ~
5' ""C
(tI ..,
'" -.
=t ::::::s
(tI CO
~~
'"
_ "'CD
..... !:!.... ><
~ :~
::::::r- B ~
-I"'.........
C -;-,1-....::1
::::::s "i'~
C- W
--.
0-
o
.....
o
'"
::::s-
O
::;,
,c...
3
-.
><
en
C-
O c::
Cri ~
c.c en
o CO
::;, C- CI'i
en
-<:
en
o
""C
3
en
::::::s
-+
""-
t.)
-~
2
0
<:
.:..:>
N
c:>>
c::J
w
B 0
~ \C
0
~ c..
<
'" m
~
:B "::J
~ A
I -.
:z: en
2
E .....
.....
0 m
!:l
G; ..,
z
-=
c
:::s
,
....
o
:::s
C-
O
CO
<:
CD
-
=-
o
-+
~
~
~
""
-c "
C
:t 3-
; ~
c-
o
>< ;;;
~
~
'"
'i
"
;;;
J;
'i
~
b
.;
~
~~
!i
1<
'i
~ :
~
"
~ ~
~
.5
4'-0"
t7
xx
~ Y.:: \L ,
7".4"
4'~' Y.l' 2'~' H 2'.0" 5'~' 4'.0' 6'.6'
6'.6' 4'-0" 5'.4" '-0" 6'~' 2'.~ 5'.4" 4'.0' 5'.~
\l'.1~
c--
c.
D~
pa
t7~
~~
?
/\
IA
? /\\/W~
,- ~x~,L
, ...--.,
C":
.
~
o
::I
0...
o
i\::
..,.
~
o
::I
0...
o
'i
;;;
;; X:x ~
I
I
Ii -0-1
:;; I
<i
11....- m
[fJ :;: _
l~.('
<0
~
:;f
/\
- - y Y - -I- '
-I:]'-..I/I:]-~
E3 . :=:=:=, . -g .51
5'S 3.3,.t4 ].5 ;:5'-5"
I \1
= "'i5!l ~
-
I ~~.~. ~~
3 a...C: U'1
I ~3.~g;
~ g. e: g a
..... -oo..,J::a.--I
r 8 ~~ ~
~oo""""''Ci
I g-~!a-.V\
3 .:!!
I :;'
c'
... ~
~ ~
Ii v-.
1--- ~
~
f-.",
." n
ji; U
nl-.~
U q
I-I
'"
..
I~
o .'i
I
o
'"
."'1
_I
~
-'
Iii
-.
-"g:
I;;; .;
-~
<i
<to
><
""C v;"
~~. ~
cE ~
-n
~
'i
o
?
? /\ ? X ? I
_1- -,~ -i4, .j..,
! - I:]'-..I/I:]-~
ft~ -g == .51, \ 1
!:L: g. 3'.'" >~.l"T 5'.4' l.()"\ 11
1>-" tYI
~I\ Fc5il -1!3J ~ .Jr=
It
"
~
JIS ~I~I~
,~~p
:j:: ==
- .:r~ 6' .~.
'\ / " ,,1\
~
~l:Jv
r.:~=
/1/ j \ ~
//\ IY.Y\/\
^/Y/^\:I\/\
A\!iI; \\x\/~
)(\ /X/; SAt<
~ \\X\/~
//V'x./; \\lV\
JlVVI 8 g: \\XV\. _
c: _
CV\)<':\ ~ ~ 1//0)\0
VVS l/lJV
\/\1,\ I//JV
VVS ZVV
~\ r;\/ J/
r===============J\/\X\' I/VV
II \"- 1\ 'Ivy 1\ QI
II ~V v\ /v \/f!
Ii ~ /\ /\ f(/
~ ~kX>~='
f
~
i\::
J:i
I
'<i
'i
....
-t
n - ~
U _o!:!
B i ~
o f!l
-r;
..,
~
-
o ~
-'i;
~
Ii;
1-
o ~
1-
5'-4" '-0
i' (
U
= I
Z ~
[
/1 l [8J
.,-
::I -c
o _
: c
:r '"
~
"
;;;
l;
II
.
i
I
I
I
o
...(.0.) 8 8
~::J 3
~ 0... 3
~ 0 <to
.p ::t:I:: ri
~~~
~ 8 8
"" ::I 3
..,. 0... 3
~ 0 <to
~ It::;:;
:=+,-E.:.
~
~
lL
-<
rr
I~
L
-ii
"~
~
I
".4' " nt" I
I
I
I
I
j
-
I
o ~
I I
:r <to l,__,_ _,_ _,_ _,_ _,__,_ _,__,__,_ _,_ _,_ _,_ _,_ _,__, _ _,__,_ _,_ j
'i
b
"
.
I
I
I
I
:
I
I
I
~ \::1
~CI
~\J
~ c.J
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
~\j
@y
o
~
.
I
I
I
I
I
o
~
o
::I
c-
o
i\::
<.0.:>
8
::I
0...
o
I--
r-~
~
D----r.
0-
i\::
""
~-s S -r.=O
'. ,.,"1 ...r 13'." '.
.--.t-='1~ W
-I:] ~ 1lI~
~
~
01.
t-;;:- S S--
~!':f3'.rJ 4'.0" J3'.u-
'-Ill ~ 1:]_
11~
nt" .. r~" .~ H ('.0" 5'4" '.. 6'-0" !"~ N!' ...~ 6'~'
~
I
I ~
I
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I
I ~
19'-1"
".~ ('-0" 5'.6t. l' 6'-0" ~". 5'.6t. ".~
=- ~.
~~
~
L
~
/f
~
~ ~.
I ~.
~J:
- -
J:\0326_BEMIS\DWG\x0326bas4.dwg, 11/03/0302:07:04 PM. David Wilkerson
w- e ~~
~~. "" .. ::T"
q -+ ::r~~
g-l('O -Ir"-"
-~ :::::T" C ";"'t...:J
:::50 :::::s '=?,;...,
=.....
wee c... ~
0 -+0,
C- "" 0
:::i. -C 0
....
CD --,: -c
V> -- Q
-+ :::::s
..... ~
CD cs::::2 I
CD "" ....
-+ 0
V> ~
0 3 c-
o
V> -- CD
::r- ><
<:
0 CD ~
::J
C- c... t...:J
-
0 c: ::T"
0
..... "" -
CD CT>
ee CD CD
0
::J c... <:
CT>
CD ~
<:
CD
0
-c
3
CD
:::::s
--to
:.:
~
,;;
~
~
'i
~
~
~
,;
>;
;;;
~
,;
J;
;;;
~
'i;
,;
,;
"
1;
~
;;;
.0;
'i
1;
~
~
,;
~
;;;
.;
"
-.........
\)
~
z
C>
a::::::
~
~
c:::>
~
i 0
(C
~ C.
r:i to
~
;s ":::::J
~ :::s::::
:I:
I -.
:I: tn
0 :::l -
Z
~ ..... 0 ~
0 r-- _ c::
'" to :::r '"
en
i5 .,
:z
123""
f.O'
lnO"
4'.0" 5'-4" 2'.0' &'.0' r-o- .5'-4" 4'.0" 6'.'"
...j.,-1-d. -tJ-::t.l- ,J.-, --,-_._-
~!!l[;J I
lEI ~ lEI
4'.0' 5'_4".3'.3" .1'...4" 3'.5' 5'.5'
1 1\11 =
='1 ~r lSi!I- -.lIe
6'.'" 4'-11" 5'.4' 2'.0' ".0" 7'.0' 5'.4" 4'-0' 5'.0" 11'.10' 1'-4'
__~II ,__L~,__,_
[;J~~, I
lEI g lEI
55" 3'S. ;!..3'T 5'5"
r.=ffill( I I
= ~ ~
19'.4"
r-
:
I
I
I
I
,- -,--,
----
=i~l=
1 ~~ I
VX l\\ ',EY\
~~A~
II -,';a ~ ~= r-------- D
~ ,---------$ ~ ~ ~---------\ Jl
~~~~~ /! ~ \ /Y..~\^ l\ \ ~~~~~~~JJ
~~~~~ /1' //11^-' 1 \ \ ^ ~ \ ~~~~
~::::~:!/ /1/ ~ / XI \X \ / ~ ,\~~~;;.r
~I \i\~
)/\N \'1\7<
/I\/YJ \X\7'
/1\ ^II \Y\/~
_ J/\/Y/ 0 'v \/'--
OF=: =<====<==<== - 6/\~'\ ] /\A6-
V\t\ /;\/\/1
~/ \t\ IXA-l
~/\X\ /';</\//
'^/\ /XA//
~_______________~~ /\\\\ I/-A'U/
r--------------~/ V\\ 1/\/ \$
I! ~/\~I \1
!! ~ \ f\ 1fI____________
- - - ~~jJ Iml<X>I~~'------------~
~i \(7
=
I--
\gJ ~
f----'I
~ a
~ ~
~
o
:::l
a..
o
I
~
o
:::l
a..
o
'It:
l.r1
.
I
I
I
.
I
I
!
I
o
'It:
...0
o
8
:::l
a..
o
o
:::l
a..
o
o
81
o
12:
~
=
'It:
0--
I
I
I
I
;
~
o
:::l
a..
o
I
I
I
~
'It:
8
:::l
a..
o
'7~
~@
I~
'It:
.....,
I
I
I
I
I
I D
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
---- - D
bi
0
1
I
I
0
'"
Q
@
~
0
:::l
c...
0
~ ~
0 ,..., 0
:::l
a..
0
'It:
"'"
-
-lX
~ "~^'- ~
D . ~ 144'-'lnl '~I"..r--t&j'J 0
, ll---,~ ~ i--.._"'" '! ... .~ ".
!!J I ~....-- .
l ".~ I "~ l~.l,ol ~~ ,.. s~. "..
I
D
i~, =I~TI
I I !
.,. ,\ ".\ ,.~
WI"
17'-7"
~
'I
~~~
,~. 11 ~~ 1-, l~' '0'
".0' r
-, l' [
U
= [
Z ~
[
I ~
[
~
, L -
I
I ~
I
I l~
,
I /1
I \ '----'
,
I
I \
,
I Ii
I ~~.
I ~ .go
I ~
I
I ~
I
I
I ~
.... ... .... .... ~
I
I
I
I
, I
I I
l._ _.__,_ _,_ _,__,_ -,- -, - -,- -,--,- -,--,- -.- -,--,--,- -,- -,-j
D
I'::::"
~ ~ ~
I ~. ;:f "'"
c... c:: Co
I a~ ....
0:>
I -. 0 -l
~ a:::l 0
I ~~~
....=
.... 0---
I t--..:)~~
, ~ -:!!
I
1
,
I ~
I '-i
-
I Ii
I ~
,
I :!i
I ~
i 1;
I .0;
-r 'i
:i;
I ii
:
.
I :;
I
I Ii
,
I ~
. 'i g:
i '-i "'i
- 'i
"T
-
I ~
I
"
: '-i
- ~
I J;
T ;;;
-T
I ~
I
I ~
i ~
. ..
. J;
~ ;;;
, ~
...
I ~
I ;;;
I
-
I ~
I
I
I J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
0-.
=-.
0'"
<-
;r/O
l6":::r
::'CI
.......
8ca
wCI
2:'"
="'C
(D ...
'" -.
:::=
(D=
!!.'"
'"
....
as=
..- if u:
~ '"-
=-=~
- ..
a ~
= ;;
a... Ci)
<
Cl
-
o.
:I
~
o
~
<
'"
~
~
~
:I:
I
:I:
o
Z
'"
!!l
c
l:l '''''1
~tb
, ';x:.
;x:.
o
to
c..
CD
J
^
--
en
...
,.....
CD
..,
""
CI
'"
:::r
ii'"
=
CI..
...
:3
-.
><
CD
a...
c
'"
CD
a...
CD
<
CD
-
o
"'C
:3
CD
=
....
o
...
(D
CCI
o
=
"""-
()
.~
--
0-.
::I~
51-
3(10
l5:::r
.:'Q
to..:l...
8cc
c..>Q
2:-'"
=-a
CD ...
'" --
~::s
CDc.a
~'"
'"
....
a ~e..
'" ~ CD
- "!"<
- lieD
-~-
... Q eD
.,.; - <
::s ~
t::L. 0
=
Q
'"
:::r
-
Q
=
CI..
...
o
...
CD
CCl
o
=
3
--
><
C'D
t::L.
C
'"
C'D
t::L.
C'D
<
C'D
-
o
-a
3
C'D
::s
...
.~
../
""
~
-.....:t
~
~
o
:a
~
<
'"
~
;g
~
:r:
I
~
:z
'"
en
-<
o
'"
en
15
:z
o
to
c..
CD
.:::J
"
--
en
,.....
,.....
CD
..,
- - -- a"'C
e -. .. . c:
::I;;: '" ::. a-
~... - 0: :::'
; t10 - 11'"
=-~
g"::r- _ 'c
~~ ~ S
8cc CL. C'D
w~ CD
-. '" i:i
= "1:1 -
C'D... o.
'" _. :I
::t~
C'Dca
a",
'"
....
a
'"
::r-
Ci'
=
CL
...
o
-.
C'D
c.c:I
o
=
3
-.
><
(I)
CL.
C
'"
(I)
CL.
(I)
<
(I)
-
o
"1:1
3
(I)
~
.....
'-
~
~
i~~
~ 0 D..
~t:r(l)
) ~"~
~~
2 (l) "
I f) -.
a ";",.&. ~A
z ,,'r V~
~ f"'''' ..
.... 'iI''''''' "...
rn ~bm, (I)
g,j t1) ...,
:>
);
- ....
co -.
=~
~-
;110
lr::r
.:'C
~...
gc.ca
"'"C
s:-'"
=-a
CD ...
'" -.
=-=
CDCQ
!1",
'"
....
ca ~ir
'" .....
~
~ 11"=
_ - CII..
a ~=i"
= :
a-=:
CD
CD
-
CD
CD
<
=
-
o.
=
C
'"
::r
-
C
=
c..
...
o
...
CD
CCI
o
=
:I
-.
><
CD
a-
c
'"
CD
a-
CD
<
CD
-
o
-a
:I
CD
=
...
""'-
t>
~
i ~"" g
~ c.
~ (I)
~ ~
I _.
~ en
E .....
c ,.-
~ (I)
z ..,
J:I0326_BEMISIDWGIx0326ee1 DETAIL.dw9. 11/10/0303:17:29 PM. David Wilkerson
-- __ :!:C'D
0-- .... ~><
S V; '" ::. ::I'"
<.. ::r- ~ s:-
; fIO _ ~ ::;:
g-~ ca ~.....,
~~ = ~
8u::I CL. N
wg
e:-",
:::S"'l:l
C'D -e
.,. -.
=-=
C'Dca
a.",
.,.
....
g
.,.
~
C
::I
g",
...
o
-
C'D
cg
o
::I
:I
-.
><
CD
CL.
C
'"
CD
c..
CD
<
CD
-
o
"'1:1
:I
CD
::s
....
-
~.
-
'"
-
...
CD
CD
-
CL.
CD
-
&
CD
(j)
<
Q
-
ci"
::I
"-
~
i~
~ c.
~ tD
) ~
~ "
I __
~ en
!1l f'>1il ....
jjlll'.! ,..,.
~!-t tD
~ (b ..,
~
)>
. ~ if- I
ill I
I
I
I
I
I
~ I
'" ,
I
~- II \\ I
, I
, I
~ , I
1111 II , I-EE-
1111 II ,
,
/' , /'
, , ,
lr ::r::L"- II II 'I
I
~ ~ ~
- - - -
I
I - -
=-
1,\\
h f-- ~ ~
r'~" , , -
, /' J
,
/ VI
@ -
I
e-----
1
/
1-
~-
/
t
~
~
=- ~
:t" ::I-
- ~
s: ",
c:: a
iiI =
-- ~
5l
=
" Q
"L - :I
",,-:.- I-:::"EB g:
L- __ r:;; ~ -..;1- -
./ -./
./
././
:r
....
....
"!"
",
a
=
~
;;
:I
",
=
=
h
7f!
~ -
;(
~
I I
I I
I ,
I
J
I
I
,
:I \
I ~
, ",
b;~
~5l.
~~
t iiI (j)
-lm
-
3-
:6. ~
!!l.
",
VI ..
....-
. ....
!;;> :i"
Rea
H
j rrE
I---
- @ @
=--
~ j B
~ I
- 3Jffi
L-
D
I~
",
ii"
=
~
....
~
-
::I- '" !i 11
~ c;r Q
~ 0 ::1-:
c::
:I 110 ea il
Q "" :t"
.a if <3 <D,
c:: 8'
<D '" =
<D .... ~ ~.l
c;r Q
::I
= 0 (j) <D, ....
'" ", 0
o' ~ I =
::I :I ~~
'" Q
c:: .a
", ~~
", c::
0 <D - -
~ <D
e-----
-
~
~
I
I
::I- ", ~ I i ", ::I- ~ ....
m.. [ a ~ a
<D ~
::l- I .:::::: ::I- ~ .:::::: is-
- ~ I .. ~ - a
;; 0 E'" - E'"
,., = I :E .. =
:I 0 <D :I g. :I :I <D
<D E'" - S' <D S' ....
~ :I - I 5l
~~r c:: ", :E c::
g = I :I a :r :I ~.
.... <D I ::I
!!l.. 0 ", "" <D .... :1- <D
<3 < .. c:: ~ ~ <D
a ~ = I g -< ....
~ I ~ "!" .::! g.
:E @ I ~ !!l. o'
:ir !!l
.... '" I =-
~ ii" I ~ 5l
.... I =
! <D ~. a
.... :I
CD "" , c:: <D
:I <D I ii" a
:E I c;r ..
-- .... =
:r I "" ~
'" I ii" :r
c:: I ... <D
ii" S' ....
i ca 0'
I 8 :E
"" , ::I g.
ii" ~~
... ",
S' a
"" . Ri =
~;:; ~
EE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
h
'I.
:I
..
~
....
S.
I -
I S:
L'!
>.0=
.....Ri
~f
J:I0326_BEMISIDWGIx0326ws1.dwg. 11/10/0302:27:59 PM, Ken Ogden
w_ C2
; ::;.
Q,'"
0-
g-~
.:o::::r-
~C
0_
wee
c
e:",
:::I-a
(D """t!
'" --
=-=
(Dca
!!.'"
'"
....
c
'"
::::r-
-
c
:::I
c..
...
o
-
(D
ee
o
:::I
~
'"
.........
I
~
<
...
I
I
~
~
<:>
lJl
i5
z
"'CD
~><
'" ::. ::r-
-..c:-
- IC-.
- -:: ....
Q 9~
= .:0
a.. :...
3
--
><
CD
a..
c
'"
CD
-a
"""t!
o
--
CD
~
....
::E
CI
'"
CD
,.,.
-
o.
:::I
'"
-
-.
-
'"
-
'"
-
-
n>
n>
-
-
-
::r-
-
c
-
n>
-
-
CI
""
n>
'"
-
o
(C
c.
(I)
~
A
--
en
.....
....
(I)
..,
:E
CI
-
-
'"
n>
""
-
cr
::I
~.~.";""...
{~~~; )
~
12!:'
=
....
,
r"5=
Ii
"'"
~
0"
~
i'D
<
CD
:o~
w"
.,.;;..
~~.
~
-
'"
-
'"
-
-
n>
n>
-
;.
:E
CI
"',' ",'
-
-
.....l,
'"
n>
""
-
-.
o
::I
-
-
::r-
-
c
-
n>
-
-
CI
""
n>
'"
-
,;...~:,,:. .
(~~~))
rg
I~
~
'"
S'
ea
... if
CD ....
3 ~
CD
a =- i
=- .... CD
CD
CD Q .:::: 3
!!!.. '" .. CD
- ii c 3
a '" 3 ....
3 0 s' a
CD '" ~ =- ~ c =
=- iD CD 3 CD
0 !!!.. ~ CD 0
!. .:::: .. 3- --
- .. .. ~ -
a c CD ail"
0 ~ c ....
a 3 3 =- g, a:.
CD :i" n' 0"
~ ~ ... o'
=- 8 .. c a =- ..
~ so S' =- 3 3
.... 0 .... a o' 0
0 0 = 0 So '" '" = ;; sr
;;; CD 0' ::r-
~ ~ ~ ~ "" = <Do .e.. .. c
'" ~ .e.. CD ;;: .... 3 a
=- -:; - =- ~ CD ...
Q iD ~ iD '" - ~ a .. o'
s' c <D' CD =-
3 CD 3 '" .. CD CD Q .. =
CD .... .e.. .... CD a .:::: =- if =- .e..
.... S Q ~ ~ CD .... .. ... 0
... ... .... ... = .. .... c 0 .... ... ... = ...
I~ 0 =- =- ~. 0 S' .... = Q ~ ::r- CD 0
3- = !1l. !!l !a Q = '" CD !!!.. = 3 [ CD !a ... ~
I"' c ~ !:l c .... !!!.. S' a ~ .... ~
il I~ .... 0 ... a =- CD a '" @ c !!l 0' =- ;;;
if = 0 0 iD iD 0 3 CD 0 :. iD
CD C CD = ~ - CD !!!.. '" -- ~ '" ~ ~ = .;;;
'1 Q '" 3 .... CD g, 0" .... Q "" ea g, 0' g, g, CD 0
.... "" - c c
.... Q = ... ~ "" a .... Q Q = ... .... 2-
Q = ... Q ~ .... Q 3 CD a.. a.. .... CD .... .... ~ ~
< .... ~ .. ~. .. '" .. Q .. .. Q ~. ....
S' !i. =1" = Q So S' .... ~ i = ::I = = 0 ~
!!l "" =
"" "" CD !!!.. .... "" "" CD !!!.. ::r- !!!.. !!!.. CD .... ....
!
."'
, I
I
,
I"g=
iD
,.::::
,....
I~
"'"
~
....
Q
..
..
~ r
.. -
........
-0 CD Q
.... -- -
f-'i~
~~'e..
,.
: -~f B
. ;-r.
:1
!'
~ :,'
II
E
lilt
1.."_
-
r-
.;;;
:2i
1=
1~li
I-
I-
...
o
=
....
o
c
5:
)
('E!o
, r;>-
....
b;~
~=
~iD
-
3:
'"
-
;;;
!!.
:::0....
.......
.,.;;-
~~.
I
,
,
6;
0-
of'-
~
---
,'"
I~
"'"
~
...
o
=
....
o
i'D
<
!!!..
=-
CD
!!!..
-
a
3
CD
=-
o
!.
o
a
l[
'"
iD
!!!..
-
a
3
CD
~ ~
:;. :r
.... ....
3 ~ ~
!!. ~ ~
2.. CD CD
sg"2. ~ ~
=~; _.~ :i"
oi!! ~! ~ '"
~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ l.
::1'"= ICL.(D CL.. (D
~(I~---~-2--~-- ~--~ ~
::r! ICL. ~ !::!.:. !::!.-j
3\ i.. !! cE a cE ~
: 4 ~/~ -_/// -_.-/ ~
. ! ~- )
-~
'\
J
" . :;J
,. ~olo.
'"
8
;;;
....
~
Q
So
CD
....
8
i'l
....
if
Q
....
Q
<
S'
""
I
-
__~--....r-_
I.
~
1~li
...
o
=
....
o
c
=
::;
:;;
I[
-
0" l[ ....
Q -
~ .. 3 [
~ !!l ,-- Q ---
,.... ;;;- a:. '8 '"
I~ ;;;- I~ ~ -a /8- -
< -
< !!!.. 0 CD
!!!.. .. 6; a !!.
"'" :::0.... "'" ........ "'" :::0....
, Q 'Q -0 CD Q '..
~ w" ~ .... -- - ~ 2- ~ .......
....- b~S: .... i3':
. .... '" e:.
0-0 ~
0= c:;!:::,f€... - 0=
-"" CD -""
I
,
,
6;
0-
of'-
~
8
=
....
o
[
I
..;
(
.--
r--
r--
'-I---
lilt
r---
I---
1=
"F
rbi
,
,
I
~-lg"
I
I-
I-
I
,
,
6;
,....
~
~
I ....
s.
l:i e;
,w =
~. ""
o CD
- =
l~ (i
l~ 0-
re.-g
...
o
=
....
o
i'D
<
!!!..
""
'"
S'
ea
if
....
.:c-
o
2-
3
CD
3
....
a
=
III
0
--
-
ca'
a:.
0"
..
3
S'
'"
c
... a
Q o'
=- =
=- .e..
0
.... .... ... = ...
CD 0
if Q .. ... =
... ... =- =- ~ ...
i !a !a !!l =- ;;;
.... 0 :. iD
t '" Q a- ~ = .;;; i
0' a g, CD
= = ... ....
.... CD !!l CD .... 0 ~
.. - - .. ~. ....
= - .... - = 0 ~
!!!.. 3' ~ 3' !!!.. =
CD .... ....
-T
,
-l
,
,
-I
,
,
-1
,
,
I
~_I~~B
-./
I
,
,
I
,
,
I ....
~
:::0....
1..0 __
,w::r
~. ...
o CD
- =
:i; l.
~i
6;
,....
~
~
...
o
=
....
o
i'D
<
!!!..
""
== D Jl
Ji ;s..1~
"'-...
::::r C .
H &. "11
1..",
50' -a .
CD ....
!9- a :s.
1= I
=r '" .
"; a !E
IS- -. !=
ii" = -I
~a..::r
o c: i
t X; !t
::a a..
= !Q.
CD
-
o
-a
a
CD
:::I
...
~
r
i
I
I
I
o
u:2
D-
ID
":::I
2S
!Q.
"....
tD
.,
,...i.....,;,;;,
~
...~.J,~~ .
':"".,""'l~.... .i.
,:, .', .'!:.",~~
i' "~J:r:~\::.,':
~"""-."
.. 2:):'0, '~" ..::~.!.~
!~- : "./
::~~:~;:~
"
=::= a JI
I fa. !9-1~
rIO_ca
rif S a
N..... :::I
n a- ;r
9: '" g
=- -a "
CD... :r
!Q. -- ~
i~ '"
=-'"
~51
'" --
a::>e
&:II CD
=- .....
!J- .....
o c:
c; '"
caCD
o
=-a-
CD
=
-
o
-a
a
CD
:::::I
..
'-
'-....
U).
I)~
~. .i'
r~
1:- _.
;' en
~ > ....
~: . tD
z . ,. .,
)>
5>
;-
f
[
, .
.
"
~
! I l ,.:~~;t
i
l
."
,
\
fIi',
.11'1'".'
t
I
~
,.
~
f'
\"
;-
D
0-
:I
CD
::I:'
a.
i
:5_
I
D
I"
CD
::I:'
a.
t
I-
s.
~
111 n lUll
Surveyor, Engineer, Architect, Landscape Architect:
1. OgdenKistler Architecture
2950 East Barnett Road
Medford, OR 97504
541-779-5237
2. Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc. Surveying
3155 Alameda Street
Medford, OR 97504
541-779-4641
3. Zbinden-Carter Engineering, Inc.
104 N. 11th Street
Klamath Falls, OR 97520
541-884-7421
4. Greg Covey, Landscape Architect
295 East Main Street, #8
Ashland, OR 97520
541-552-1015
I/'-f
lID n 11111'
REITINGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
DESIGN FACILITATORS
October 13,2003
Ashland Planning Commission
Ashland, OR
Re: Applicants Ed & Tanya Bemis
File # 2003-127
To Whom It May Concern:
We write in support of this project currently on your docket. This project creatively
addresses the desire to keep the downtown core livable and at least partially residential
while other factors push this area to grow commercially. As a mixed-use project housing
parking, commercial space, and residential units the applicants have tied together nicely the
desired elements for downtown projects.
The covered parking for the Ashland Springs hotel and for all the components of the new
project is far nicer looking than open lots extending forever. They have not asked for any
parking variances or exceptions. Many of the residents will be people who would normally
have driven to town and parked their cars. My own experience recently moving to Vista
Street has shown me how much a downtown resident will walk when they are so close. This
project as proposed, in my humble opinion, will effectively increase available parking in the
downtown area.
Many projects of this nature might affect viewsheds of the neighboring parcels. However,
this does not appear to do so. The Ashland Springs already obstructs this parcel's view to
some degree, however the reverse will not be true. The residents on the other side of
Hargadine will still have their mountain views due to the changes in elevation, although they
will loose the rather unsightly view of the unkempt parking lot that exists today (not a loss in
my opinion). The Cabaret will not be affected, and the neighboring city parking structure
would have any additions stand taller than this proposed structure. These thoughts in mind,
we feel the applicants did a good job of mitigating any height and view shed concerns of
their neighbors.
Finally, while the downtown core does not normally allow balconies, this plan is addressing
livability creatively and their request for variance on this issue should be considered. The
proposal calls for balconies that do not extend as overhangs but are indented into the
structure creating 'covered outdoor living space.' For both residential and commercial
/ /5
625 '8' STREET, ASHLAND, OR 97520 . 541-482-2821 · FAX 541-482-3326
1111 n . lUll
residents this is a highly desirable component. Further, it adds to the residential feeling and
smaller scaling of the proposed project. The general massing feels appropriate for the
neighborhood, the downtown, and the residential component.
Overall, their project is one we support as neighbors and community members. It is our hope
that this project can proceed quickly with your support.
Respectfully Submitted,
~Zf
lIe,
1m n . 1011
;:,eflL DY; uyuefl, 1\151.:.Ler' 1St ASSOCH,'(eS ,L\lAA;~41 lit!. tl4/t!.;
tsep-l', .(.I;j lU:4~:WM;
t-'aqe <!
.~'~II'-
*~~ ~ Of~ A$'iC</ ~"~~
.1" .,. ._ "'~I\
F..... H
.\..... ,'. I"
~\1t~l~
"" .".'1"
CITY OF' ASHLAND PLANNIN..G: APPLICATION
Type :IT
Date Received
q 12 /02
f .
File No.5(o 05- J~2
Zoning
Camp Plan Designation
Filing Fee~ 1 ~Lj5;&'':::,__..
Receipt # __~ '7 Z6_. '__.__
A.PPLICA.TION IS FOR:
1\ :RI Minor Land Partition
I ~ Variance
Uo Conditional Use Permit
I U Boundary Line Adjustment
==:>'lo.~
-~
~
o
I~
10
Outline Plan (# Units __~)
Final Plan
Site Review
Annexation
o Zone Change
o Camp Plan Change
o Staff Permit
o Solar Waiver
~-
Application pertains to J i. 1 O~ . 0':1 o.A-_ of the Ashland Municipal Code.
chapter. section, subpart
APPLICANT
Name Ed A:-T ~~ DeMf.s
Address 'P. O'_~O" I 0\ ~ As,~ ~d
I . I
Phone S~'iJ{Z~ L{LfJt!L__~_
OfS..__ t1, ~2-0
PROPERTY OWNER
Name MA.r'~ ~:hL~ H;~Ton'c...fuf~J--bLC-. Phone ~ 'i \ - '1.82._:':'u5't1l ~
Address~SS E.W\~~ Cx-~~~ A-.s,^~d, O~ G1/S"~
. ,
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT.I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT (may need to use back page)
Name Se~ A-~cM.t.d. p~
Phone
Address
-~_...~---....--_._---- --
, .
peSCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Street Address 2. ,2. E . Mtl.i~ S~)"._.b~ b.l~Ji_1-~ ~ 7$2.1)
'.
Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E 0" Be.., Tax Lot(s) 1-~_._._____~___
VI/hen was the .above described property acquired by owner? _12::-~f1A
On (J sep8riHe sheet of paper, list any covemmts, conditions or restrictions concerning I1se of property or improvements
contemplated, as we/!os yard setwbsck and area 01 i;"ght requirements that were placed on the proPfJrty by sUbdivision
tract developers. Give date said restrictions expire.
t-""-------.~...~~ -__ --=- -==-= ....,~~-_~~':': --or.!.";:"""', ~-"';-~"1lL~
ji
I! FINDlr.JG~ 9F FACT
I
I Type your responsE/to the appropriate zoning ,equirements on another sheet{s) of paper and
I enclose it with this form. Keep in mind your responses must be in the form of factual statements
or fincitigs of fact aQ.fl_ supported by evidencE' List the JlfldinQ$ criteria and the f:videnC8 which
tl,-~upp~~.n "~_ '-~~~=-""______~'7'""_<_,,L I 7 _---=- - . _ -c== ~=rP"""~;::==-~_--"-= _-.:;.,,-~~~.
1111 n ' In'11
Sent By: Ogden, Kistler & Associates AIAA;541 772 8472;
Sep-11~03 10:50PM;
Page 3
I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the
enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in al/ respects true and correct. I understand
that alf property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon site inspection, In the event
the pins are not shown or their focation found to be incorrect, the owner assumes fuff responsibility.
i further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the bl.1rden will be on me to
establish:
1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
41 that ail structures or improvements are properly located on the ground.
Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in
any structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If I have
any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance.
J~f)~
Date
q / { 2-/ 11 '3
{ {
As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete
applicatjon and its consequences to me as a property owner.
N~
---,.
(~"-J ~ ,{(~. )~1-^P
NOTICE: Section 15.04.240 of the Ashland Municipal Code prohibits the o ccupanC)' of a building or a relea.se of
utilities prior to the issuance of a Cenificate of Occupancy by the Bui!..ding Division AND the completion of all
zoning requirements and conditions imposed by the Planning Commission UNLESS a satisfactory peiformance
bond has been posted to ensure completion. l'IOLATIONS may result in prosecution and/or disconnection of
r' 'i'.
U.l..iles.
/I(l~
I "
n8 n ' In'11
Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL
AND VARIANCE REQUEST
for
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
First & Hargadine Streets, Ashland, Oregon
(Structured Parking with Residential Lofts and Commercial Condominiums
to be construction on an existing parking lot adjacent to the Ashland Springs Hotel)
TLIOO, Assessors Map Page 39-1E-09BC
SEPTEMBER 12,2003
Submitted to
CITY OF ASHLAND
PLANNING COMMISSION AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Submitted for
ED & TANYA BEMIS
Prepared by
OGDEN KISTLER ARCHITECTURE
SEP 1 2, 1003
118 n 11111
t
~
~
.
t
t
~
t
I
APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT 1
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL AND VARIANCE REQUEST
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
First & Hargadine Streets, Ashland, Oregon
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tab A. Project Directo ry ........... ..................................... .................. ............. ...........................1
A.l Owner...... ...... ....... .......... ......... ........ .... ....... ........ ... ............. ." .... ...... ........ ...........1
A.2 Applicant............................................................................................................l
A.3 Consultants............... ......... ....... ............. ............. ..... .... .... .... ......... ... ..... '.. ....... ....1
A.4 Property Description ............... ........ ..... .......... .... ............. ........ .'. ..... ........ ... ........1
A.5 Current Zoning .............. ..... ..... ... ..... ... ...... ..................... .......... ...........................1
A.6 Current Use... ........... ............ ......... ........... ........ ....... ...... ..... ................................1
A.7 Proposed Uses.. ............ .... ........... .... ........................ ............. .... .................. .........1
A.8 Request...............................................................................................................l
Tab B. Project Narrative ............................ .............................................................................3
B.1 Site Description.. ..... .................. ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... .... ............. ......... ...... ............3
B.2 Proposed Development ......... ........ ........ ....... .................... .... .............. ...... ..........3
.8.3 Site Coverage..... ........... .................. ...... .......... ....... ........... ... .......... .... .... ............4
B.4 Available Public Facilities, Services, and Utilities............................................4
B.5 Review Criteria.... .... ..... ......... ......... ............. ........... .... ....... ................ ................5
Tab C. 0 rdin an ce Reg uiremen ts .... .................................. ................... ... .......................... ......7
C.l Definitions (18.08)... ..... ........ ...... .... .......... .... ..... ..................... ......... ........... .......7
C.2 Districts and Zoning Map (18.12)......................................................................7
C.3 C-l Retail Commercial District Regulations (18.32) ........................................8
C.4 Tree Preservation and Protection (18.61) ........................................................10
C.5 Site Design and Use Standards (18.72)....................................................;.......12
C.6 Partitions (18.76)... ........ ... ..... ......... ........................... ........................ ...... ........ .17
C. 7 Off-Street Parking (18.92) ....... .... ........... ......... .......... .... ...... .... ...... ......... ...... ...18
C.8 Variances (18.100).. ........ ............ .......... ............... .......... .... .................. ........... .23
C.9 Procedures (18.108) ..... .................. ....... ................... ................ ...... .... ......... .....25
Tab D. Site Plan Review Criteria ..........................................................................................27
D.l Ordinance Landscaping Requirements (II-A)..................................................28
D.2 Basic Site Review Standards (II-C-l) ..............................................................29
D.3 Detail Site Review Standards (II-C-2) .............................................................33
D.4 Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects (II-C-3) ..................................38
D.5 Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards (II-D) ..............................43
D.6 Street Tree Standards (II-E) ............... ........... ....... ............. .......... ......... .......... ..46
D.7 Historic District Design Standards (IV -C).......................................................48
D.8 Approval Criteria for Downtown Area Development (VI-l through VI-6) ....50
D.9 Downtown Design Standards (VI-A through VI-K)........................................52
I:).?)
n8 n ' 1011
Tab 5.
Tab 6.
Tab 7.
APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT 1
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL AND V ARIANCE REQUEST
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
First & Hargadine Streets, Ashland, Oregon
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Summary C on clusi ons . ......... ................ .............................. .......... ................. ....... ..... 61
E xh ib its ....................................................................................................................... 63
6.1 Exhibit 1 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (contained in Tabs 1-5)
6.2 Exhibit 2 Site Review Plan Submittal Drawings
Drawing 1.0 Site Plan
Drawing 3.0 Floor Plan, Conservatory Level
Drawing 3.1 Floor Plan, Plaza Level
Drawing 3.2 Floor Plan, Mid Level
Drawing 3.3 Floor Plan, Condo Level 1
Drawing 3.4 Floor Plan, Condo Level 2
Drawing 7.1 Exterior Elevations
Drawing 7.2 Exterior Elevations
Drawing 7.3 Exterior Elevations
Drawing L.l Planting Plan
Drawing P.l Preliminary Partition Map
6.3 Exhibit 3 Topographic Survey and Existing Utilities Plan. By
6.4 Exhibit 4 Aerial Photographs of Downtown Ashland
6.5 Exhibit 5 Tax Map
6.6 Exhibit 6 Ashland City Council Meeting Minutes (August 19, 2003) and
proposed Ordinance amending the Detail Site Review Zone
Standards for Large Buildings
Ap pen dices ................ ......... ............... ........ ............ ........ ..... ........ .... ..... ........... ..... ....... .....
7.1 City of Ashland Traffic Study
/9. f
Findings of Fact and Conclusi01 Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED, ..0 DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
1.1 Owner
1.2 Applicant
1.3 Consultants
1.4 Property Description
1.5 Current Zoning
1.6 Current Use
1.7 Proposed Uses
1.8 Request
n8 11 I 111'1'1
Page I of 62
PROJECT DIRECTORY
Mark Antony Historic Property LLC
212 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Ed & Tanya Bemis
P.O. Box 1018
Ashland, OR 97520
OgdenKistler Architecture
2950 East Barnett Road
Medford, OR 97504
Hofbuhr & Associates, Inc. Surveying
3155 Alameda Street
Medford, OR 97520
Zbinden - Carter, Civil & Structural Engineering
104 N 11th Street
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
Greg Covey, Landscape Architect
295 East Main Street, #8
Ashland, OR 97520
Tax Lot 100, Assessor Map Page 39-lE-09BC
C-l, Commercial Retail with Downtown Overlay,
Historic District Overlay, and Detail Site Plan
Review Overlay
Surface Parking Lot for adjacent hotel use
Structured Parking for adjacent hotel use
(existing conditional use to be maintained)
Professional Offices / Retail Storefronts
(permitted use)
Multi-family Residential, including affordable unit
(special permitted use)
Site Plan Review for new residential and commercial
development
Preliminary Approval of Minor Land Partition of
existing tax lot
Variance Approval for exception to required
minimum amount of permitted use
Approval of minor exceptions to Site Design and Use
Standards
/~
SEP 1 2 Z003
Findings of Fact and Conclusio 'Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ~i DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 3 of 62
PROJECT NARRATIVE
2.1 Site Description
The subject property is situated at the northwest comer of Hargadine and First Streets in
downtown Ashland, directly behind the landmark Ashland Springs Hotel. The site is bounded by
Hargadine Street on the west, First Street on the south, the city's municipal parking garage and
alley on the north, and the alley behind the hotel on the east. The site slopes 26 feet from west to
east (15% grade) and has a few trees on the two street sides. Currently, the site is used as a
surface parking lot for hotel guests and is completely paved.
The site is designated "Downtown" on the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map, and
represents one of the largest under-developed parcels in downtown Ashland. Although parking
is required by the hotel's use and supports the hotel's operation, this surface lot lacks the
pedestrian amenities and other design standards that would enhance its contribution to the city's
economic, cultural, and aesthetic base. This bare stretch of asphalt stands in stark contrast to the
Downtown Plan's image of a pedestrian-friendly downtown area where "the attractive setting,
high density of development, and amenities, combine to produce our enviable "European"
environment. "
2.2 Proposed Development
Any development envisioned for this site must accomplish several broad goals in order to
comply with the city's ordinances and design standards:
· Provide commercial and residential uses that are in keeping with the stated development
goals of the Ashland Downtown Plan
· Accommodate the existing parking requirements of the adjacent hotel use without
impacting vehicular traffic flow in and around the site
· Create a pedestrian-friendly streetscape "edge" on both Hargadine and First Streets that is
in keeping with the aesthetic of Downtown Ashland and the surrounding buildings
· Establish a pedestrian "link" in the alley directly behind the hotel, connecting the
pedestrian way behind the New Theatre and municipal garage to the north with the
proposed mid-block pedestrian path behind Earthly Goods to the south
· Locate retail and commercial spaces directly adjacent to the sidewalks and plaza, to
further enhance and enliven the streetscape
Locate residential units above the retail and commercial spaces, in keeping with the
Downtown Plan's stated goal of "living above the store"
· Comply with stated limitations on size, height, mass, and scale
Since the existing surface parking lot occupies the entire site, any further development will by
necessity entail some sort of 'structured parking' that will leave a portion of the site available for
more desirable uses.
)~~
SEP 1 2 2003
Findings of Fact and Conclusio Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED Lji DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 4 of 62
The Ashland Springs Mixed Use Development retains the existing hotel parking capacity (68
spaces) while screening it from public view in an enclosed parking environment that provides
convenient vehicular access from First Street and the alley. The project also creates a pedestrian-
friendly street edge with commercial and retail storefronts on First Street and the new Pedestrian
Plaza adjacent to the hotel. Due to the sloping nature ofthe site, these storefronts are located on
three different levels of the building, so that each space has a direct connection to the adjacent
sidewalk or plaza. The Pedestrian Plaza connects with the mid-block paths to the north and
south, creating an important new pedestrian route through the downtown area.
The project also includes professional office space in the form of commercial condominiums.
These spaces are located on Hargadine Street, to provide the same downtown-type streetscape
edge in an area where retail storefronts would be neither appropriate nor viable. Lastly, the
Ashland Springs Mixed Use Development provides true downtown living in an urban setting with
14 residential units (including one affordable unit) above the commercial uses. These units will
be configured to suit the individual residents' tastes and needs. To avoid overloading the limited
on-street parking and to enhance security, private parking will be provided for residents and
guests adjacent to the hotel parking.
2.3 Site Coverage
Based on the proposed partitioning of the property (See Exhibit 2, Drawing P.1 - Preliminary
Partion Map), the project site will contain 24,265 square feet. The gross building area footprint
is 19,937 square feet. Thus, the building occupies 82.2% of the site. The Pedestrian Plaza is
1403 square feet, or 5.8% of the project site. The balance of the site area is devoted to public
sidewalks (between the building and the property lines) and circulation elements required for
connection to the existing hotel.
2.4 Available Public Facilities, Services, and Utilities
The project site is well served by a full range of public utilities and transportation services,
including municipal water, sanitary sewer service, electrical service, natural gas, underground
storm drainage. The existing overhead electrical lines along Hargadine and First Streets will be
removed as part of this project, and the existing underground electrical lines (which were
upgraded as part of the New Theatre project) will be used to service the facility. Additionally,
new underground storm drainage lines will be run to the existing 10" line located in East Main
Street.
Since the project site is located on First Street only a half block from East Main Street, it is well
served by public streets. The site is also served by a public transportation bus stop located in
front of the Ashland Springs Hotel, near the comer of East Main and First Streets.
J ~" ~
st.? 1 21UOJ
Findings of Fact and Conclusio Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED '- ,.3, DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 5 of 62
2.5 Review Criteria
This project must comply with the City of Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). This project
also must comply with the applicable sections of the 'City of Ashland Site Design and Use
Standards' for projects subject to Basic Site Review, Detail Site Review, Additional Standards
for Large Scale Projects, Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards, Street Tree
Standards, Historic District Design Standards, and Downtown Design Standards.
This project also is subject to the goals and principles of the Ashland Downtown Plan, which the
Site Design and Use Standards refer to as the "guiding document for all downtown site design."
SEP 1 2 2003
1. '
-;zS
Findings of Fact and Conclusic . Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED '- ~2 DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 7 of 62
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Definitions (18.08)
18.08.280 Grade or Ground Level
The average of the finished ground level at the center of all walls of the building. In case a wall
is parallel to and within five (5) feet of a sidewalk, the ground level shall be measured at the
sidewalk.
18.08.290 Height of buildings
The vertical distance from the "grade" to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the
deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitch or hip roof
Finding: The above-referenced definitions have been used, both in the findings and in the
attached drawings, to establish the finish grade and maximum height for this
project.
Finding: The project site slopes steeply from Hargadine Street on the west to the Pedestrian
Plaza on the east. Accordingly, the grade at the perimeter of the property
intersects the building at three different levels: Hargadine, First Street, and the
Pedestrian Plaza.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that, due to the peculiar nature of the site, the 'ground
level' (ground floor) of the building does not occur on the lowest level of the
building, but instead must be allocated among the three floor levels where they
intersect the sloping grade, in order to provide ground level access to the street or
sidewalk.
3.2 Districts and Zoning Map (18.12)
18.12.030 Zoning Map
A. The location and boundaries of the districts designated in Section 18.12.020 are established
as shown on the map entitled "Zoning Map of the City of Ashland, " dated with the effective date
of the ordinance codified herein, and signed by the Mayor and City Recorder and hereafter
referred to as the "zoning map. "
Finding:
The Zoning Map shows the subj ect property to be located within the C-I D zone,
Commercial Retail District with Downtown overlay.
Finding:
The subject property is included within the Basic Site Review Zone, the Detailed
Site Review Zone, and the Historic District.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project must comply with the standards for
Basic Site Review, Detailed Site Review, and Historic District Design.
J~~
SEP 1 2 2003
110 11 ' 111'1'1
Findings of Fact and Conclusior Jaw
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED L~~ DEVELOPMENT
September 12,2003
Page 8 of 62
3.3 C-1 Retail Commercial District Regulations (18.32)
18.32.020 Permitted Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Professional, financial, business and medical offices, and personal service establishments
such as beauty and barber shops, launderette, and clothes and laundry pick-up stations.
B. Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services, such as a
department store, antique shop, artists supply store, and including a regional shopping
center or element of such center, such as a major department store.
C. Restaurants. (Ord 2812, S21998)
Finding: Professional service establishments are an outright permitted use in this zone.
Finding: Stores, shops, and restaurants are outright permitted uses in this zone.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the professional offices (commercial condominiums)
and retail storefronts (commercial tenant spaces) included in this project are an
outright permitted use in this zoning district.
18.32.025 Svecial Permitted Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of
this section and the requirements of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards.
D. Residential uses.
1. At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the groundfloor, or at least 50% of
the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted
or special permitted uses, excluding residential.
Finding: The residential units included in this project are a Special Permitted Use,
permitted outright when at least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground
floor is designated for an outright permitted use.
Finding: The total gross floor area of the building footprint at its maximum extents is
19,740 square feet.
Finding: The plans indicate that a total of 11,033 square feet at the various ground floor
levels of the building is designated as commercial space.
Finding: Therefore, a total of 55.9% of the ground floor footprint area is designated as
commercial space.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that since the amount of space at the various ground floor
levels designated as professional offices and retail storefronts is less than 65% of
the ground floor footprint area, a variance is required to allow the residential units
as a special permitted use.
IQ, 1
SEP 1 2 ZOOJ
Findings of Fact and Conclusion ,aw
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED L _ ~ DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Page 9 of 62
2.
Residential densities shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1
District, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-D District.
Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design
standards as for permitted uses in the underlying C-1 or C-1-D District.
Off-street parking shall not be required for residential uses in the C-1-D District.
If the number of residential units exceeds 10, then at least 10% of the residential
units shall be affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the
standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through
procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units required to be
affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit.
3.
4.
5.
14 residential units are included in this project. The site is approximately 0.5 acre.
Therefore, the density is 28 dwelling units per acre.
The residential uses comply with the setback, landscaping, design, and parking
requirements of the C-1-D district.
14 residential units are provided. One unit has been designated as affordable..
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the residential units indicated on the drawings
comply with the criteria 2 through 5 above.
18.32.030 Conditional Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance with
the chapter on Conditional Use Permits:
D. Hotels and motels. ~
Finding: The parking spaces designated as 'Hotel Parking' are accessory to the adjacent
Hotel use.
Finding: These parking spaces are provided as a replacement for the existing surface
parking lot, with no change in quantity of spaces.
Finding: According to city records, the existing surface parking lot is included in the
Conditional Use Permit issued to the hotel.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that since the existing conditional use of hotel parking
will remain without being enlarged or altered, a new Conditional Use Permit is
not required for this use.
18.32.040 General Regulations
A. Area, Width, Yard Requirements. There shall be no minimum lot area, width, coverage,
front yard, side yard, or rear yard, except as required under the Off-Street Parking and
Solar Access Chapters; where required or increased for conditional uses; where required
by the Site Review Chapter or where abutting a residential district, where such setback
shall be maintained at ten feet per story for rear yards and ten feet for side yards.
I c~ g
SEP 1 2 2003
Findings of Fact and Conclusio Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ~ ~i DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 10 of62
B. Maximum Building Height. No structure shall be greater than 40 feet in height.
Finding:
Finding:
No front, side, or rear yards are provided, except where required to align the
building fa<;:ade with adjacent buildings.
The building height does not exceed 40 feet vertical distance, measured from th~
top of the parapet to "the average of the finished ground level at the center of all
walls of the building".
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the project meets the above requirements regarding
mass and size.
18.32.050 "D" Downtown Overlav District
A. In all areas within the "D" Downtown Overlay District, all uses are not required to
provide off-street parking or loading areas, except for hotel, motel, or hostel uses. All
parking areas provided shall comply with the Off-Street Parking chapter and the Site
Review chapter.
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Off-street parking is not required for the commercial spaces, and none has been
provided.
Off-street parking is not required for the residential units, but has been provided
(2 spaces per unit) as a convenience to the residents.
Off-street parking has been provided as required for the adjacent hotel use (i.e, in
the same quantity as the existing surface parking lot).
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the project meets the above applicable requirements
for projects in the Downtown Overlay District.
3.4 Tree Preservation and Protection (18.61)
18.61.042 ATJoroval & Permit Required
A person who desires to remove a tree, not otherwise exempted in 18.61.035, shall first apply for
and receive one of the following tree removal permits before tree removal occurs:
D. TREE REMOVAL - STAFF PERMIT:
1. Tree Removal-Staff Permits are required for the following activities:
a. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on any private lands zoned C-l, E-l,
M-l, or He.
Finding:
The project is located in a C-1-D zone.
;/.(')/1
~ fiI"',4,i
SEP 1 2 2003
Findings of Fact and Conc\usic . Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED _ Jt DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Finding:
Page 11 of62
The project site contains five existing trees that are greater than 6" DBH (see
Exhibit 2, Drawing 1.0 - Site Plan). These trees fall within the footprint of the
proposed new building.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that a Tree Removal Permit is required.
18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal- StafJPermit
An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are
satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a
permit
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not
a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
Finding:
Finding:
1m 11 I 111'1'1
1.
The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be
consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff
Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to
allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and
Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing
windbreaks; and
Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree
densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject
property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require
that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the
zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or
placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the
impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other
provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree
granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall
be. a condition of approval of the permit.
2.
3.
4.
The existing trees on the site must be removed in order to comply with Site
Design and Use Standards for Downtown projects, including setback
requirements.
The existing trees (three sycamore and two ash, all in poor condition) will be
replaced by 13 street trees that comply with the Site Design and Use Standards for
downtown development. These trees will provide a more cohesive canopy effect
than the existing trees. Also, additional trees will be planted at the Pedestrian
Plaza and at the entry court for the residential units.
I? ''J
J
SEP 1 2 2.003
Findings of Fact and Conclusio' Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ~ DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 12 of62
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that issuance of a Tree Removal Permit is appropriate for
this project.
18.61.084 Mitigation Required
An applicant may be required to provide mitigation for any tree approved for removal. The
mitigation requirement shall be satisfied by one or more of the following:
A. Replanting on site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 1 IJ2-inch caliper healthy
and well-branched deciduous tree or a 5-6 foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed.
The replanted tree shall be of a species that will eventually equal or exceed the removed
tree in size if appropriate for the new location. The tree shall be planted and maintained
according to the specifications in the City Tree Planting and Maintenance Guidelines as
approved by the City Council.
B. Replanting off site. If in the City's determination there is insufficient available space on
the subject property, the replanting required in subsection A shall occur on other
property in the applicant's ownership or control within the City, in an open space tract
that is part of the same subdivision, or in a City owned or dedicated open space or park.
Such mitigation planting is subject to the approval of the authorized property owners. If
planting on City owned or dedicated property, the City may specify the species and size
of the tree. Nothing in this section shall be construed as an obligation of the City to allow
trees to be planted on City owned or dedicated property.
C. Payment in lieu of planting. If in the City's determination no feasible alternative exists to
plant the required mitigation, the applicant shall pay into the tree account an amount as
established by resolution of the City Council.
Finding:
This project includes the installation of a number of new trees, as noted above
(see Exhibit 2, Drawings L.l - Landscape Plan).
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the removal of the existing trees is mitigated by the
installation of new street trees and other trees throughout the project site.
3.5 Site Design and Use Standards (18.72)
18.72.030 Avplication
Site design and use standards shall apply to all zones of the city and shall apply to all
development indicated in this Chapter, except for those developments which are regulated by the
Subdivisions (18.80), the Partitioning (18.76), Manufactured Housing (18.84) and Performance
Standards (18.88).
Finding:
This project is located in a C-I-D (Commercial Retail) zone.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the Site Use and Design Standards apply to this
project, including the standards for Basic Site Review.
18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone
/3/
SfP 1 2 2003
no 11 I 111'1'1
Findings of Fact and Conclusio' . Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED .c: DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 13 of62
A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted
pursuant to Section 18.72.080.
Finding:
This project is situated in the "North Main Street, Historic District, and Oak
Street" Detail Site Review zone.
B. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards
adopted pursuant to this chapter, which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100
feet in length or width, shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure.
Finding:
The length of the proposed building is 160 feet.
C. 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.
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted "gross square footage of
45,000 square feet" as meaning 45,000 square foot footprint, and not the gross
floor area square footage (Planning Action 2000-074).
On August 19,2003, the Ashland City council approved (with modifications) the
First Reading of a proposed Ordinance amending Detail Site Review Zone
Standards for Large Buildings (see Exhibit 6). This proposed ordinance limits the
size of buildings in the Downtown Design Standards zone to 45,000 gross floor
area, not including "under-structure" parking.
This project contains two floors of commercial and residential units located on top
of a parking structure that contains 2 Yz floors of enclosed parking spaces. This
parking structure also contains some retail storefronts, as required by the AULO
and the Site Use and Design Standards.
According to the previous interpretation of the City Council, the calculated size of
the proposed building is 19,937 square feet (gross square footage footprint size).
According to the proposed ordinance amendment, the calculated size of the
proposed building is 39,303 square feet (gross floor area not including enclosed
parking spaces).
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project is subject to review under the Type 2
procedure and the Detail Site Review standards.
n8 11
/32-
S[P 1 2 ?ao.^~
Findings of Fact and Conclusio . Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED J DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 14 of62
Conclusion: The applicant further concludes that, according to both the interpretation of
the City Council and the proposed ordinance amendment, this project
complies with the size limitation outlined in criterion C above.
18.72.055 Downtown Desifln Standards Zone
A. The Downtown Design Standards Zone is that area defined in the Site Design and Use
Standards Section VI, adopted pursuant to Section 18.72.080.
B. Development in the Downtown Design Standards Zone shall be subject to the Downtown
Design Standards.
Finding:
This project is situated in the "North Main Street, Historic District, and Oak
Street" Detail Site Review zone.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project is subject to review under the Downtown
Design Standards.
18.72.070 Criteria for Avproval
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
e. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council
for implementation of this Chapter.
Finding:
The proposed development meets or will met all applicable City ordinances,
applicable requirements ofthe Site Review Chapter, and applicable portions of
the Site Design and Use Standards, as outlined in items A through C above.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-
of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards
Options.
Finding: Adequate capacity of City facilities and utilities are provided to the project site.
The following existing utilities are referenced on the survey plan prepared by
Hofbuhr & Associates (see Exhibit # 3):
. Water: There is an existing underground water line located in First Street and
Hargadine Street. There is a fire hydrant in the sidewalk adjacent to the subject
property, at the intersection of First and Hargadine Streets
. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 10" underground sanitary sewer line in Main
Street, and a 6" line in Hargadine Street.
. Urban Storm Drainage: An 8" underground storm drain line exists at East Main
Street, with a catch basin on First Street at the mid-block alley.
19.3
S[P 1 22003
110 11 I 111'1'1
Findings of Fact and Conc\usio' Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ,_ -LC DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 15 of62
· Electricity: The electrical lines are located overhead along the Hargadine
property line and the First Street property line. Underground electric lines are
located in the alley adjacent to the parking garage.
· Natural Gas: An underground natural gas line is located in First Street and the
adjacent parking garage alley. .
· Transportation access: The nearest public transportation bus stop is located near
the comer of East Main and First Street, approximately 12 block from the subject
property.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this application meets all the criteria required for
approval of the application.
18.72.090 Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards
An administrative variance to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to
the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 if, on the basis of
the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are
found to exist:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design
Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site;
B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties;
C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use
Chapter; and
D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty.
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Finding: :
Conclusion:
1
One of the stated goals of the Ashland Downtown Plan is the promotion of mixed
use developments (residential uses above commercial uses) in the downtown area.
This project contains residential units above commercial uses.
The Downtown Design Standards for building facades require a zero setback at
property lines, with no recessed or projecting balconies or other useable space
above the ground floor incorporated into a street facing elevation.
In order to provide the residential units with private outdoor spaces and to enliven
the streetscape with residential activity, the design of this project incorporates
small balconies and other outdoor spaces typically found in urban residential uses,
which create the effect of 'setbacks' in the fa<;ade.
The setbacks in the building fa<;ade have been designed in accordance with the
Multi-Family Residential Development standards contained in the Site Design
and Use Standards.
The applicant concludes that the unique and desirable nature of this mixed-use
project (residential units above commercial uses) creates a demonstrable difficulty
in meeting the specific requirement of the Downtown Design Standards for zero
setback at property lines, and requests an Administrative Variance to allow the
{,"
I :.)) Lj
- I
SEP 1 2 2003
Findings of Fact and Conclusio' Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED L _~ DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 16 of62
use of balconies and other openings in the fa~ade, in accordance with the Multi-
Family Residential Development Standards.
Conclusion: The applicant further concludes that approval of this Administrative Variance will
not negatively impact adjacent properties, is consistent with the stated purpose of
the Site Design and Use Chapter, and that the variance requested is the minimum
variance that will alleviate the difficulty.
18.72.110 Landscaping Standards
A. Area Required. The following areas shall be required to be landscaped in the following
zones:
C-1-D None, except parking areas and service stations shall meet the
landscaping and screening standards in Section II.D. of the Site Design and Use
Standards.
B. Location. Landscaping shall be located so that it is visible from public right-of-way or
provide bufferingfrom adjacent uses. Landscaping shall be distributed in those areas
where it provides for visual and acoustical buffering, open space uses, shading and wind
buffering, and aesthetic qualities.
C. Irrigation. All landscaping plans shall either be irrigated or shall be certified that they
can be maintained and survive without artificial irrigation. If the plantings fail to survive,
the property owner shall replace them.
D. Parking Lots. Seven percent of all the parking lot area shall be landscaped. Such
landscaping shall consist of the proper mixture of deciduous trees and shrubs so that all
of the landscaped areas shall be covered within five years by a spreading evergreen
ground cover or by shrubs and shaded by the trees.
E. One street tree per 30 feet offrontage shall be required on all projects.
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
110 11 I 111'1'1
The above referenced section of the ALUO does not require a minimum amount
of landscaping for projects in this zone.
(NOTE: Refer to Section II-A of the Site Design and Use Standards for
additional landscaping requirements.)
As shown on Exhibit 2, Drawing L.l - Landscape Plan, the landscaping has been
located according to criterion B above.
As shown on Exhibit 2, Drawing L.2 - Irrigation Plan, an irrigation system will
be installed.
The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking
"area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building
structures (Planning Action 2000-074).
Exhibit 2, drawing L.l - Landscape Plan, indicates that street trees have been
provided at least every 30 feet along Hargadine and First Streets.
/35
SEP 1 2,200)
Findings of Fact and Conc\usio . Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ,-_i DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 17 of62
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project complies with the criteria for
landscaping outlined above.
18.72.115 - Recvclinf! Requirements
All commercial and multi-family developments, requiring a site review as indicated in 18. 72.040,
shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle site for use of the project occupants.
A. Commercial. Commercial developments having a solid waste receptacle shall provide a
site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the solid waste
receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local solid waste franchisee under
its on-route collection program for purposes of recycling. Both the opportunity-to-recycle
site and the common solid waste receptacle shall be screened by fencing or landscaping
such as to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights-ai-way.
B. Multi-Family Residential. All newly constructed multi-family units, either as part of an
existing development or as a new development, shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle
site in accord with the follOWing standards:
1. Multi-family developments NOT sharing a common solid waste receptacle shall
provide an individual curbside recycling container for each dwelling unit in the
development.
2. Multi-family developments sharing a common solid waste receptacle shall
provide a site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to
the common solid waste receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the
local solid waste franchisee under its residential on-route collection program for
purposes of recycling. Both the opportunity-to-recycle site and the common solid
waste receptacle shall be screened by fencing or landscaping such as to limit the
view from adjacent properties or public rights-oi-way.
Finding:
This project is subject to site review as indicated in 18.72.040, and contains both
commercial and multi-family uses.
Finding:
As indicated on Exhibit 2, Drawing 3.0 - Floor Plan / Conservatory Level, the
Opportunity-to-Recycle site and the solid waste receptacle will be located on the
lowest floor level of the project, and will be accessible from other levels via
elevator.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project complies with the recycling requirements
outlined above.
3.6 Partitions (18.76)
18.76.020 Preliminary Step
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a preliminary map of the proposed
partition.
Finding:
The existing project site is situated on the same tax lot as the adjacent hotel.
J ""> /
f .....
i ....)0
SEP 1 2 lorn
110 11 I III 1'1
Findings of Fact and Conc\usio' Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED '- ~.c, DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 18 of62
Finding:
This project includes the proposed partitioning of the site into two lots, under
separate ownership.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that a preliminary map of the proposed partition is
required, and the same is included as Exhibit 2, Drawing P.l - Proposed Partition
Map.
3.7 Off-Street Parking (18.92)
18.92.020 Automobile Parkin!'! Svaces Required
Uses and standards are as follows:
A. Residential Uses. For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces are
required
4. Hotels and motels. One space for each guest room, plus one space for the owner
or manager.
Finding:
The existing surface parking lot provides one space per guest room, plus one
space for the owner or manager
Finding:
The existing parking capacity for the hotel will remain unchanged under the
proposed application.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the structured parking areas shown on the design
provide the required parking for the hotel use.
18.92.040 Bicvcle Parking
A. All uses, with the exception of detached single-family residences and uses in the C-I-D
zone, shall provide a minimum of two sheltered bike parking spaces.
B. Every residential use of two units or more per structure, and not containing a garage,
shall provide bicycle parking spaces as follows:
Multi-Family Residential: One sheltered space per studio and I-bedroom unit
1.5 sheltered spaces per 2-bedroom unit
2.0 sheltered spaces per 3-bedroom unit
Senior Housing: One sheltered space per 8 units (80% of the occupants are 55 or older)
C. In addition, all uses which require off street parking, except as specifically noted, shall
provide one bicycle parking space for every 5 required auto parking spaces. Fractional
spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space. Fifty percent of the bicycle parking
spaces required shall be sheltered from the weather. All spaces shall be located in
proximity to the uses they are intended to serve. (Ord. 2697 SI, 1993)
1 Bicycle Parking Design Standards
1. The salient concern is that bicycle parking be visible and convenient to cyclists
and that it provides sufficient security from theft and damage.
SEP 1 2 Z003
/3i'J
110 11 I 111'1'1
Findings of Fact and Conclusio Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ~ _.c: DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 19 of62
2. Bicycle parking requirements can be met in any of the following ways:
a. Providing a bicycle storage room, bicycle lockers, or racks inside the
building.
b. Providing bicycle lockers or racks in an accessory parking structure,
underneath an awning or marquee, or outside the main building.
c. Providing bicycle racks on the public right of way. This must be approved
by City of Ashland Public Works Department.
d. Providing secure storage space inside the building.
3. All required exterior bicycle parking shall be located on site within 50 feet of
well-used entrances and not farther from the entrance than the closest motor
vehicle parking space. Bicycle parking shall have direct access to both the public
right-ofway and to the main entrance of the principal use. For facilities with
multiple buildings, building entrances or parking lots (such as a college), exterior
bicycle parking shall be located in areas of greatest use and convenience for
bicyclists.
4. Required bicycle parking spaces located out of doors shall be visible enough to
provide security. Lighting shall be provided in a bicycle parking area so that all
facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent walkways or motor
vehicle parking lots during all hours of use. Bicycle parking shall be at least as
well lit as automobile parking.
5. An aisle for bicycle maneuvering shall be provided and maintained between each
row of bicycle parking. Bicycle parking shall be designed in accord with the
illustrations used for the implementation of this chapter.
6. Each required bicycle parking space shall be accessible without moving another
bicycle.
7. Areas set aside for required bicycle parking shall be clearly marked and reserved
for bicycle parking only.
8. Parking spaces configured as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter
meet all requirements of this chapter and is the preferred design. Commercial
bike lockers are acceptable according to manufacturer's specifications. A bicycle
parking space located inside of a building for employee bike parking shall be a
minimum of six feet long by 3 feet wide by 4 feet high, unless adequate room is
provided to allow configuration as indicated in the figure at the end of this
chapter.
9. Sheltered parking shall mean protected from all precipitation and must include
the minimum protection coverages shown in the figure at the end of this chapter.
10. Bicycle parking shall be located to minimize the possibility of accidental damage
to either bicycles or racks. Where needed, barriers shall be installed.
11. Bicycle parking shall not impede or create a hazard to pedestrians. They shall not
be located so as to violate vision clearance standards. Bicycle parking facilities
should be harmonious with their environment both in color and design. Facilities
should be incorporated whenever possible into building design or street furniture.
J Bicycle Parking Rack Standards.
1. All required bicycle parking racks installed shall meet the individual rack
specifications shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. Single and multiple
rack installations shall conform with the minimum clearance standards shown in
I j ~
SEP 1 2 2003
Findings of Fact and Conclusio' Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED L ",c, DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Page 20 of 62
2.
the figures at the end of this chapter. Alternatives to the above standard may be
approved after review by the Bicycle Commission and approval by the Staff
Advisor. Alternatives shall conform with all other applicable standards of this
section. Bicycle parking racks or lockers shall be anchored securely.
The intent of this Subsection is to ensure that required bicycle racks are designed
so that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience and
will be reasonably safeguarded from intentional or accidental damage.
a. Bicycle racks shall hold bicycles securely by means of the frame. The
frame shall be supported so that the bicycle cannot be pushed or fall to
one side in a manner that will damage the wheels.
b. Bicycle racks shall accommodate:
i. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a high-
security U-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists removes the front
wheel; and
ll. Locking the frame and one wheel to the rack with a high-security
U-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists leaves both wheels on the
bicycle; and
iii. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a chain or
cable not longer than 6 feet without removal of the front wheel.
c. Paving and Surfacing. Outdoor bicycle parkingfacilities shall be surfaced
in the same manner as the automobile parking area or with a minimum of
two inch thickness of hard surfacing (i.e., asphalt, concrete, pavers, or
similar material) and shall be relatively level. This surface will be
maintained in a smooth, durable, and well-drained condition.
As indicated on the various floor plans included in Exhibit 2, bicycle parking and
covered bicycle parking has been provided the quantities outlined in criteria A, B,
and C above.
As indicated on the various floor plans included in Exhibit 2, bicycle parking and
covered bicycle parking has been provided the locations and configurations
outlined in criteria I above.
Bicycle racks meeting the requirements outlined in criterion J above will be
specified for use on this project.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the project meets the requirements of
this section.
18.92.050 Compact Car Parking
Up to 50% of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for
compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be 8 x 16 feet. Such spaces shall be
signed or the space painted with the words "Compact Car Only. "
Finding:
1m 11
As indicated on the various floor plans included in Exhibit 2, parking for compact
cars has been provided the size and quantities outlined above.
I ....1"'
. '.. ,-,,<'^f
I _...-r ;;
I
SEP 1 2 2003
Findings of Fact and Conclusio' Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED L ,oi. DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 21 of62
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the project meets the requirements of
this section.
18.92.070 Automobile Parking Design Requirements
A. Size and Access. All required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the
parking layout chart at the end of this Chapter. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of9 x
18 feet, except that 50% of the spaces may be compact spaces in accord with 18.92.050
and shall have a 22 foot back-up space except where parking is angled.
B. Driveways and Turn-Arounds. Driveways and turn-arounds providing access to parking
areas shall conform to the following provisions:
1. A driveway for a single dwelling shall have a minimum width of nine feet, and a
shared driveway serving two units shall have a width of 12 feet.
2. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with
adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a
forward manner.
3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway20
feet in width and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site, with
due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and permanently
marked and defined. Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be served by a
driveway 12 feet in width.
4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts.
a. Developments subject to a planning action or divisions of property, either
by minor land partition or subdivision, shall minimize the number of
driveway intersections with streets by the use of shared driveways with
adjoining lots where feasible. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24
feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings
of the driveway approach.
b. Plans for property being partitioned or subdivided or for multi-family
developments shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have
been minimized through the use of shared driveways and shall indicate all
necessary access easements.
c. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and
driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements
or the proposed development. Cuts and approaches shall be replaced with
standard curb, gutter or sidewalk as appropriate. All replacement shall be
done under permit of the Engineering Division. C. Vertical Clearances.
Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall have a minimum
vertical clearance of 13'-6" for their entire length and width.
D. Vision Clearance. No signs, structures or vegetation in excess of two and one-half feet in
height shall be placed in the vision clearance area. The vision clearance area is the
triangle formed by a line connecting points 25 feet from the intersection of property lines.
In the case of an intersection involving an alley and a street, the triangle is formed by a
line connecting points ten (10) feet along the alley and 25 feet along the street. When the
angle of intersection between the street and the alley is less than 30 degrees, the distance
/ /.f()
lSEP 1 2 70tH
Findings of Fact and Conclusio' Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED L ~C: DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 22 of 62
shall be 25 feet. No signs, structures or vegetation or portion thereof shall be erected
within ten (10) feet of driveways unless the same is less than two and one-half feet in
height. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the
Variance section of this title.
E. Development and Maintenance. The development and maintenance as provided below,
shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings.
1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds and driveways shall be
paved with concrete, asphaltic or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards
on file in the office of the City Engineer.
2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and turn-arounds shall have
provisions made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet
flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private
property.
3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing
constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer.
4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces
permanently and clearly marked.
5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width
and six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so
constructed as to withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where
appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no
vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way.
6. Walls and Hedges.
a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or
evergreen hedge screen of 30-42 inches in height and a minimum of 12" in
width shall be established parallel to and not nearer than two feet from
the right-of-way line. Screen planting shall be of such size and number to
provide the required screening within 12 months after installation. The
area between the wall or hedge and street line shall be landscaped. All
vegetation shall be adequately maintained by a permanent irrigation
system, and said wall or hedge shall be maintained in good condition. The
required wall or screening shall be designed to allow for free access to the
site and sidewalk by pedestrians.
b. In all zones, except single-family zones, where parking facilities or
driveways are located adjacent to residential or agricultural zones, school
yards, or like institutions, a sight-obscuring fence, wall, or evergreen
hedge not less than five feet, nor more than six feet high shall be provided
on the property line as measured from the high grade side. Said wall,
fence or hedge shall be reduced to 30 inches within required setback area,
or within 10 feet of street property lines, and shall be maintained in good
condition. Screen plantings shall be of such size and number to provide
the required screening within 12 months after installation. Adequate
provisions shall be made to protect walls, fences or plant materials from
being damaged by vehicles using said parking areas.
7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to cover
not less than 7% of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including the
/ tit
SEP 1 2 2003
110 n I 111'1'1
Findings of Fact and Conclusio Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED L _c DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Page 23 of 62
8.
landscaping required in subdivision 6(a) above. Said landscaping shall be
uniformly distributed throughout the parking area, be provided with irrigation
facilities and protective curbs or raised wood headers. It may consist of trees,
plus shrubs, ground cover or related material. A minimum of one tree per seven
parking spaces is required.
Lighting of parking areas within 100 feet of property in residential zones shall be
directed into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light
element shall not be directly visible from abutting residential property.
As indicated on the various floor plans included in Exhibit 2, the size, layout, and
location of the parking spaces, drive aisles, and tum-arounds conforms to the
requirements of criteria A and B above.
As indicated on the various floor plans included in Exhibit 2, vision clearance
areas will be maintained per criterion D above. Signs, structures, and vegetation
within 10 feet of driveways and vehicular entrances will be less than 2 Yz feet in
height.
The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking
"area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building I
structures (Planning Action 2000-074).
With the exception of criteria E.6 and E.7, the construction of the parking spaces
will comply with criteria E above.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design ofthe project meets the requirements of
this section.
3.8 Variances (18.100)
18.100.010 Variances -Purpose
Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general
purpose of this Title may result from the strict application of certain provisions thereof, variance
may be granted as provided in this Chapter. This Chapter may not be used to allow a use that is
not in conformity with the uses specified by this Title for the district in which the land is located.
In granting a variance, the City may impose conditions similar to those provided for conditional
uses to protect the best interests of the surrounding property and property owners, the
neighborhood, or the City as a whole.
Finding:
Finding:
According to AULO Section 18.32.025, Special Permitted Uses, residential uses
are a Special Permitted Use in the C-1-D zone, permitted outright when at least
65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor is designated for an outright
permitted use.
In this proj ect, a total of 55.9% of the ground floor footprint area (as calculated in
Section 18.32 above) is designated as commercial space.
J 'f~
SEP 1 2 ZOO~~
Findings of Fact and Conclusio: Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED L ~~ DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 24 of 62
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that since the amount of space at the various ground floor
levels designated as professional offices and retail storefronts is less than 65% of
the ground floor footprint area, a variance is required to allow the residential units
as a special permitted use.
18.100.020 Application
The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such application shall be
accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans and elevations necessary to show
the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and
evidence showing that all of the following circumstances exist:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not
typically apply elsewhere.
Finding: An existing surface parking lot occupies the entire site and provides required
parking for the adjacent hotel use. Any further development of this site must
accommodate the hotel parking requirements, including space for parking and
vehicle movement onto and through the site.
Finding: The project site slopes steeply from Hargadine Street on the west to the Pedestrian
Plaza on the east. Accordingly, the grade at the perimeter of the property
intersects the building at three different levels: Hargadine, First Street, and the
Pedestrian Plaza.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the existing parking use that must be maintained,
and the peculiar topography ofthe site, create unique and unusual circumstances
that essentially restrict the amount of commercial space that can be provided.
Both commercial space and parking areas must be accessible at grade level. Since
the amount of space required by parking is fixed by the hotel use requirements,
the amount of space left for commercial uses is decrease..
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development
of the adjacent uses; and willfurther the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Finding:
The existing surface parking lot lacks the pedestrian amenities and other design
standards that are required by current city development standards. This project
provides a mix of commercial and residential uses, completes an important
pedestrian link, and replaces a marginally beneficial use with a use that provides
much greater esthetic and economic benefit to the downtown area and to the city.
/43
SEP 1 2 2003
Findings of Fact and Conclusio Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED L ~~ DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 25 of 62
Conclusion: As noted elsewhere in this document, this project not only satisfies the particular
requirements of the ALUO, and the Downtown Design Standards, but that it also
furthers one of the stated goals of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and
Downtown Plan by maximizing the development potential of this site through
infill construction. The applicant concludes that this project's benefits will not
only outweigh than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent use,
but also will further the purpose and intent of the ALUO and the Comprehensive
Plan.
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self- imposed.
Finding:
Both the steep slope of the site and its use as a surface parking lot are historical
facts that are well-documented in city records.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that these circumstances are not self-imposed..
3.9 Procedures (18.108)
18.108.160 Ordinance Interpretations
A. When in the administration of the Land Use Ordinance there is doubt regarding its
intent, the suitability of uses not specified or the meaning of a word or phrase, the Staff
Advisor may interpret the provision in writing or refer the provision to the Commission
for interpretation. The Commission shall issue an interpretation in writing to resolve the
doubt. Neither the Staff Advisor's interpretation nor the Commission's shall have the
effect of amending the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. 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.
B. The interpretation of the Staff Advisor shall be forwarded to the Commission who shall
have the authority to modifY the interpretation. The interpretation of the Commission
shall be forwarded to the Council who shall have the authority to modifY the
interpretation. Whenever such an interpretation is of general public interest, copies of
such interpretation shall be made available for public distribution.
Finding:
The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted "gross square footage of
45,000 square feet" as meaning 45,000 square foot footprint, and not the gross
floor area square footage (Planning Action 2000-074). Although council records
indicate considerable discussion on this issue, and a pending ordinance
amendment that would clarify this wording, no further interpretations have been
issued.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this interpretation may be relied upon in submitting
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (this application) for this project.
SEP 1 2 2003
/ H J
1m 11
Findings of Fact and Conclusio Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ~.c: DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
110 11 I 111'1'1
Page 26 of 62
. --
/ ,. ~
/~
t .
. ": p '~ ')
0L ~ ~d 2003
Findings of Fact and Conclusions \w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U. .JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 28 of 62
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
4.1 Ordinance Landscaping Requirements (II-A)
Ordinance Landscaping Requirements
The following percentages of landscaping are required for all properties falling under the Site
Design and Use Standards.
Zone % Landscaping
R-1-3.5 45%
R-2 35%
RJ ~%
C-1 15%
C-1-D 10%
E-1 15%
M-1 10%
These percentages are the minimum required. At times, more landscaping is required to meet
the needs of other sections of the Site Review Ordinance, such as screening of parking areas,
landscaping of setback areas and providing usable outdoor space. In general, all areas which
are not used for building or parking areas are required to be landscaped. You should also be
aware that, as a condition of approval of your project, you will be required to submit a site and
species specific landscape plan to the Planning Division for Staff Advisor approval.
Finding:
The project site is located within the C-I-D zone, and also is subject to the Site
Design and Use Standards. Per the table above, a minimum of 10% landscaped
area is required.
Finding:
The Downtown Design Standards require a zero setback at sidewalks and
property lines, leaving no area available for landscaping
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this requirement is inapplicable. However,
landscaped areas will be provided at the Pedestrian Plaza.
/ ,} ."
'i k--
S[P 1 2 2003
110 11 I 111'1'1
Findings of Fact and Conclusions 'w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U .JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 29 of 62
4.2 Basic Site Review Standards (II-C-l)
Approval Standard: Development in all commercial and employment zones shall conform to the
following development standards:
II-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 functional, and shall be shall be accessed from a public
sidewalk. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street frontage.
Finding:
The primary building entrances for the retail spaces are oriented to First Street
and the new Pedestrian Plaza. Individual entrances for the professional offices
have been oriented toward Hargadine Street, along with the primary entrance
courtyard for the residential units. Existing public sidewalks along Hargadine and
First Streets will be improved to match recent adjacent improvements.
2) Buildings that are within 30 feet of the street shall have an entrance for pedestrians
directly from the street to the building interior. This entrance shall be designed to be
attractive and functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours.
Finding:
Finding:
As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 3.0 through 3.4, and 7.1 through 7.4, the parking
area has been internalized within the structure, and is not visible from any of the
public streets other than the alley.
The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking
"area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building
structures (Planning Action 2000-074).
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the project's orientation and scale, as well as its
arrangement of primary building entrances, address the street and public sidewalk
and therefore satisfy these criteria I) and 2).
II-C-1 b) Streetscape
1) One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet offrontage
for that portion of the development fronting the street.
Finding:
Exhibit 2, drawing L.I - Landscape Plan, indicates that street trees from the
approved list have been provided at least every 30 feet along Hargadine and First
Streets.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the Landscape Plan design complies with this
criterion.
II-C-1 c) Landscaping
1) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90%
coverage occurs after 5 years.
n8 n I 111'1'1
if1
SEP 1 2 2003
Findings of Fact and Conclusions 'w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U~ .JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Finding:
Page 30 of 62
The landscaping plant materials shown on Exhibit 2, Drawing L.I - Landscape
Plan, have been specified at an appropriate size to attain the above listed coverage
amounts.
2) Landscaping design shall use a variety of low water deciduous and evergreen trees and
shrubs and flowering plant species.
Finding: The proposed landscape design uses a variety of low water-use deciduous and
evergreen trees, shrubs, and flowering plant species.
3) Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10 feet in
width, except in the Ashland Historic District. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened
from view from adjacent public rights-ol-way, except in M-l zones. Loadingfacilities
shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land.
Finding:
As per the Downtown Design Standards, the building edge is located adjacent to
the public sidewalks, except at entrances, plaza and seating alcoves. Planter and
container landscaping has been incorporated in the public plazas and entrance
ways. No outdoor storage or loading zones are proposed in this application.
4) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success.
Finding:
An irrigation system is planned for all landscaped areas and is shown on Exhibit
2, Drawing L.2 - Irrigation Plan.
5) Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as
possible.
Finding:
Finding:
The five existing trees are in poor condition as a result of long-term neglect and
lack of irrigation. Additionally, the root structures of some of the trees may have
been compromised as a result of previous grading activities on the site.
As noted in Section 18.61 above, the existing trees are within the zero setback
building line required by the Downtown Design Standards.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the criteria pertaining to landscaping (1 thru 6
above) will be satisfied by the Landscape and Irrigation design included in this
application.
II-C-l d)Parking
1) Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides.
2) Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential
uses and screened from non-residential uses.
no 11
Ii'
! U- ~
I ! IV
SEP 1 2 2003
Findings of Fact and Conclusions w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U~_ .JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Finding:
Finding:
Page 31 of62
As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 1.1 through 1.3, the parking area has been
internalized within the structure and is only visible from the exterior from the
alley.
The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking
"area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building
structures (Planning Action 2000-074).
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that these two criteria are inapplicable due to the fact that
parking is housed within the building structure.
II-C-1 eJDesignated Creek Protection
1) Designated creek protection areas shall be considered design elements and incorporated
in the overall design of a given project.
2) Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance
the creek habitat.
Finding:
The subject property has been previously developed as a parking lot and does not
contain any natural waterways, creek protection areas, or planting materials.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that these two criteria are inapplicable due to the fact that
it does not contain the above-mentioned natural features.
II-C-1f) Noise and Glare
Special attention to glare (AMC18. 72.110) and noise (AMC9. 08.170(c) &AMC 9.08.175) shall
be considered in the project design to insure compliance with these standards.
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
The design of the project includes appropriate measures to prevent undue noise,
including locating the vehicular parking areas within the building structure.
Outdoor mechanical and electrical equipment will be enclosed as required by
code to prevent nuisance noise in the adjacent residential zone.
The design of the project includes appropriate measures to prevent glare
problems, particularly in the fenestration patterns ofthe exterior window glazing.
Outdoor lighting will be specified and shrouded to prevent the direct illumination
of the adjacent residential zone.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the proposed design complies with ordinance
standards pertaining to noise and glare.
II-C-1 gJExvansion of Existing Sites and Buildings
1) For sites which do not conform to these requirements, an equal percentage of the site
must be made to comply with these standards as the percentage of building expansion,
118 n I 111'1'1
SEP 1 2 2003
I 'I' tJ
Findings of Fact and Conclusions \w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED Uv JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 32 of 62
e.g., ifbuilding area is to expand by 25%, then 25% of the site must be brought up to the
standards required by this document.
Finding:
There are no existing buildings on the site.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this criterion is inapplicable due to the fact that the
entire site is being developed.
/50
SEP 1 2 ZOO:~
no n 111'1'1
Findings of Fact and Conclusions \w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED Uc-_ JEVELOPMENT
September 12,2003
Page 33 of 62
4.3 Detail Site Review Standards (II-C-2)
Developments that are within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to complying with
the standards for Basic Site Review, conform to the following standards:
II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale
1) Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio of.35 and shall not exceed a
maximum Floor Area Ratio of.5 for all areas outside the Historic District. Plazas and
pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum floor
area ratio.
Finding:
Finding:
The project site is located within the Historic District.
The Downtown Design Standards require a zero setback to property lines.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this criterion is inapplicable due to the fact that the
project is located in both the Downtown area and in an Historic District.
2) Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other
distinctive changes in the building far;ade.
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
The building frontage is approximately 160 feet on First Street and at the garage
alley, and approximately 127 feet on Hargadine Street and at the Pedestrian Plaza.
As shown in the Elevations (Exhibit 2, Drawings 7.1 through 7.4), a series of
distinctive multi-story vertical projections break up the facades and provide the
appearance of a multi-building development, as required by the Downtown
Design Standards.
Except for arcades, alcoves and other recessed features, offsets and jogs in a
building's fa9ade are discouraged in the Downtown Design Standards, which
mandate a zero setback to property lines.
Vertical fenestration has been integrated into the design to minimize the apparent
length of the building.
The character of the proposed development is consistent with an urban residential
scale and streetscape. A series of architectural forms have been developed which
express the individual living units and retail spaces beyond. Varied roof heights
and parapets also provide distinctive changes to the building's fa9ade.
3) Any wall which is within 30 feet of the street, plaza or other public open space shall
contain at least 20% of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or
doorways. Windows must allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian
entrances or display areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to
110 11 I 111'1'1
/ b~ {
SEP 1 2 200:{
Findings of Fact and Conclusions IW
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U~, JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 34 of 62
40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted from this standard if
oriented toward loading or service areas.
Finding:
As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.4, ample glazing and showcase
windows have been provided in the retail frontages along First Street and the
Pedestrian Plaza in the areas where they are not in conflict with the sidewalk
grade. This glazing comprises well over 20% of the grade level elevation.
4) Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give
emphasis to entrances.
Finding: The applicants have provided a primary entrance for both the residential units and
the parking garage off of First street by incorporating a Pedestrian Plaza to the
Oregon Shakespeare Festival's alley which in turn addresses the public plaza
requirement of the Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects.
Finding: As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 thru 7.3 individual retail entrances on First
Street and the Pedestrian Plaza, and the professional office entrances on
v Hargadine Street have been recessed and defined by protective elements
(awnings, balconies and canopies) to enhance a sense of entry, provide additional
public seating and ultimately provide architectural relief along the pedestrian
fronts.
5) Infill of buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged
and desirable.
Finding:
This application specifically addresses this requirement for redevelopment of
under-utilized parking areas. The existing site is an asphalt parking lot with no
landscaping, and adjacent to two public sidewalks.
Finding:
This project would infill the airspace above this site, consistent with the
Downtown Development Standards, resulting in a screened parking lot and
additional commercial and residential space in the downtown area.
6) Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awnings that protect
pedestrians from the rain and sun.
Finding: As shown on the Elevations (Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.4), a series of
protective awnings, balconies and canopies have been introduced that will provide
pedestrian protection from the rain and sun, while defining entrances to retail and
commercial spaces.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project not only satisfies these particular
Detail Site Review criteria 2) thru 6) above, but that it also furthers one of
the stated goals of the Ashland Downtown Plan by maximizing the
development potential of the site through in fill construction.
/ 5--:J-
SEP 1 2 2003
Findings of Fact and Conclusions \w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U~_ JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 35 of 62
II-C-2b) StreetscaTJe
1) Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample
materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or
combinations of the above.
Finding:
A public Pedestrian Plaza area has been provided. The paving in this area is a
combination of patterned concrete and inset pavers. Raised concrete planters
provide designated landscape areas and providing public seating areas.
2) A building shall be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area
is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. If more than one
structure is proposed for a site, at least 25% of the aggregate buildingfrontage shall be
within 20 feet of the sidewalk.
Finding: The building setback is adjacent to the public pathways, with a few exceptions at
required entry alcoves and sitting areas, along the First Street and Hargadine and
alley edges. The building has been set back further along the Ashland Springs
Hotel edge to address the Large Scale Project Standard setback requirements, and
to provide a Pedestrian Plaza. This plaza links the existing pedestrian path behind
the New Theatre with the one proposed for the area behind Earthly Goods,
completing an important pedestrian pathway through the downtown area.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project not only provides appropriate
"people spaces" and ample opportunities for pedestrian activities, but that it
also furthers one of the stated goals of the Ashland Downtown Plan by
improving pedestrian traffic flow through the downtown area.
II-C-2c) Parking & On-site Circulation
1) Protected, raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of 50 or more spaces
or more than 100 feet in average width or depth.
2) Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas and divided by
landscaped areas or walkways at least 10 feet in width, or by a building or group of
buildings.
Finding:
None of the parking areas contain more than 50 spaces per floor level.
Finding:
Due to the configuration of the project, the structured parking is not used for
pedestrian circulation through the site.
Finding:
The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking
"area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building
structures (Planning Action 2000-074).
,.. ~)
:.\ ,,::;;.
SEP 1 2 2003
118 11
Findings of Fact and Conclusions w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U~., JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 36 of 62
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that these two criteria are inapplicable due to the fact that
the parking is provided within a parking structure, not in a surface lot.
3) Developments of one acre or more must provide a pedestrian and bicycle circulation
plan for the site. On-site pedestrian walkways must be lighted to a level where the system
can be used at night by employees, residents and customers. Pedestrian walkways shall
be directly linked to entrances and the internal circulation of the building.
Finding:
Finding:
The project site contains less than one acre.
A pedestrian plaza / walkway has been provided in accordance with the
Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. This Plaza is connected to the
public streets and sidewalks and thereby provides access to all building entrances.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the Pedestrian Plaza meets the criteria for 'on-site
pedestrian walkways' .
II-C-2d)BufJering and Screening
1) Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an
adjacent lot. Those buffers can consist of either plant material or building materials and
must be compatible with proposed buildings.
Finding:
Each edge of the proposed development has been designed to respond to the
adjacent neighboring uses. The First Street edge reflects the retail uses found at
grade level across the street and throughout the downtown area. The Hargadine
Edge reflects the professional office uses and second story residential uses found
throughout the downtown area. The alley edge reflects the parking structure
across the alley, and the Ashland Springs Hotel edge has introduced retail
functions that relate to the new Pedestrian Plaza.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this criterion is inapplicable because no none of the
uses on adjacent lots are incompatible with this proposed development.
2) Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets and screened from
residentially zoned land.
Finding:
Finding:
118 n ' 111'1'1
The proposed structured parking areas are completely enclosed within the
building structure and are screened by architectural grilles.
The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking
"area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building
structures (Planning Action 2000-074).
/ I; '-I
i -
SEP 1 22003
Findings of Fact and Conclusions w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U~_ JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 37 of62
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this criterion is inapplicable due to the fact that
parking is provided within a parking structure, not in a surface lot. Nonetheless,
the parking areas are properly screened from adjacent streets or from residential
areas.
II-C-2e) LightinJ!
1) Lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians by including light
standards or placements of no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian pathways.
Finding:
Lighting will be designed and engineered to provide sufficient pedestrian
illumination through the use of light standards, wall mounted sconces, and
recessed down lighting. No light standards will exceed 14 feet and light overflow
will be minimized by appropriate screening.
II-C-2f) BuildinJ! Materials
1) Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases,fenestration,fluted
masonry, for at least 15% of the exterior wall area.
2) Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are
prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin.
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
The Elevations (Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.4) show that the exterior
materials will provide appropriate color differentiation to enhance the varying
building forms, but bright garish colors will not be utilized. Glass has not been
used as a primary building surface.
The following materials have been integrated into the overall design aesthetic:
concrete, smooth plaster, natural stone, and brick.
Windows and door openings have been detailed with appropriate raised plaster
surrounds. Plaster panels have been articulated with patterned control jointing,
cornices and edge projections have been defined with precast watertable details.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the variety of surfaces, heights, and complimentary
materials have been designed and specified to create an urban imagery compatible
and in context with the materials and design details found in the downtown core.
118 11 I 111'1'1
,} jl
I
_ x '.)
SEP 1 2 2003
Findings of Fact and Conclusions w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U~L JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 38 of62
4.4 Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects (II-C-3)
Developments (1) involving a gross floor area in excess of 1 0,000 square feet or a building
frontage in excess of 1 00 feet in length, (2) located within the Detail Site review Zone, shall, in
addition to complying with the standards for Basic and Detail Site Review, shall conform to the
following standards:
II-C-3a) Orientation and Scale
1) Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to
human scale by incorporating changes in building mass or direction, sheltering roofs, a
distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting.
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
The building's distinctive multi-story vertical projections break up the facade and
create the appearance of a multi-building development, as required by the
Downtown Design Standards. Vertical fenestration has been integrated into the
design. The character of the proposed development is consistent with an urban
residential scale and streetscape. A series of architectural forms have been created
to help express individual living units and retail spaces.
A strong control joint articulation and the alignment of the window mullions help
bond the pattern horizontally (within the vertical windows) and define the interior
functions. Differentiating colors and materials help highlight the various surfaces
and design features. The street level retail spaces feature large expanses of clear
display glazing, while the residential fenestration above has been defined by the
use of mullion divisions.
A residential scale has been maintained along the Hargadine Street edge.
Individual unit entrances are located slightly above the existing sidewalk
elevation. This street frontage has been articulated to break up the overall
massing by recessing portions of the upper level back from the street level units.
This articulation creates private outdoor living space for the upper units while
reducing the overall impact of the building along the pedestrian pathway and the
scale of the building face from the neighbors across the street.
Street trees have been introduced to the sidewalks along Hargadine and First
Street. Additional treescape has been incorporated into the new Pedestrian Plaza.
New light standards have been designed throughout the public plaza. Wall
lighting at retail entrances, seating alcoves and under canopies provides additional
human scale illumination.
2) No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings shall exceed a gross square footage
of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. 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.
, 'C/f"
( ::...J \,('>
,."~' 'i
~) t, l" .II~
'l 7 mn
Findings of Fact and Conclusions w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U~~ JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Page 39 of 62
The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted "gross square footage of
45,000 square feet" as meaning 45,000 square foot footprint, and not the gross
floor area square footage (Planning Action 2000-074).
On August 19,2003, the Ashland City council approved (with modifications) the
First Reading of a proposed Ordinance amending Detail Site Review Zone
Standards for Large Buildings (see Exhibit 6). This proposed ordinance limits the
size of buildings in the Downtown Design Standards zone to 45,000 gross floor
area, not including "under-structure" parking.
This project contains two floors of commercial and residential units located on top
of a parking structure that contains 2 Y2 floors of enclosed parking spaces. This
parking structure also contains some retail storefronts, as required by the AULa
and the Site Use and Design Standards.
According to the previous interpretation of the City Council, the calculated size of
the proposed building is 19,937 square feet (gross square footage footprint size).
According to the proposed ordinance amendment, the calculated size of the
proposed building is 39,303 square feet (gross floor area not including enclosed
parking spaces).
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project is subject to review under the Type 2
procedure and the Detail Site Review standards.
Conclusion: The applicant further concludes that, according to both the interpretation of the
City Council and the proposed ordinance amendment, this project complies with
the size limitation outlined in criterion C above.
3) Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the
height of the tallest building. Ifbuildings are more than 240 feet in length, the separation
shall be 60 feet.
Finding:
Finding:
The applicant is requesting an exception to this requirement based on Section V1-
K.1 of the Downtown Design Standards. This site is unique due to the fact it is
located adjacent to the tallest building in Ashland. The tower of the Ashland
Springs Hotel stands approximately 120 feet tall. The subject parcel as shown in
Exhibits 2 and 3 is approximately 140 feet x 195 feet.
For this property to provide any residential development, or any use other than the
existing surface parking lot, the hotel parking will have to be incorporated into the
design. This parking square footage automatically becomes "building area". This
I-C)?
. , L I ~/,. 2"" [J 0 ',J,.
,~tr ~ "
Findings of Fact and Conclusions w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U~_ .JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 40 of 62
alone, along with the required 65% permitted use necessitates a building area that
would exceed the maximum allowable.
Finding: If the setback from the property line is required to be 120 feet due to the height of
the tower, more than sixty percent ofthe site is absorbed by setback. When this is
combined with the extreme topographical variation of the property, the site then
becomes un-buildable for any use other than commercial, which in turn would
have to be located along the Hargadine residential edge.
Finding: If the 120 foot setback is initiated from the base of the tower, this leaves a
reasonable buildable area. The building heights of the existing hotel adjacent to
the subj ect parcel vary from a few feet above finished grade to approximately 25
feet. The building setback shown in this application is based on a set back from
the base of the tower.
Conclusion: With the topography change, the lowered height of the surrounding hotel, the
massing of the proposed development, and the introduction of the
pub1icIPedestrian Plaza as a buffer, the applicant concludes that the intent of the
ordinance to limit uninterrupted mass has been achieved. The setback as shown
on the Elevations (Exhibit 2, drawing 7.1 through 7.4) complies with this
interpretation.
4) All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate a streetscape which includes curbs,
sidewalks, pedestrian scale light standards, and street trees.
Finding:
The new public plaza and the existing sidewalks have been enhanced by the
introduction of the street trees, landscaping, seating amenities and lighting as
demonstrated in the drawings in Exhibit 2 and described above.
II-C-3b) Public Svaces
1) One square foot of plaza or public space shall be required for every 10 square feet of
gross floor area.
Finding:
The existing parking lot is not landscaped, nor does it provide any public plaza.
The gross floor area building footprint is 19,633 square feet. A new 2,359 square
foot public plaza has been integrated into the design. The new plaza area
represents 12.0 % of the proposed building footprint.
2) A plaza or public spaces shall incorporate at least 4 of the 6 following elements:
Finding:
a)
Sitting Space - at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet shall be
included in the plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of16 inches in height and 30
inches in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum depth of 30 inches.
Approximately 40 sitting spaces have been provided in the Pedestrian Plaza. This
equates to 1 space for every 490 square feet of building footprint.
/6<?
S' E- P 'j: ,) ,.", no'~,'
, Jl:.., to. .:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U~_, JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Finding:
Page 41 of62
b)
A mixture of areas that provide both Sunlight & Shade
The building entrances and overhangs, and the seating areas located beneath trees
provide opportunities for shade.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that a mixture of sunlight and shaded areas has been
provided.
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
c)
Protection from wind by screens and buildings.
The plaza is inherently protected from the wind from the North and South by both
the existing hotel and the proposed structure. Alcoves within the plaza, adjacent
to the building provide some East/West screening.
d)
Trees - provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of 1 tree per 800 square
feet, at breast height.
Four trees have been provided in the public plaza, this equates to 1 tree per 590
square feet of plaza area.
e)
Water features or public art.
As shown in Exhibit 2, drawing L.l - Landscape Plan, two water features have
been incorporated into the public Plaza.
f)
Outdoor Eating Areas or Food Vendors.
An area has been allocated for a coffee or snack vendor, within the retail space
adjacent to the new public plaza.
II-C-3c) Transit Amenities
1) Transit amenities, bus shelters, pullouts and designated bike lanes shall be required in
accordance with the City's Transportation Plan and guidelines established by the Rogue
Valley Transportation District.
Finding:
East Main Street is a City arterial street, and has bus shelters, pullouts, and bike
lanes located appropriately.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this requirement has been met by existing features
found in the immediate downtown vicinity.
II-C-3d) Recvcling
1) Recycling areas shall be provided at all developments.
SEP 1 2 2003
I J;)'''' (J'
. ..~,'" .
Findings of Fact and Conclusions C N
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USl:- JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 42 of 62
As shown in Exhibit 2, Drawing 3.0 - Conservatory Level Plan, a trash and recycling enclosure
has been provided on the lower level parking area adjacent to the alley.
t .i~
, "
(,.'1
Findings of Fact and Conclusions c IV
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED US!:' JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 43 of 62
4.5 Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards (II-D)
Approval Standard: All parking lots, which for purposes of this section include areas of vehicle
maneuvering, parking, and loading shall be landscaped and screened as follows:
II-D-J) Screening at Required Yards
1) Parking abutting a required landscaped front or exterior yard shall incorporate a sight
obscuring hedge screen into the required landscaped yard.
2) The screen shall grow to be at least 36 inches higher than thefin ish ed grade of the
parking area, except for required vision clearance areas.
3) The screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and plant
materials.
4) Elevated parking lots shall screen both the parking and the retaining wall.
Finding: The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking
"area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building
structures (Planning Action 2000-074).
Conclusion: With regards to items #1 through #4 above, it is the applicant's opinion these
criteria are inapplicable by reason that this application does not involve an onsite
parking lot, nor are there any required landscaped yards adjacent to the parking
areas.
II-D-2) Screening Abutting Propertv Lines
1) Parking abutting a property line shall be screened by a 5 feet landscaped strip. Where a
buffer between zones is required, the screening shall be incorporated into the required
buffer strip, and will not be an additional requirement.
Finding: The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking
"area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building
structures (Planning Action 2000-074).
Conclusion: It is the applicant's opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this
application does not involve an onsite parking lot, nor are there any required
landscaped yards adjacent to the parking areas.
II-D-3) Landscape Standards:
1) Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 7% of the total parking area plus a
ratio of 1 tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect.
2) The tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be selected
from the street tree list to avoid root damage to pavement and utilities, and damage from
droppings to parked cars and pedestrians.
/6/
118 11 I 1"'1'1
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USe iJEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 44 of 62
3) The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least 2 feet
from any curb or paved area.
4) The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and/or living ground cover to assure
50% coverage within 1 year and 90% within 5 years. Landscaped areas shall be evenly
distributed throughout the parking area and parking perimeter at the required ratio.
5) That portion of a required landscaped yard, buffer strip or screening strip abutting
parking stalls may be counted toward required parking lot landscaping but only for those
stalls abutting landscaping as long as the tree species, living plant material coverage and
placement distribution criteria are also met. Front or exterior yard landscaping may not
be substituted for the interior parking stalls.
Finding: The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking
"area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building
structures (Planning Action 2000-074).
Conclusion: With regards to items #1 through #6 above, it is the applicant's opinion these
criteria are inapplicable by reason that this application does not provide an onsite
parking lot, the parking provided is housed within a parking garage, and screened
from view by alternate building functions. Landscape is not appropriate within
the parking structure.
II-D-4) Residential Screening
1) Parking areas adjacent to a residential dwelling shall be set back at least 8 feet from the
building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen.
Finding:
Parking is located within the structure, and below the living units, not adjacent to
them.
Conclusion: It is the applicant's opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this
application does not provide parking adjacent to the residential units.
II-D-5) Hedze Screening
The required hedge screen shall be installed as follows:
1) Evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that 50% of the desired screening is achieved
within 2 years, 100% within 4 years.
2) Living groundcover in the screen strip shall be planted such that 100% coverage is
achieved within 2 years.
Finding:
The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking
"area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building
structures (Planning Action 2000-074).
/t ;L
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED US!:' JJEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 45 of 62
Conclusion: With regard to items # 1 and #2 above, it is the applicant's opinion these criteria
are inapplicable by reason that this application does not produce the need to
utilize landscape as a screen for the parking area. The parking structure has been
internalized within the building core and is surrounded by retail space.
II-D-6) Other Screening
1) Other screening and buffering shall be provided as follows:
Refuse Container Screen: Refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screened from
view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall from five to eight feet in height.
All refuse materials shall be contained within the refuse area.
Finding:
As shown in Exhibit 2, drawing 3.0 - Conservatory Plan, the trash / recycling area
has been screened from public view by 6 feet masonry walls.
Service Corridor Screen: When adjacent to residential uses, commercial and industrial
service areas shall reduce the adverse effects of noise, odor and visual clutter upon
adjacent residential uses.
Finding:
It is the applicant's opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this
application does not locate any service corridors adjacent to residential uses.
Light and Glare Screen: Artificial lighting shall be so arranged and constructed as to not
produce direct glare on adjacent residential properties or streets.
Finding:
All lighting will be engineered with the appropriate screening and orientation as
to prevent direct glare on adjacent residential properties and streets.
I ~-3
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USe JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 46 of 62
4.6 Street Tree Standards (II-E)
APPROVAL STANDARD: All development fronting on public or private streets shall be required
to plant street trees in accordance with the following standards and chosen from the
recommended list of street trees found in this section.
II-E-1) Location for Street Trees
1) Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a
designated planting strip in the right of-way, or the sidewalk is greater shall include
irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the standard established by the
Department of Community Development.
Finding:
The street trees are located in a planting strip in the right-of-way.
II-E-2) Spacing. Placement. and Pruning of Street Trees
All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which may, for reasons such as
safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff
Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as
follows:
a) Street trees shall be placed the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees
shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site
limitations, such as driveway approaches.
Finding:
Street trees are provided at the rate of one tree per 30 feet along First Street, and
one tree per 20 feet along Hargadine Street.
b) Trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of in tersect ions of streets
or alleys, and not closer than 10 feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge
of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles.
Finding:
All trees shall be located at least 25 feet from the intersection of First and
Hargadine Streets, and at least 25 feet from the intersection of Hargadine Street
and the parking garage alley.
c) Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public
safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than 10 feet to any
existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant.
Finding:
All trees shall be located at least 20 from existing light standards.
d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2~ feet from the face of the curb except at
intersections where it shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area.
Finding:
All trees shall be located at least 5 feet from the face of the curb.
i,>
/ f 4,,-
I ,,"'1
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( N
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED UStJ JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 47 of62
e) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not
interfere with those lines.
Finding:
All tree species will be selected to avoid interference with existing overhead
utility lines.
j) Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard surface paving or
walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least 10 square feet, however,
larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root
system and add to the health of the tree. Space between the tree and such hard surface
may be covered by permeable non-permanent hard surfaces such as grates, bricks on
sand, or paver blocks.
Finding:
All sidewalk cuts for trees shall be at least lO square feet.
g) Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of clearance above
sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces.
Finding:
Trees will be pruned to maintain required minimum clearances above sidewalks
and roadways.
h) Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from the
development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation
may be utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor.
Finding:
The existing trees, which were not planted intentionally but sprang up in the strip
between the sidewalk and the existing surface parking lot, are in poor health and
likely will not survive the stress imposed by development of the property.
II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees
Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer with
those from the approved street tree list. The replacement trees shall be of size and species
similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor.
Finding:
The existing trees will be replaced with trees from the approved list (see Exhibit
2, Drawing L1.l - Planting Plan), and will be of an approved size and species.
II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees
Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission.
Finding:
The trees shown on this project (see Exhibit 2, Drawing Ll.l - Planting Plan)
have been selected from the approved street tree list.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the street trees shown on this project conform with
all street tree development standards.
'" ~ ''t.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( IV
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED US!:: JEVELOPMENT
September] 2, 2003
Page 48 of 62
4.7 Historic District Design Standards (IV-C)
In addition to the standards found in Section 11, the following standards will be used by the
Planning and Historic Commissions for new development and renovation of existing structures
within the Historic District:
IV-C-l) Construct buildings to a height of existing buildings from the historic period on and
across the street. Avoid construction that greatly varies in height (too high or too low)
from older buildings in the vicinity.
Finding:
The height of the new building is similar in height to adjacent historic buildings
(not including the tower of the Ashland Springs Hotel).
IV-C-2) Relate the size and proportions of new structures to the scale of adjacent buildings.
Avoid buildings that violate the existing scale of the area, in height, width or massing.
Finding: The scale of the new building is similar to adjacent buildings, and is typical of
buildings in the downtown area.
IV-C-3) Break up uninteresting boxlike forms into smaller, varied masses which are common on
most buildings from the historic period. Avoid single, monolithic forms that are not
relieved by variations in massing.
Finding: The mass of the building has been articulated and broken up into a number of
smaller masses that are similar to adjacent historic buildings.
IV-C-4) Maintain the historic fat;ade lines of streets capes by locating front walls of new
buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. Avoid violating the
existing setback pattern by placing new buildings in front or behind the historic far;ade
line.
Finding: The front wall of the building on both First and Hargadine Street matches the
fayade lines of adjacent buildings.
IV-C-5) Relate the new roofforms of the building to those found in the area. Avoid introducing
roof shapes, pitches or materials not traditionally used in the area.
Finding: The new building has a flat roof behind a parapet, which matches adjacent
buildings and buildings typically found in the downtown area.
IV-C-6) Respect the alternation of wall areas with door and window elements in the fat;ade.
Also consider the width-to-height ratio of bays in the fat;ade. Avoid introducing
incompatible far;ade patterns that upset the rhythm of openings established by the
surrounding structures.
/ '" .
/~,?
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( N
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED US!::' JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 49 of 62
Finding: The fa<;ade has a traditional, vertically oriented pattern that mimics the pattern of
other buildings in the downtown area. The proportion of wall to glazing also is
similar to neighboring buildings, and glass areas are recessed slightly to create a
shadow line. The openings align with, and repeat the rhythm of, those found on
the neighboring Ashland Springs Hotel. A segmented arch is used to tie these
elements together and continue the rhythm of the adjacent buildings.
IV-C-7) The use of a raised platform is a traditional siting characteristic of most of the older
buildings in Ashland. Avoid bringing the walls of buildings straight out of the ground
without a sense of platform.
Finding: The base of the building, which contains the parking areas and some retail
storefronts, clearly reads as a "base". To prevent a monolithic appearance, this
portion of the building is articulated in a fashion similar to the rest of the building,
including openings into the parking garage on the alley facade that resemble the
window openings.
IV-C-8) Relate the vertical, horizontal or non-directional fQ(;ade character of new buildings to
the predominant directional expression of nearby buildings. Avoid horizontal or
vertical fQ(;ade expressions, unless they are compatible with the character of structures
in the immediate area.
Finding: Like the adjacent hotel annex and the buildings on the opposite side of the street,
the building mass has a primarily horizontal orientation. As stated above, this
mass is articulated into vertical bays, similar to neighboring buildings.
IV-C-9) Articulate the main entrances to the building with covered porches, porticos and other
pronounced architectural forms. Avoid facades with no strong sense of entry.
Finding:
The main entrances, including the entrances to the pedestrian plaza, are expressed
through canopies, awnings, and marquees to provide a clear sense of entry for
both vehicles and pedestrians.
IV-C-IO) Utilize accurate restoration of, or visually compatible additions to, existing buildings.
For new construction, traditional architecture that well represents our own time, yet
enhances the nature and character of the historic district should be used. Avoid
replicating or imitating the styles, motifs or details of older periods. Such attempts are
rarely successful and, even if well done, present a confusing picture of the true
character of the historical area.
Finding:
The new building features a fa<;ade design that complements the neighboring
buildings, especially the historic Ashland Springs Hotel. The use of strongly
expressed vertical bays with segmented arches at the top, acts as a visual cue to
surrounding buildings, while still expressing this building.
/ t, 7
1m n
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED US!:' tJEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 50 of 62
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the height, scale, massing, proportion, and fayade
articulation of the new building complies with the downtown design standards, as
shown on Exhibit 2, Drawings 7.1 through 7.3 - Elevations.
I ~ t/'
1m.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USh iJEVELOPMENT
September 12,2003
Page 51 of62
4.8 Approval Criteria for Downtown Development (VI-l through VI-6)
VI-i) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited
Finding:
The pedestrian pathway (public sidewalk) along the First Street edge has been
buffered from the parking garage by retail space. The pedestrian pathway along
Hargadine Street is lined with residential entrances and living spaces to reflect the
existing residential edge across the street. The parking garage does open up for
means of pedestrian entrance and egress to the new public plaza space to be
located along the existing hotel edge of the development. No pedestrian pathway
is currently located along the existing alley edge. This is primarily a vehicle
access route. The garage is proposed to open to the alley way for ventilation and
is consistent with the existing use across the way.
Vl-2) Pedestrian amenities such as a broad sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticos,
awnings, and sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible.
Finding:
The existing sidewalks are to be widened to align with the recently improved
Oregon Shakespeare Festival's sidewalk along Hargadine, and the Ashland
Springs Hotel's sidewalk along First Street. Sidewalk seating has been integrated
into the new public plaza, and at rest areas at 1/3 points along the First Street
incline. Retail entrances have been recessed, creating additional alcoves along
First Street. Awnings and architectural features define entrances and provide
weather protection to the pedestrian pathway.
Vi-3) Weather protection on adjacent key pedestrian paths are required by all new
developments.
Finding:
Weather protection has been provided by means of awnings and architectural
projections, as previously defined in section Vl-2 above.
Vi-4) Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians shall be provided adjacent to the
sidewalk. Blank walls adjacent to sidewalks are prohibited.
Finding:
As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.4, ample glazing and showcase
windows have been provided in the retail frontages along First street and the
Pedestrian Plaza in the areas where they are not in conflict with the existing
grade.
Vi-5) Two-story development is encouraged downtown, with the second stories in commercial,
residential, or parking uses.
Finding:
Based upon Exhibits 2 and Exhibits 3 the existing grade and topography of the
site requires this development to respond to the varying grade changes.
Inherently, this has resulted in a multi-story solution. The 3 level parking
.t
" ;
-Ii <..
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USi:. JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 52 of 62
structure has utilized grade entrance points from First Street and the alley,
allowing the upper two levels of residential units to be slightly above grade on
Hargadine, addressing the requirement for entrances to be above adjacent walk
elevations.
Vl-6) Uses which are exclusively automotive such as services 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.
Conclusion: It is the applicants opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this
application does not create new automotive related uses, rather it internalizes
existing hotel parking currently housed on an above grade asphalt covered highly
visible parking lot.
; ..." ,
*
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED US!::. JEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 53 of 62
4.9 Downtown Design Standards (VI-A through VI-K)
VI-A) Heizht
1) Building height shall vary from adjacent buildings, using either "stepped" parapets or
slightly dissimilar overall height to maintain the traditional "staggered" street scape
appearance. An exception to this standard would be buildings that have a distinctive
vertical divisionlfacade treatment that "visually" separates it from adjacent buildings.
Finding:
As shown on Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.4, the applicants have shown that
no portion of the building will exceed the maximum 40'-0" as required by ALUa
Section 18.32.050 "D" (B). The proposed building elevations have been
articulated with stepped parapets and varying overall heights to break up both the
roof lines and the building surfaces. Building cornices have been architecturally
detailed and varied to further break up the massing and scale.
2) Multi-story development is encouraged in the downtown.
Finding:
Based upon Exhibits 2 and Exhibits 3, the existing grade and topography of the
site requires this development to respond to the varying grade changes.
Inherently, this has resulted in a multi-story solution. The three level parking
structure has utilized grade entrance points from First Street and the alley,
allowing the upper two levels of residential units to be slightly above grade on
Hargadine, addressing the requirement for entrances to be above adjacent walk
elevations.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the building, particularly its multi-story
nature, complies with the criteria regarding height.
VI-B) Setback
1) Except for arcades, alcoves and other recessed features, buildings shall maintain a zero
setback from the sidewalk or property line. Areas having public utility easements or
similar restricting conditions shall be exempt from this standard.
Finding:
The building fayade maintains a direct property line adjacency except where
entrances, public plazas and pathways, have been incorporated as a response to
city required design criteria.
2) Ground level entries are encouraged to be recessed from the public right-of-way to
create a "sense of entry" through design or use of materials.
Finding:
1m.
The design incorporates a primary entrance for the residential units, the retail
storefronts, and the parking areas off of First street through the use of a Pedestrian
Plaza adjacent to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival's pedestrian pathway. This
plaza addresses the public plaza requirement of ALUO 11-C-3b. As shown in
Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.3, individual retail entrances along First Street,
the Pedestrian Plaza and the residential entrances along Hargadine have been
/ rl
I ./
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED US]:: 0EVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 54 of 62
recessed to enhance a sense of entry, provide additional public seating and
ultimately provide architectural relief along pedestrian fronts.
3) Recessed or projecting balconies, verandas or other useable space above the ground
level on existing and new buildings shall not be incorporated in a street facing elevation.
Finding: This project is a mixed-use project that includes residential units above
commercial enterprises, in keeping with the stated goals of the City of Ashland's
Downtown Plan.
Finding: While the subject property is "downtown", it is not contiguous to a row of
existing buildings where a continuation of prominent storefront architecture is at
issue. This building addresses the design standards that meet the requirements of
the downtown core in terms of massing, roof articulation, setback and commercial
frontages.
Finding: Certain elements of the city's Multi-Family Residential Development Design
Standards have been incorporated into the project, to enhance the livability of the
residential units and to introduce additional outside private spaces. Terraces and
balconies have been integrated into the upper levels of the First Street and
Pedestrian Plaza facades.
Finding: A large terrace has been incorporated into the design as an element to both define
and buffer the impact of the vehicular entrance on First Street. Smaller terraces
help to differentiate between residential units, and provide space for additional
landscape integration. These terraces also differentiate between the ground and
upper levels, as required in section VI-E2 of the Downtown Design Standards.
The detailing of these terraces, with wrought iron railings similar to those found
on other downtown buildings, articulates the fayade and reduces the massing of
the building, in keeping with numerous other design standards for projects in the
Downtown area and the Historic District.
Conclusion: Based on the mixed-use nature of this project, and based on the findings outlined
above, the applicant concludes that an exception to this particular criterion is
required, based on Section VI-K of the Downtown Design Standards (see below).
The applicant requests this exception based on the applicant's understanding that
this criterion was intended for buildings fronting Main Street and the Plaza.
VI-C) Width
1) The width of a building shall extend from side lot line to side lot line. An exception to this
standard would be an area specifically designed as plaza space, courtyard space, dining
space or rear access for pedestrian walkways.
Finding:
The footprint as shown on Exhibit 2, drawing 1.X clearly shows the extent of the
building has been extended to maximum property bounds not constrained by
public access easements or pathways, with the exception of the property line
/7~
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( N
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USi:- tJEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 55 of 62
immediately adjacent to the Ashland Springs Hotel. The new public Pedestrian
Plaza it proposed to be located between the new development and the existing
hotel.
2) Lots greater than 80 feet in width shall respect the traditional width of buildings in the
downtown area by incorporating a rhythmic division of the facade in the building's
design.
Finding:
This lot is greater than 80 feet in width and is subject to this criterion. As shown
in Exhibit 2, Drawings 7.1 through 7.3 - Elevations, the distinctive multi-story
vertical projections, help break up the frontage to provide an appearance of a
multi-building development as required by Section V1-C of the Site Design and
Use Standards. Vertical fenestration has been integrated into the design. The
character of the proposed development is consistent with an urban residential
scale and streetscape. A series of architectural forms have been developed to help
express individual living units and retail spaces.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the building complies with the criteria
regarding building width.
VI-D) Openinf!s
1) Ground level elevations facing a street shall maintain a consistent proportion of
transparency (i.e., windows) compatible with the pattern found in the downtown area.
Finding:
As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.4, ample glazing and showcase
windows have been provided in the retail frontages along First street and the
Pedestrian Plaza in the areas where they are not in conflict with the existing
grade.
2) Scale and proportion of altered or added building elements, such as the size and
relationship of new windows, doors, entrances, columns and other building features shall
be visually compatible with the original architectural character of the building.
Finding:
It is the applicant's opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this
application does not alter or add to existing buildings on adjacent lots. This
application is for a new building, however, the design of the new building does
incorporate architectural details compatible with, and complementary to, the
existing hotel.
3) Upper floor window orientation shall primarily be vertical (height greater than width).
Finding:
As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.3, the majority of the fenestration
has been oriented vertically, with greater height than width.
4) Except for transom windows, windows shall not break the front plane of the building.
/1J
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USe DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Finding:
Page 56 of 62
Windows have been configured to open inward, or open as double hung units and
do not break the front plane of the building.
5) Ground level entry doors shall be primarily transparent.
Finding:
Glass entrance doors have been provided for the ground level commercial/retail
entrances along First Street and the Pedestrian Plaza. Solid doors have been
provided for the Hargadine Street residential entrances.
6) Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians such as decorative columns or
decorative corbeling shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. Blank walls adjacent to
a public sidewalk is prohibited.
Finding:
Wall areas in residual spaces created by the sidewalk elevation changes on the
First Street edge have been treated as a stone base with appropriate control
jointing and design detailing.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the building complies with the criteria
regarding door and window openings.
VI-E) Horizontal Rhvthms
1) Prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's street-front shall be
maintained.
Finding:
Due to the extreme topographical change of level along the First street edge, a
stair stepped base has been provided to transition between the multiple "ground"
levels. A strong control joint articulation and the alignment of the window
mullions help bond the pattern horizontally (within the vertical windows) and
define the interior functions. Differentiating color and materials help define the
various surfaces and design features. The street level retail, implements the use of
clear display glazing, while the residential fenestration above has been broken up
by lite divisions.
2) A clear visual division shall be maintained between ground level floor and upper floors.
3) Buildings shall provide a foundation or base, typically from ground to the bottom of the
lower window sills, with changes in volume or material, in order to give the building a
"sense of strength ".
Finding:
111111
Regarding items 2 and 3, As defined in the response to item # 1 above, and shown
in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.4, the stair stepped base, which houses the on
grade retail elements while screening the parking structure, has integrated a stone
base, large retail display windows and entrances. The upper floor finish material
changes to plaster and changes colors. The fenestration changes to vertical
proportions, with divided lites. Garden terraces and balconies help differentiate
the residential zones of this development.
/ 1 f
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED US!:;' DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 57 of 62
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the building complies with the criteria
regarding horizontal rhythm of the facade.
VI-F) Vertical Rhvthms
1) New construction or storefront remodels shall reflect a vertical orientation, either
through actual volumes or the use of surface details to divide large walls, so as to reflect
the underlying historic property lines.
Finding:
As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.4, the distinctive multi-story
vertical projections, help break up the frontage to provide an appearance of a
multi-building development as required by Section Vl-C of the Site Design and
Use Standards. Vertical fenestration has been integrated into the design. The
character of the proposed development is consistent with an urban residential
scale and streetscape. A series of architectural forms have been developed to help
express individual living units and retail spaces.
2) Storefront remodeling or upper-story additions shall reflect the traditional structural
system of the volume by matching the spacing and rhythm of historic openings and
surface detailing.
Finding:
It is the applicant's opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this
application does not alter or add to existing buildings. .
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the building complies with the criteria
regarding vertical rhythm.
VI-G) Roof Forms
1) Sloped or residential style roof forms are discouraged in the downtown area unless
visually screened from the right-of-way by either a parapet or a false front. The false
front shall incorporate a well defined cornice line or "cap" along all primary elevations.
Finding:
It is the applicant's opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this
application does not incorporate sloped roofs.
VI-H) Materials
1) Exterior building materials shall consist of traditional building materials found in the
downtown area including block, brick, painted wood, smooth stucco, or natural stone.
Finding:
As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.3 the following materials have
been integrated into the overall design aesthetic: concrete, smooth plaster, natural
stone and brick.
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.
1m 11 '111'1'1
/7~
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED US!:: DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Finding:
Page 58 of62
As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.3, multiple surfaces, varying
heights and complimentary materials have been designed and specified to create
an urban imagery compatible and in context with the materials and design
detailing found in the downtown core. Windows and door openings have been
detailed with appropriate raised plaster surrounds. Plaster panels have been
articulated with patterned control jointing, cornices and edge projections have
been defined with precast watertable detailing.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the building complies with the criteria
regarding suitable materials.
VI-I) AwninJ!s, Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters
1) Awnings, marquee 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, awning placement shall be placed below the mezzanine or transom
windows where feasible.
Finding:
As indicated on Exhibit 2, Drawings 7.1 through 7.3 - Elevations, the primary
pedestrian and vehicular entrances are articulated by glass and steel marquees that
complement, rather than obscure, the design and detailing of the building. These
marquees are proportional to the entrance that they designate, and the materials
allow light to filter through, further highlighting the entrance below.
2) Except for marquees - similar pedestrian shelters such as awnings shall be placed
between pilasters.
Finding:
Where used, awnings are of a small scale and are located between pilasters.
Marquees are cantilevered from the building structure and relate clearly to the bay
patterns of the fa<;ade.
3) Storefronts with prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's front shall
be maintained by their respective sidewalk coverings.
Finding:
The marquees and awnings continue the horizontal lines of the design of the
building fa<;ade.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the building complies with the criteria
regarding awnings, marquees, and pedestrian shelters.
VI-J) Other
1) Non-street or alley facing elevations are less significant than street facing elevations.
Rear and sidewalls of buildings should therefore be fairly simple, i.e., wood, block, brick,
stucco, cast stone, masonry clad, with or without windows.
1m.
I#{:;
Findings of Fact and Conclusions \ w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED US]:' DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Finding:
Page 59 of 62
As shown in Exhibit 2, drawing 7.4 the alley edge of the proposed building design
on the exposed multiple "ground levels" an exposed concrete parking garage
structure is visible. The upper residential units will have the same design integrity
that has been described in the previous paragraphs.
2) Visual integrity of the original building shall be maintained when altering or adding
building elements. This shall include such features as the vertical lines of columns, piers,
the horizontal definition of spandrels and cornices, and other primary structural and
decorative elements.
3) Restoration, rehabilitation or remodeling projects shall incorporate, whenever possible,
original design elements that were previously removed, remodeled or covered over.
Finding:
In response to items #2 and #3 above, it is the applicant's opinion this criteria is
inapplicable by reason that this application does not alter or add to existing
buildings. This application is for a new building, however, the design of the new
building does incorporate architectural details compatible with, and
complementary to, the existing hotel and the downtown imagery.
4) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited (Refer to Site Design and Use
Standards, Section II-D, for Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards). An
exception to this standard would be paths required for handicapped accessibility.
Finding:
The parking structure has been concealed from view on all edges (with the
exception of the vehicular alley) by alternate building functions. A pedestrian
entrance with direct visual access to the parking garage is provided from the new
public plaza.
5) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, surface details on sidewalks, arcades,
alcoves, colonnades, porticoes, awnings, and sidewalk seating shall be provided where
possible and feasible.
Finding:
As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 1.1 through 1.4, the existing sidewalks will be
removed and replaced with new sidewalks that align in width, match surfacing
texture, and continue the street tree pattern generated by recently improved
neighboring properties. New covered building entrances, public plazas and
seating areas generated by the proposed development will provide consistent
amenities found elsewhere in the downtown core.
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.
Finding:
110 11
It is the applicants opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this
application does not create new automotive related uses, rather it internalizes
/77
Findings of Fact and Conclusions l W
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED US]:, DEVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 60 of 62
existing hotel parking currently housed on an above grade asphalt covered highly
visible parking lot.
Conclusion: Except where noted as being inapplicable, the applicant concludes that the design
of the building complies with all of the above criteria.
VI-K) Exception to Standards:
An exception to the Downtown Design Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of
Section 18.100 of the Ashland Municipal Code and may be granted with respect to the
Downtown Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
1) There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due
to a unique or unusual aspect of the site, an existing structure or proposed use of the site;
Finding:
Finding:
The unique mixed-use nature of this project, which includes residential units
above commercial space, creates a conflict between the requirements of the
Downtown Design Standards and the programmatic needs of the residential uses.
It is the applicant's understanding that the criterion prohibiting useable outdoor
space above the ground level was intended for buildings fronting on Main Street
and the Plaza.
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.
Finding:
Findin.g:
Mixed-use projects with residential units located above commercial enterprises
are a stated goal of the Ashland Downtown Plan.
Residential units without outdoor living spaces do not contribute to the
streetscape or enliven the neighborhood. The design of this project incorporates
outdoor living spaces (terraces and balconies) that are designed in compliance
with the remainder of the Downtown Design Standards, the Multi-Family
Residential Development Standards, and the Historic District Design Standards.
3) The exception requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting
the Downtown Design Standards.
Finding: With the exception of the criterion prohibiting useable outdoor space above the
ground level, this project complies with the Downtown Design Standards.
Furthermore, the design of the non-compliant element (balconies and terraces)
complies with the Multi-Family Residential Development Standards.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the use of balconies and terraces as outlined above
meets the requirements for an exception to the Downtown Design Standards, and
that this exception should be granted.
lnl 11 ' 111'1'1
"
~-,4- \
\.,.t'
Findings of Fact and Conclusions \ w
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USL 0EVELOPMENT
September 12, 2003
Page 62 of 62
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
As noted American urbanologist Lewis Mumford noted in a speech to the City Club of Portland
in 1938:
"Rebuilding our cities will be one of the major tasks of the next generation . .. In
providing for new development you have an opportunity to do a job of city planning like
nowhere else in the world."
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, The applicant concludes that this
application for Site Plan Review Approval has satisfied all ofthe relevant substantive standards
and criteria contained in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and the Ashland Site Design and Use
Standards, in addition to the stated goals of the Ashland Downtown Plan. The applicant further
concludes that the Request for a Variance from the minimum amount of permitted commercial
uses on the ground floor satisfies all the criteria required to grant this variance.
The applicant ultimately concludes that, based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
oflaw, that both the application for Site Plan Review Approval and the Request for Variance
comply with all requirements of the City of Ashland and of the State of Oregon.
/71
1m n ' 1111'1
- "----- "----- +--- "----- "----- 0---
I
I
- ._nn O__n_ 0;1-- On___ O_n__ on-l~;~:~--
I
)
L
SS--:;-J- ss----- ss----
-- 05----- Q'i----- 05----- as--..I-:.J- cs----- as----
.i'
!
01
;Or
.F1
!f
"In n
1111
NIVW
6
4
!
t II
~ I J .!
>lJ!qIJ
Hd!..
D I f I I I
~ fl'TTi
f
. ~ j
! J I
;; j I ..
i j!p 1
! f'ih,:
~i!~ifi
1!t.m:1i
I
I
ijl I
~WI
-,i-i1a
- j r
~i.l. .l~{. '.
ill1~ ;1
-
c:
Q)
E
c...
o
""Q)
:> c:
Q) 0
-cg>
Q) c;
VI
;::)~
-c ...!:!
Q)-S;
>< c
oE ~~
Q)
VI ~
CDt;:;
c: Q)
~ .~.:
"'E.. c...-g
.~ V't c:n
<=! -c c; g
"'-2::, c:::: -C:~_
'",:, c-g~
~~::E .:= ~
~~ V't ~ e::
~~ c; ~
M
c:;:)
c:;:)
<"-I
~
~
0...
W
"-/J
JJ
=:>
Tnn 1'1
if
~~ TT I l~ .,
, "
~ ~"'! IE; I I
II IT e - I I
I
I
I
I ~JF )= u 0 """'1
I ~ .fLJ\( )11 "f:f :i
I a
I " -Dl~
I
I
I ~II Lou b
I
I <I" ~ ~"" ''"' IcxJl,,, ~~
I
I
I .~ a V1Cw' ~
I
I ~
I '>- .rl ~
I - S ~ j . .~~ I
I .~ ~:i I
- ~
0 0
~ J
",0 H
~t
/
,rl~
.~ j .
~7 ~
(
~r - ~
In
1 =~
.~ i
"= ~
J~ ,rJ'--,----,--,---
~l 'L
U I '\' -
I 10)00 :
I S
I ~ 7'
I J~/\
I ~
V ~~
j;~ \7.\1
~~ Httz '"
.'l, .~ -
\I /
]U ~ ~
C=:J ~ '" "''''8
I
I
Ii I
- ~~
tgo
.."
~8.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: ! ~ I
l,__,__,__,__,__,__ __,__,__,_ _,__,__,__,__ --,--,__,__,_J
L..
<U
---
-
en
~
c:
<U
"'C
tn
o
z
"
~
~
ilj
T
~
t
~
~
+-
r::
Q)
E
CI..
V1 0
~-cii
~ >
~ Q)
a:; -c a;::;;
:g Q) g,
- '" ~
~ ::::::t 0
~ -c-c'"
~ Q) g
~ .~~
~ E~_
~ ~i
c: s=.:::
c __ ""'"
""'Ci. "- Q)
o CI.. .::
o V\ ""C
;:;: c~
~ -g ~~~
c -=~
- o.!l !il
.:.c ....r::::_E..
~ c.B~
~
t::)
=
('...!
~
~
a...
LLJ
V;)
~
T
--
-
= j
~
_11-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
=~
110 n
.. t.. l'I~. ~r::
- "I J ~
- -, 1 1/" ,-,LVi <t
IF>n:i> Jj~ 71><k-, I 1><1 ' ..
~ ,1~t~T ~Ili
E OJ~/",,!lll~ /y ]
"? / 'f". _8
",t ,
/L-, '- < //
'v-' <'-' t---..
po
<? -
%E'5' ,Z 'MOP 9
I I ~I
III ffi
If I I ~ r- 0
-W
I
I
I
I I I
I -Ll
I
I I I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: L-
I
I
1=
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: )
l-
I
I
I,
'I
I,
I:
i:
,I,
I
I
I
I
I
: 9
I
i~
: WI1,,\\U,,@
. I W -- rJ
--uo
I
I
I
I
I I--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-f
If-
7
-
]I
-----f"l
[8J
]
~
]
[8J
]
l
L:<J Irlf
I'/~
00
:g
~
Or
c
~
-
- 0 if
~
~
-
I
n~
~f~-)
, ,
,-<
, ,
'j: :~
,"" &.
, ,
, <
, ,
L __ __ _
1111-
~
~
-
FH -
0
w,
~
I
I
=f
j"
I I jJ'
I U
Xl...JL
~fT
~ T
~.........
J
t
f
-I.
~
1t
~
t:t
~
- f
:t
E
I r
: ~ ~L
-.... : - I- I I II [
j . i=
f-} N ~I II >1><f'k !!
-~, 0 I --i\l -I l><: :e:: i I
r-;:- 1'-.1/ '=9~. ~: II
o \.Ji:J ~:I-
Ii !
I: I
11:: II
I: ~-1
II I II
(\ ~ -
" '.
- "1:011 -1
:i 2::
!! \:;ii -tl--
" --!f.-
ii ht-11
ii _ ~["
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ I
I
- :
I
-I
I
- I
- I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~:
I
I
II I
V
h
n
.
f I
11
1
~~ ~
~~ :i
1 l-"'-~
_.0._
-
-
J}if
~
'"
~
-
..
~
/()
__ ____J
-
c
CI)
E
a.
o
Cii
>
_ CI)
<">'"==
a; 0
J! ~ ~
a; :::>> 0
O-a-a
~ CI):3
~ ><::E
Q) -- ~
i E~..
.. '"
~ ;s,-m
c c.:::
a ._ lit
'1i. .... CD
.. a..5
__0 '" "'t:J
-cs g,g
Pi C a~
c:. ;:...5! -: 1
.:E l..c ....2-
._~ '" '^-
;1 a.;~
'{">";)
c::)
=
('.,f
N
,...;J
c...
'-L1
'-/':)
"
I 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
[g1
[g]
00
;::
""
~
~
~(C]
l[JbJ
~
o
<? i
S> I [D::D )
I <?
I EOIDc3
I
" I
I 0 UI:ill
I ~
i V
I
I ~
I <>
I
I
I ~~i
I
I
I
I
,-1;--
Inn n
ITIII"
~
-:-a"t:=i
~~
<?
li
",,,,tG=l\
-~
~
is
~~
~~
i/8B
--,--,--,-J,
~
C:lI
=
('.-1
~
'n.OiI
-
C
Q)
E
c..
..2
Q)
>
Q)
-;q:--r::Jc:
] Q) g,
Q; :3 ~
:g -c-c'"
~ Q) g
- .~::;::
~ E ~
"s """ ~
c: en C1>
-a. .: ~
_j c.. ~
V'l .-
~ -C 1:,8
'b c:: .....~
~ ~..!:! .,.g~-
~f{...c ~ ~
~i 0 ~!
......-
.-"
'-LJ
',f)
if
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Il
~j
il
~i
.~
~l!
~
~
h
~-
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
o
...
o
;;
o
1
;;j;
i
S
-::i'
'lloil
iJ
So!!.
l~
E...
~ S
l~
E...
~ S
-
C
G>
E
a.
o
""Q)
>
'" G>
"i~:5
..!! G> g)
"'ii '" ~
'0 ::a 0
::5.~"i
- G> CI
~ ><::E
~ 015 ~..
c "'~
~ ~ a:
c c:.::
~ .= :;
(; a..:
~ "'-gM
~ -a ~
M C CI i
c:. ~...5! -;: 1
=~..c ... '!-
..CIt::?,. '" ""...
~ics.;~
"'-
(V":
c::l'
c:::t
('.1
~
.,......f
a..
'JJ
'f;:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii I
r! Ij I
i~ I
I
I
I
c:; II I
I
~ I
I
I
n I
I
[gJ I
I
I
b I
I
~ I
I
I
b I
J/
~ :Jj
I
~ L I
I
0 I
I
I
l~ ,J I
I
I
I
r-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,~,-- ,- - ,- -'- -,--
- -- -- -- 1
I
I
;;
"
1
i
"
"I
!jj;
"
~
o
e
i
"
~
!i
:;
"
~
"
C>
i
"
~
o
"
~
...
'"
"
~
o
"
"
1
--'--'--'-_'__ __,__,=J
z
"
~
t;;
~
I
~
!
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I _
I C
I G)
I E
I a.
I 0
I ""Ci)
I ::0 >
I c;; G)c::
I > "'t:S 0
I ..2! G) g)
I ~ ~ ~
I ::5. ,
I ..... "'t:S "'t:J
c;; G):;
I > ><:::c
: ~ Os ~
I S "'.=
I . CD~
c c-=
I i(';~a ._ '"
if d'::) ~ a..~
I ..S! "'ElM
I .... "'t:S g,g
I M C S':-
~~ CI..c~
.:sZ:C ~a
.:c~ '" ~ ~
;1C1;:~
M
=
=
0-..l
':'Q
~
::L
_w
,..,
lllHS
N IVW
"
i! i1
~ ."
i.;
Ii
d!
;,g-
l
i
1
~
i!
"It
11
~.
.1'"
~ !
r
lNIOV9nH
IllHS
~
llU(lZ~'M1Dl$llilplliJ6uljlln
r
I ~b
~
I'
!
t
t
~ 1_ ~~~
d IHhli
"1 !uoJU
li.~;th~!j
ii~l~ i_~;~
l~ti ~.i.i.i.
~I 1 h..
~
~
=
(',,/:
~
"-I
-
s::::
Q)
E
c..
o
Q;
> c:
Q) 0
""'Cg>
Q) <5
.....-0
:::J c:
c
~-g-5
c >< c
.g oE .....
"-E Q)
&. "" ~
>- C) t;;
C c::: Q>
s:::: ._ c:
:~ c.. ~
~ "" c::n~
0... -C Cg
~b c:: ~ c;-
'..:. C C:::-e
C"-.lll_ Co!:!
~~~ ]~
'.'~r
....,...1" T
I! I
ri\ i
rIfe '-:-:=-'i~-'='~~. =.:'..- "n-1
~c, ..\ i ~L Ii t. 'j I~i, !~
I . ill II
I OJ!!
I II
I mil
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
: j :
If!
il i
i I i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
'\,~,.,
I .....'.1"..";;
<!
I i
I ~ ~I
",. "'\
I ~i ~
]j 1\
I "'I @I
... ~
~! ~i i
.. "=1
11 ~ jl
1i 1i 11
II I
II ~
I~ ~
t ! ~
~ I ~I
~I 0;1' il
~~: {l
"I ~I ~:
~ i: ~
ii ~ .!J
I
I
_' I
1i I
8. -
. :;i:
~i ~I
:to :g,
1i ii
~i 1i
<(
~'i"" Z
.... "/ "
CU \< ~
~F""t I-
...... w',,,, f3
en!,. ~
~;:~ ~
c ~.;; t
CU.::~
""C ,Ie
D i:' ~
O':~:. rl
!
4
.....
-
c
G)
E
a.
o
Q)
>
G)
-a
c G)
.2 '"
ii :::t
> I::
-ii-,:l&
G) ~
~... .!:S 0
_ E-g
~ tilt CI
=::E
g c ~
'E.. -i: ....
e a. ~
8 ",.:s
-a ~...~
;:::: ~-
. c c.,
C'I a..c .:
-olI~
.:a ..c ~ a
.:c '" '" G.l
:ii CI;~
~
c:>
c::o
N
.~
,
~l
~
\.L.G
, r,;,
r
~I ";[1 :ill i1 ~ ~ ~I ~
.:!' .:3:' s: ..;' ~ ~, '-
~I ~I ~ z
~I ;1 "
~ -ll ~' CU ~
!;, "', E' ;;, li, "I '"
~I -' ~i ~i ~: ~ - !3
]! 1! ~ -
1 @, -, :l1 ~: U) ~
g, ~ ~ E: ~I ~ I
fl wI ..., ~
0'
:g, ::;11 ~ I
-, "', ~l Ii c ~
1 I ~ ~I : cu
.' ;;) '" ~
1! ., .. "C Ii<
I I l: I ~ ~ ~
I I J II ~i 0 g
i: ~
I I 'II II
I:
.
I
{
!
f
It<(
-
c
Q)
E
a..
o
Ci>
>
Q)
""CI
Q)
'"
::)
c c
.2 ""CI g,
c; Q) ~
t .~ 0
~ E-g
-!! &It a
"'6 cn::E
g .: ;;
is.. .. ....
l!l a.. ~
8 ",.:s
c-.. -a g,g
......: c;;~
C""I a..cJ:
- olJ fii
.:.o-=...1i.
1 ~~~
~
c::>
C='
('ocl
'':'~
-~~
~.
,J...l
. .f")
s... z
"
CIJ ~
- Ei
-
en ~
~ I
~
c: ~
CIJ !l!
"'C ~
C) ~
0
. .
{ . t
! ..
t t t
. I . I
. 1 . I I I . 1 .
I 1 t . i I 1 t
i I J 1 ! 1 i I J
I 1 { ! 1 I .
{ I 1 · t 1 t { I 11
1 ! Ii f . f 1 1
t 1 ! t 1 i- t 1 h
I
I
II I
i: -,
~I !I
i: ~:
"I ~I
~, l'
ii 11
1:
~I
..,
~
!:
~I
f'
1i
~
iJ ~I t
~'- l'
!i~ ~
I
I
I
~I
~i
1:
11
~
~i
.'
~i
@!o @j
..' ~
~ 'I,
:t' "',
~i ~I
i: 1:
1111
l~'
n
I
I
,..1
ilL" :.~,. ; i!~ 1~"
. ~ \1>::7-::-;-
.,\~,
J"ci. . ,:}; lj~::-
;:',-~~ .,: : , ;~r: 'r-~'
(/ :-~ :---.~!?f.: ~i ..
\ ~ I~": . -.;.-
"t 'f..' .\~"4__"
:.; ,_.,... jt4l. -
.:j ~ . <' ~;" .
1,... ~.. - ..... ..}:......... II
aI:c~, ~,"~ .,~~; ~",;l~.
.,
L.
~: :._-
I
I
I
~I I
~: -,
~111
.' ;;"
&,' ..0'
il ~I
:.: 1:
~lll
I)
~ ~,
~: i'
~I -;;1
~: .r-
~I 11
is> @J:
..' ~
~ ill,
;S' ~I
e'j e'1
E' 'i:
1i 11
-
c
(1)
'" E
.2 a..
;; 0
:;Ci)
-a; >
~ (1)
~-a
: (1)
.. '"
... :::I
g, c
j~&
.... l!:!
-g .!:S 0
l:I E""Ci'
~ c
""S. ~~
] .5 ~
~ Q..~
8 "'~
M -a g,g
r-..: c;;~
C"'4 a-=J:::
- oa ~
.:a ..c _"E..
~ = .~~
Ci) ........._
I
1
I
1
~!
~i
1:
11
/
~
C)
c::>
c'-l
-~~
-"""'1
'l,
'_)~1
-n
~~ 3"- ~
~ - C'D a:.
i-g - ~
~ c... 0 r-
~g- ~ ~
~- -.. ---'
'g@>2...
a.. Cl
_0 a
:::I --
CD C ~
~ "'" "5!..
a; ~ g
<1>_
<;to
~:::J
l:a- C-
0"'"
:::I "'C
.?- -.
Q ::;-
<1> CC
'g.....
:::I
~ - n
g.~ 0
~'a- <
nQ (t)
@-g -<
~~g
Jna..
je:~
~}t~
.~iir
s -
" -
!! f"I) tD
!il ''). -,
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
~l
) L
t
:Sr
u !i ~ ;:
n ~, :~
~ ~ ~ It 111I1
11-
~il II
~! lUll
;i
i ~ ~
ijll U !Uil
~I IIII
I~ I
h
ij I ~H
I ~~ HH~
RRR
HARGADINE STREET
<> <>
~I~
<>
,,-'-
'-".:.// I
MAIN STREET
'I~ol
II I I I I ~
II ! I Ii'
I I I I
~ !
i ~
;t
~
~
~~"I~~~~lil~lli~~~~i~~~&&illli
~~!~li~5~il ~~~~~~il~Z~~i~~I~il
11111!llllllllllllllllliili!111
11111'lll!IIIII:!llllilllllll!l
i II I I I I i"ll, !l!l'
11'I!ll'III!!llll!I!!!llllll!!!
I Illill ! I !!lilll!I'~I!li!
~uwoU-U~W~.~.U..----~U.Q9.QU.U.
~~~J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~: ~
~ ~ I
n~PH~~B ~
h~~~j5HH
~HuIIPP I~
Ili'hlil!ll~
II ;~;i' 0
Ii I -~
~
luupun i
illiillill! I
~
;F~H;H~; I
SsSsusuu ~
SEP 1 2 2003
E}(tl151T #:3
o
o
N
---1
EXISllNQ
MARK NITOHY
HOlEl.
ROOF El.EVATlON: 2028,2'
0--/"-:---'-
/ ff20WH
.' _1~_
,~ ./' .
". / .
'/~
//-----
/' / I
/' /--,...j,
,....,
-----..:'-
/
. \
\\~ 00:::
" <{
'\ I ffi a..
----1 z z
---------:.~,::::;;:;:6~- \
F .' -5--':~,'-.... -' \
./ 0 --___ --
~ ~
--
soc:
RIIt
,
,
-
/, ...,./'" \1),---"
/-/
."., /......~--.
.---
--------
(\ ./"'"
",-/ ~-----
.". /'//
---
,/
---.
/
..
<~.
/'
/.,
,..--
--.--..-.------------
/'
---...-
..-"'---
-----------
--------
/'_/~
..-.........'" .,r----- --- .
--.--..
j,
,.
L-- .---'
._.._ t.)'.;:)..--"
/;:::.----
-- ...----...
-- -_.- -- - .;"
- ....__- - __" _0-
./
.._----
-' //'.. U. ,-
'" / ".,;;--.-'"
/-
_-..----------~ t.
......-.-
-'-'.~'
--.---'''---
-..----...- .
_-:--
...-"
........
,/
..-----
..-/"".....
.---
..-....'-
-....--.
.--.--"'
,g'iiY
''I''
I .
..".-- ---......-.-.' ~-..
. '-'-- ---- -- _/
-'
....'"
-----
/
/
i
r
i
/"
(/
G I~.
,/'
"
._--~
G
~6'SS
e e ,.j;-
/
6'
f/
.------'
6'SS
l
SE'P 1 .
4=4
Exhibit 6.4
6.4.1 Caberet and Set Design Building
'l] '#,
( "c....,-....
SEP 1 2 ZOO:i
Inn 1'1 ' 1.1"
Exhibit 6.4
6.4.3 City Parking Lot between Harrison's and Gen Kai
6.4.4 Downtown Aerial View
") .)
"'.r -
f '~~
SEP 1 2 2003
110 n 1111'
Exhibit 6.4
--
",
// "---""
,/ - '"
~ """',--,,-
~"........~.."".-
.......
6.4.5 Downtown Roofs
6.4.6 Hotel and Main Street Aerial View
:> }
, >.-JIf
SEP 1 2 2003
liD n 1111'
Exhibit 6.4
,-, ~
..L 'f"
L
~.i
6.4.7 New Parking and Theater
6.4.8 Parking across lithia from Post Office / C:1S
I I '
Sf? 1 2 2003
Exhibit 6.4
6.4.9 Parking Lots
6.4.10 Plaza Aerial View
,) ,
SEP 1 Z 2003
Map Output
_'_Blr~o_
'1;~.Lg ...... ~:.....J.Q. .
I . ,....-:0 /~t
/ -j
!'IM\~\T - S
Page 1 of 1
.. I
Front Counter Legend
. I-ighlighled FaallJre
o Tax lol POIygon&
TaXlOt taJn'tlars
/rI 1-5 (Interstate)
. Rlvars and lakes
. City limits
AI Slreel&
COlJnty
srp '[ ~ ')["0')
'\.;-.. ........ ..-...! L 1,,,"r
k++-in'/\'"'1n,rl~r~n"'+""""I"\- ".........../n.........,,11......+/nr'\VV'I. ......n......~ ....................;..-...n_ D.........;...-......._0C...............7;"'.......1\T,...-...........-..C'.
...,..._+ ,....................+.......~........~
" I" If)'"
e~\olle\i tt a,
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 replaced in its
entirety as follows:
18.72.050.C.
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 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.
Ordinance amending Ch. 18.72 - Big Box
Page 1
\ //..' (f
.! 0
i
S'[.p 1 '
...., :? 'Jr.()"
". I till.'
".
110 n 1111
SECTION 2. Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards is replaced in its
entirety 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 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.
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 ~rea 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.
SECTION 3. Section II-C-1 a) of the Site Design and Use Standards is amended to
read as follows:
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
corner 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.
Ordinance amending Ch. 18.72. Big Box
Page 2
/11
R
c'''\
~J t~ ~~> 1 (
110 n 1111
.Il
2) Building entrances shall be located within 20 feet of the public right of
way to which they are required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for
topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs where a greater setback
results in an improved access or for sites with multiple buildings, such as
. shopping centers, where this standard is met by other buildings. Automobile
circulation or parking shall not be allowed between the building and the right-
of-way. Buildings that are within 30 foot of the street sh311 have an entrance for
pedestrians directly from the stroot 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.
3) These requirements maybe waivod modified if the building is not accessed
by pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached
offices, and automotive service stations and tire storos.
SECTION 4. Section II-C-2b)2 of the Site Design and Use Standards is amended to
read as follows:
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. If
more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least ~ 65% of the aggregate
building frontage shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section
2(C) of the City Charter on the
PASSED and ADOPTED this
day of
. 2003, and duly
day of
,2003.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
,2003.
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Ordinance amending Ch. 18.72 - Big Box
Page 3
1\ O..r.
c/o / ,)
3
~E-P l' 'I. ''[In'~
,v, '" L l.
"
l~n n 1111"
~'."""'"
w..
CITV Of'
ASHLAND
Friday, September 12, 2003
Minutes
City Cau ncil
08/19/2003
These Minutes are preliminary pending approval by Council at the September 2, 2003 City Council
Meeting.
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
August 19, 2003 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center
Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn were
present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 5, 2003 were approved
as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS (None)
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Approval of Quitclaim Deed to remove easement on Perozzi
Property.
3. Grant an Access and Utility Easement over the Street Plug on
Ashland Creek Drive.
Hartzell requested to have items #2 and #3 removed for further discussion.
Councilor Laws 1 Amarotico mls to approve Consent Agenda item #1.
Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
It was clarified for the council there is no relationship between the Perozzi
Aot
http://www.ashland.or.us/PrintContent View. asp ?ID= 13 32&Agenda=True
-
-
Page 1 of7
('. 'l-~ \<'. l' ,
." 1- ,) ':(';f]'{
\--., !" LULJ,
9/12/03
easement and the existing trail easement.
Councilor Hartzell/ Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #2.
Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Public Works Director Paula Brown clarified for the council the location of the
easement in relation to the house, and assured council this was purely an
access easement and would have no impact on the City's ownership or future
use.
Councilor Hartzell/ Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda item
#3. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing regarding Levying of Special Benefit Assessments for
three Local Improvement Districts: 1) Central Avenue Improvements
in the amount of $60,606.29; 2) Penny Drive/Palmer Road
Improvements in the amount of $46,000.00; and, 3) Helman Street
Improvements in the amount of $36,109.50.
Public Works director Paula Brown gave a brief history of the three local
improvement districts.
Central Avenue LID:
. this is the oldest of the three LIDs
. the two original tax lots have been combined into one
. staff has not received any objections regarding this LID
Penny/Palmer LID:
. no sidewalks were built and were deferred indefinitely
. the $4000.00 cap was set by Resolution 99-09
. some individuals were only charged for half lot assessments
. this LID was completed in conjunction with the Helman LID
. the cost was $534.00 per unit
Helman LID:
. sidewalks were installed on only one side of the street
. there has been four objections within this LID from: Brad Roupp, John
Engelhardt/Diane Williams, Susan Shulters, and Fred Roberts. Brown
explained how each objection has been acknowledged, and what is being done
to resolve the disputes.
. this LID came in slightly over budget at a cost of $6.00 per unit, but staff
recommends the council retain the original $534.00 assessment.
Public Hearing OPEN: 7:18 p.m.
The mayor acknowledged the four letters of dispute received.
Public Hearing CLOSED: 7: 18
PUBLIC FORUM
Jack Blackburn/80S Oak St./ Feels the council should find someone to
investigate whether the Mt. Ashland expansion would interfere with the quality
of Ashland's water and stand behind their report. He also stated the council
has the power to influence growth. If the council is unable to decide which
direction to take, Blackburn suggests taking it to the people and see what they
&b~
http://www.ashland.or.us/PrintContent View. asp ?ID= 13 32&Agenda=True
liD n 1111'
Page 2 of7
~l:i:' l' '! "r.')'{
'-' __1 ~, rUt.,
9/12/03
Page 3 of7
support.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Quarterly Financial Report - May - June, 2003.
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained this is a preliminary report, as staff is
continually doin.g reconciliations and adjustments. He noted on the cpsh and
investments report, the balance has decrease by 5.6 million dollars between
this year and last, with an ending fund balance up 9.6 million. Revenues were
just slightly over what was projected, and expenditures came in at about 90%
of what was budgeted. The audit is scheduled to be completed and a final
report will be delivered to the council in November.
2. Ashland Fiber Network Quarterly Report.
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg reported the AFN cable television connections
and cable modems services are doing well, with the shortfall happening with
the high speed data services. He explained there is a meeting in September to
talk about the revised business plan and discuss what they can be doing and
should be doing. He also stated they will be reconveying with the Budget
Committee on September 18th at 7: 00 p.m.
Council expressed their concerns for the reduction in revenue.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Report on Proposed Process - Mt. Ashland response to DEIS.
City Administrator Gino Grimaldi explained the Forest Service had granted the
council's extension request, and presented the following process for approval:
September 24 - noon. Study Session
September 30 - 7:00 p.m. Public Input
October 7 - 7:00 p.m. Regularly scheduled Council meeting - Council decision.
October 21 - 7:00 p.m. Regularly scheduled Council meeting (if needed)
October 23 - Comments due to Forest Service
The City Administrator suggested having the Study Session on September
22nd instead of the 24th to resolve some scheduling conflicts.
The council discussed the pros and cons of moving the Study Session date to
September 22.
Councilor Laws / Jackson m/s to approve process with change of
Sept. 22 for the Study Session. Voice Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Jackson,
YES. Hartzell, Morrison, Hearn, NO. Mayor DeBoer, YES. Motion
passed.
Tom Rose/430 Wimer St/ Discussed flaws within the DEIS, including: lack
of historical content, no financial or operational data, forecast based solely on
the number of skiers, and based on incomplete and biased data.
Eric Navickas/711 Faith/ Stated he supports the process proposed by the
staff. He explained some history regarding the attempt of this project and
relayed some information on the dry years Mt. Ashland has faced. He stated
the expansion would drop one mile into the watershed, and believes this
expansion is a very bad idea.
Marilyn Briggs/ 590 Glenview Dr/ Does not believe the expansion can be
~OO
~ I. I.;i 'Ie 7mn
http://www.ashland.or.us/PrintContent View. asp ?ID= 13 32&Agenda=True
Inn n 111I1"
9/12/03
stopped, and explained her views on each of the six DEIS alternatives.
Bill Little/80 High Oak Dr/ Board member of the Mt. Ashland Association.
Expressed he is comfortable with the associations' financial position and would
like to assist in providing information to the city.
Jeff Hanson/13880 Hwy 66/ General Manager of the Mt. Ashland
Association. Welcomed the city staff to use the association as a resource.
Explained the association can be of assistance in guiding the city, especially in
the area of operational construction.
Discussion developed amongst the council as to whether or not to allow public
input at the September 22nd Study Session. It was established that the public
was welcome to attend, but it is undeterminable whether there will be enough
time for them to speak.
2. Update and Discussion on Youth Activities Levy Commission.
Bill Cobb/Committee Chair/ Presented a brief history of the commissions'
activities. He expressed the need to fill the two open positions on the
committee. He also explained how other schools in the area are cutting
programs due to funding, and is concerned that Ashland's youth athletic teams
will not have any competition to play against.
Juli DiChiro/Superintendent of Ashland School District/ Explained that
she was there to answer any questions the council may have regarding the
commission. She clarified the role of the committee is to over see what the
district is doing, and expressed the need to find a vehicle for student voice.
Council discussed what attributes they are seeking in the new applicants for
the commission, and how to stay better informed of the commissions'
activities.
Mayor DeBoer extended the application deadline for the Youth Activities Levy
Commission to August 29, 2003.
3. Hargadine Parking Structure Report - January - June, 2003.
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg presented the updated parking facilities
revenue report to the council. He stated this year's revenue was up from last.
He also explained the parking garage is heavily used by the Shakespeare
Theatre and usage is expected to decline slightly when the tourist season
ends.
Councilor Laws / Amarotico m/s to approve report. Voice Vote: all
AYES. Motion passed.
Council discussed options to keep the parking structure filled year round.
4. Report on June 2003 Water Revenue Bond Sale.
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg gave a brief summary on the Water Revenue
Bond Sale. He explained how refinancing saved the city $373,000.00.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.72
j fll
http://www.ashland.or.us/PrintContentView .asp ?ID= 13 32&Agenda=True
110 ~ IIR I
Page 4 of7
SEF' 1 2 Z[l(n
9/12/03
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."
Eric Navickas/711 Faith Ave/ Wants the council to strictly limit the
dowl')town square footage to 45,000 in order to preserve the character of
Ashland. He also expressed concern with some of the larger lots in the area,
including the Wells Fargo and Elks Lodge sites.
Jack Hardesty/575 Dogwood Way/ Does not support the new ordinance,
and asks the council to adopt an interim resolution that would limit the gross
square footage.
Bryan Holley/324 Liberty St/ Suggested putting a separate height limit on
the North side of Main Street. Stated he would like to preserve the look of this
area for future children, and does not believe residents want to have big,
commercial buildings in the downtown area.
Bill Street/180 Mead St/ Stated he felt the need for a very lengthy
discussion amongst the council tonight, and would like to close the window of
opportunity for someone wanting to build a huge site.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin came forward and
prompted the council discussion on the first reading of the proposed
ordinance, as well as answered their questions.
Councilor Hartzell / Morrison m/s to extend meeting to 10:30. Voice
Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
The council discussed which elements they wanted to keep in the Ordinance,
and which ones needed to be modified. The following is a list of sections the
council wants to be modified before the second reading (determined by a
straw vote):
. Section 1 - Item 1.B
Needs to be better defined to clarify whether parking or an interior courtyard
is part of the "footprint".
. Section 1 - Item 1.C
Eliminate "rooftop parking" and better define "under-structure parking"
. Section 1 - Item 1.E
Eliminate "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 of length."
. Section 1 - Item 2
Leave footprint area at 45,000 sq.ft, but clean up the language for clarity.
. Section 1 - Item 2.A
Eliminate entire item
. Section 1 - Item 2.B
Eliminate "rooftop parking" and better define "under-structure parking"
. Section 2
Keep verbiage consistent with changes in Section 1
. Section 3 - Item 2
Change "This entrance shall be designed..." to "The entrance shall be
designed..."
~efj""
e-Z ;; ~
http://www.ashland.or.us/PrintContent View .asp?ID= 13 32&Agenda=True
Page 5 of7
SEP 1 2 2003
9/12/03
Page 6 of7
Eliminate the word "attractive"
Councilor Hartzell / Morrison m/s to approve first reading of
ordinance and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call Vote:
Laws, Hearn, Hartzell, Amarotico, Jackson and Morrison. All AYES.
Motion passed.
2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Levying Special Benefit
Assessments in the amount of $36,109.50 for the Helman Street
Sidewalk Improvement District for Improvements Consisting of
Sidewalks and Associated Improvements for Helman Street, Between
Van Ness Avenue and Nevada Street."
Public Works Director Paula Brown explained the sidewalk was only placed on
one side of the street, though each participant in the LID was assessed the
same amount.
Councilor Laws/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution #2003-29. Roll
Call Vote: Amarotico, Morrison, Laws, Jackson, Hearn and Hartzell. All
AYES. Motion passed.
3. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Levying Special Benefit
Assessments in the amount of $46,000.00 for the Penny Drive and
Palmer Road Local Improvement District for Improvements to Palmer
Road and Penny Drive consisting of Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Storm
Drains, Sidewalk and Associated Improvements."
Councilor Morrison / Laws m/s to approve Resolution #2003-30.
Discussion: Public Works Director Paula Brown reminded council they had
delegated excess funds to be used for a connection to the Helman St. project,
located between Oak and Helman on Nevada Street.
Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Jackson, Hearn, Morrison, Amarotico and
Laws. All AYES. Motion passed.
4. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Levying Special Benefit
Assessments in the amount of $60,606.29 for the Central Avenue
Local Improvement District for Improvements for Paving, Curbs,
Gutters, Storm Drains and Sidewalks on Central Avenue from its
existing Terminus East of Helman Street to Water Street, for the
Central Avenue Local Improvement District."
Councilor Amarotico/ Morrison m/s to approve Resolution #2003-31.
Roll Call Vote: Jackson, Laws, Morrison, Amarotico, Hearn and
Hartzell. All AYES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Mayor DeBoer announced the RVTV City television show has been moved to
the first Wednesday of the month at 6:00 p.m., starting in October. He also
stated the evaluation for the City Administrator and City Attorney has been
postponed.
ADJOURNMENT
~!'\/
..AVf...t!'c
Vj--p" "I () "'0 'I
,) .~. ,~. "" L _ 0,1;
http://www.ashland.or.us/PrintContent View. asp ?ID= 13 3 2&Agenda=True
9/12/03
Meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Alan DeBoer, Mayor
End of Document - Back to Top
Planning Commission Meetings
information on upc.oming meetings
:<c7
http://www.ashland.or.us/PrintContent Vi ew. asp ?ID= 13 32&Agenda=True
Page 7 of7
e'EP .-
~):- ' J 2 2003
9/12/03
Land Use: 710
General Office Building
Description
A general office building houses multiple tenants; it is a location where affairs of businesses,
commercial or industrial organizations, or professional persons or firms are conducted. An office
building or buildings may contain a mixture of tenants including professional services, insurance
companies, investment brokers, and tenant services such as a bank or savings and loan, a
restaurant or cafeteria, and service retail facilities. Nearly all of the buildings surveyed were in
suburban locations.
Related land uses include Corporate Headquarters (Land Use 714), Single Tenant Office Building
(Land Use 715), and Office Park (Land Use 750).
If information is known about individual buildings, it is suggested that the general office
building category be used rather than office parks when estimating trip generation for
one or more office buildings in a single development. The office park category is more
general in nature, and should be used when a breakdown of individual or different uses is
not known. If the general office building category is used, and if additional buildings,
such as banks, restaurants, or retail stores are included in the development, then the
development should be treated as a multi-use project. On the other hand, if the office
park category is used, internal trip making is already reflected in the data and does not
need to be considered.
When the buildings are interrelated (defined by shared parking facilities or the ability to
easily walk between buildings) or house one tenant, it is suggested that the total area or
employment of all the buildings be used for calculating the trip generation. It is further
suggested that area or employment of each individual building in a single project be used
when the individual buildings are isolated and not related to one another.
Additional Data
Average weekday transit trip ends:
Transit service at a majority of the sites surveyed was either non-existent or negligible.
Information on person trip ends is not available.
Information on truck trips is not available.
Vehicle occupancy:
1.2 persons per automobile. Varies by quantity and cost of parking, location of office,
and region.
Peak hours of the generator:
Weekdays - Typically the same as the A.M. and P.M. peak hours of the adjacent street
traffic. In some regions peaking may occur earlier or later and last somewhat longer than
the 7:00 to 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 to 6:00 P.M. time frames.
j,6[
Trip Generation, January 1991
939
Institute of Transportation Engineers
SEP 1 2 2003
110 n liD I
--
These studies were conducted in the 1960's through 1990 at sites throughout the United States,
with an average of 673 employees, 205,000 square feet gross floor area, and 700 parking
spaces. Average densities are summarized in the following table:
Table 1: General Office Buildin
Inde endent Variables
Em 10 ees Per 1,000 S uare Feet Gross Floor Area
Em 10 ees Per Parkin S ace
Em 10 ees Per Gross Acre+
1,000 S uare Feet Gross Floor Area Per Parkin S ace
1,000 S uare Feet Gross Floor Area Per Gross Acre+
Parkin S aces Per Gross Acre+
Ran e
0.28 - 12.82
0.23 - 3.44
1.33 - 245.90
0.05 - 1.15
0.34 - 49.89
0.76 - 164.69
+ The relationship between gross square footage and gross acreage varies considerably and is a
function of the local zoning code, the nature of the development and landscaping, and the type of
parking provided (at-grade, below the building, or in a separate parking structure).
It is suggested that when only the acreage of the office building site is known, the probable
building size in gross square feet be estimated from the average square footage per acre as
shown in the above table.
For office buildings exceeding 100,000 square feet gross floor area, as the building size
increases, the employee density tends to decrease, as shown in Table 2:
Table 2: General Office Building Employee Density
(EmDlovees Per 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area)
1,000 Sauare Feet GFA Averaae Range
Less than 100 3.39 0.79 - 8.03
100 to 200 3.84 1.74 - 12.82
201 to 500 3.22 0.28 -10.13
More than 500 2.88 1.00 - 4.10
All 3.29 0.28 - 12.82
The employee density of office buildings will vary by the type of occupants or businesses, the
length of time the occupants have been housed in the building, and the number of tenants
occupying the building. New tenants in a building tend to have a lower employee density initially
to leave space for future growth. Therefore, the measure of density and trip generation should
be made at office buildings which are not new.
As data are collected in the future, it is recommended that both the gross square footage and net
rentable area be obtained.
Trip Characteristics
The trip generation for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours of the generator typically coincide with the
peak hours of the adjacent street traffic; therefore, only one A.M. peak hour and one P.M. peak
hour, which represent both the peak hour of the generator and the peak hour of the adjacent
street traffic, are shown for general office buildings.
Trip Generation, January 1991
.A i{.j ~l
940 Institute of Transportation Engineers
SEP 1 2 2003
Iln n lilli'
I
I
I
The office building data collected (over 250 studies) indicate that the rate of trip generation
decreases as building size increases. The logarithmic equations shown on the following pages
best describe this rate of change. It is suggested that the equations be utilized as the most
accurate method of estimating the driveway volumes for a building or interrelated
buildings smaller than 800,000 square feet gross floor area or where there are less than
1,600 employees. For buildings of 800,000 square feet gross floor area or more, or where
there are 1,600 employees or more, it is suggested that the applicable rates in the
following tables be used to calculate trip generation. If the rates are used for buildings
smaller than 800,000 square feet gross floor area or where there are less than 1 ,600
employees, one must interpolate between size groups to estimate the trip generation rate
for a size not shown in the tables.
The relationship between building size and the number of employees, and trips generated is
illustrated in the following tables, which approximate trip generation rates as derived from the trip
generation equations shown on the following pages:
Table 3: General Office Building Trip Generation
Vehicle Trip Ends (Two-Way Volume) Per Employee
Derived From Trip Generation EQuations
Employees Average Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Vehicle Trip Ends (1 Hour Between (1 Hour Between
7 and 9 A.M.) 4 and 6 P.M.)
Rate Volume Rate Volume Rate Volume
25 6.00 150 0.77 19 0.92 23
50 5.32 266 0.70 35 0.79 40
100 4.74 474 0.64 64 0.69 69
200 4.22 844 0.58 117 0.60 119
300 3.94 1183 0.55 166 0.55 165
400 3.76 1503 0.53 212 0.52 207
500 3.62 1809 0.52 258 0.49 247
600 3.51 2105 0.50 302 0.48 285
700 3.42 2393 0.49 345 0.46 323
800 3.34 2675 0.48 387 0.45 358
900 3.28 2950 0.48 428 0.44 394
1,000 3.22 3220 0.47 469 0.43 428
1,200 3.12 3748 0.46 549 0.41 495
1 ,600 or more 2.98 0.44 0.39
~/O
Trip Generaron, January 1991
941
Institute of Transportation Engineers
SEP 1 2 200]
liD n 1111'
:\
ft
\\
~
i
~
1
;,
I
l
I
I
I
i
Table 4: General Office Building Trip Generation
Vehicle Trip Ends (Two-Way Volume) Per 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area
Derived From TriD Generation Eauations
1,000 Square Feet Average Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Gross Floor Area Vehicle Trip Ends (1 Hour Between (1 Hour Between
7 and 9 A.M.) 4 and 6 P.M.l
Rate Volume Rate Volume Rate Volume
10 24.60 246 3.20 32 3.40 34
25 19.72 493 2.60 65 2.68 67
50 16.58 829 2.22 111 2.24 112
100 14.03 1403 1.90 190 1.87 187
200 11.85 2369 1.64 327 1.56 311
300 10.77 3230 1.50 450 1.40 420
400 9.96 3984 1.40 561 1.30 519
500 9.45 4723 1.33 665 1.22 608
600 9.05 5432 1.29 773 1.17 700
700 8.75 6125 1.24 871 1.12 781
800 or more 8.46 1.20 1.08
i
~
Source Numbers
2,5,20,21,51,53,54,72,88,89,92,95,98,100,159,161, 172, 175, 178, 183, 184, 185, 189,
193,207,212,217,247,253,257,260,262,279,295,297,298,300,301,302,303,304,321,
322,323,324,327
~ I(
Trip Generation, January 1991
942
Institute of Transportation Engineers
:i[P 1 2 2003
l~n n III I'
General Office Building
(71 0)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Employees
On a: Weekday
Number of Studies: 50
Average Number of Employees: 619
Directional Distribution: 500/0 entering, 500/0 exiting
Trip Generation per Employee
Average Rate Range of Rates
See Table 3 N/A
Standard Deviation
N/A
Data Plot and Equation
8,000
6,000 . ....
. .
... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. -. - - - - -. -.. - - -... - - - - -....
. .
./...
7,000
r/)
'0
c:
W
a.
'L:
I-
Q)
U
:E
Q)
>
Q)
0)
C1l
~
Q)
>
<(
II
I-
5,000
x: x
......... -.... -. -. -... - -. .,..... - -.. .x...... -. -. -....x........ -... - -. -. - .;;(
x
4,000 .. .... _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ '" . . . . . . . x. . . . _ _ .
3,000 .
x
2,000 _.
x x
.. - -.. - - - - -. - - -. - - - - - - ',' - - -. -.. -. - - - - - - -... - - -.. '," -.. -. - -... -.. -. - - --
x x
XXX X X
Xx X
X :
1,000
x.-..-..-.......:......-.--.....-.....--...:...............-.....-..
o
o
1000
X = Number of Employees
2000
3000
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
____u Average Rate
Fitted~urve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.832 Ln(X) + 2.330
R2 = 0.89
dl61-
Trip Generation, January 1991
943
Institute of Transportation Engineers
,)LP 1 2 200]
i\
~
i':
~I
i
\.;
li
H
}'i
H
Ii
I
~
I
\ '
General Office Building
(710)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Employees
On a: Weekday,
A.M. Peak Hour
Number of Studies: 147
Average Number of Employees: 660
Directional Distribution: 890/0 entering, 11 % exiting
Trip Generation per Employee
Average Rate Range of Rates
See Table 3 N/A
Standard Deviation
N/A
Data Plot and Equation
CIl
'0
c:
W
c-
.t:
t-
Q)
:2
.r:.
Q)
>
Q)
Ol
~
Q)
>
<
II
t-
1,600
1.500
1 ,400
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
. .
- ~ - . . - . - . . - ~ - . . . - - - . . . . . . . - . . . .
. .
. , . ,
-. .. - - -. - - - - - -.'. -. -. -'. - -. -. -' - - - -. -. - - - -. - - -........ -.'. -. -.... - - - - - - -.. -..
, , , ,
. x. ,
. -..... -' - -.... -. -. -... -. -. -'. -. -'" -. - - - - - -.. - -.. -.... -.... -. - -. -. -... -. -.
. . . .
, . , .
-. -.... -. -. - -.... - - -. - -. -'.' -.. -' -... - - -............ - -. -. -' - -. --
. , , .
- .'. -.' - -..... - -' - .'. - - -. - -.. - -.. - .'. -' -. - -' -' -. -. - -' -'.' -.... -". -.
. . ,
x
- - . . - - . . . - - . . - - ,- . - - - - - - - - . . . . - -,' - . . . - - . - . - . - . . ", - . . - . - - - . - - . - . . ... . - . . ~ . . . . ~ . . . - -
900
x
, , , .
.... .-.-. -. -- ......- .x... -... -. -,' . .-.-..' "x"""- "" .....' ...... -"- ......."
: x x. : :
-.-....-.-.-.--..-...-..x..-- '-,'-""-""""',""-" .-.....-.......-.........
x
800
700
. . . .
. . - . - ~ - . . . . . . . - . - - . - . . ~. ... - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . - . - . - - - . - - - . - - . . . - .
600
......... -' x. .... .
500
400
300
.... -... -. -.. -.... -.. -. -. -......... -... -..... _.....-
, , ,
200
, , .
-.. -........... -.... -............... -. -........ -... ..
, . .
100
o
o
4000
2000
3000
5000
1000
x = Number of Employees
Fitted Curve
_uu_ Average Rate
X Actual Data Points
R2 = 0.88
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.865 Ln(X) + 0.176
~/s
Trip Generation, January 1991
944
Institute of Transportation J;;n. gi.re~rs
St.P .1 2 Z003
Inn 1I 1m I'
--
General Office Building < 600 Employees
(710)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Employees
On a: Weekday,
A.M. Peak Hour
Number of Studies: 147
Average Number of Employees: 660
Directional Distribution: 890/0 entering, 11 % exiting
Trip Generation per Employee
Average Rate Range of Rates
See Table 3 N/A
Standard Deviation
N/A
Data Plot and Equation
500
(Subset of Data Plotted on Page 944)
x:
400
......, - .'. -. - - - - - - - - - .'- -. - - - - - -. - - .'... - -... -.. - - '. - - -. - - - - -' -.
- -
l/)
'0
c:
W
C.
'i:
I-
0>
:2
.c:
0>
>
0>
01
~
0>
>
<{
II
I-
x
x
300
:::< x x
------:-----------x-:-------------:------------
:x
x:x
x:
x
*
_ x
:::< x x
- - x
--x----.-------:-------------
x
100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
x .
. _ X
- -. - ~ - - - - -. - - - - - - -:- - - - - -~- - - - - -:' - - - - - -.-
- x .
:~ x XX x
x~ x x: x
x - x - -
-x - -: - - - - - -~ - X - - X - - - - - - - - - - - -: - - - - - . . - - - - - ; - - - . . - - - - - - -
x
200 __ _ __ _ __
x
x
x:
o
o
100
200
300
400
500
600
x = Number of Employees
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
u____ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.865 Ln(X) + 0.176
R2 = 0.88
a!ll
Trip Generation, January 1991
945
Institute of Transporta~Er~'_n~
linn 1m I-
General Office Building
(710)
I
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Employees
On a: Weekday,
P.M. Peak Hour
Number of Studies: 157
Average Number of Employees: 654
Directional Distribution: 170/0 entering, 830/0 exiting
Trip Generation per Employee
Average Rate Range of Rates
See Table 3 N/A
Standard Deviation
N/A
Data Plot and Equation
1.400
1,300
, , ,
-.' -.'. -.' -. -. - - -. -'.' -. -..' -. -. - -" - - -. -. -' - - - - -.... - -' -.
, , ,
1,200
, . . .
, ", "", ',"" """'x"""""""""""""" """"",""""'"
1.100
x
.. - _... - - _. - _'. _.. - - _.. _' - - - .'. - _.. - _. - _. - _. - "0. _ _. _.. _ _ _. _. _.... _ _.... _.. _ _..
, , , x
f/l
"0
c:
W
Q.
'C
I-
Ol
(3
:E
Ol
>
Ol
O'l
e
Ol
>
~
II
I-
1,000
900
-:- , - - -, ", ", -. <"" -", , ..'x' '-:', ' " , , , "'" " ~" , '" " " , , , ,-
x
. . , ,
- -'''' - -. - - - - - - -,- -. - - -. - - - - - -" ',' - -... - - . - -... ","' -" - -.. - -.. - -... -. - - -. - -. - -.. --
800
, x >:< ' ,
- - -. - - . - - . - - - - '. . - . . - - - - . - - - - - -' - - - . . - - - . - - - - - . .' - . - - . . . . ~ - . . . . - .' . . - - . . - . - . - - - - -
, x x' , ,
, , , , , , , , _ ' > ' , , , :x, , , , , " ";".""."",,, <, , , , , , , , ' , , , , , , ; , , , , , , , , , , , " ,
100
, ,
. - -.... - -. - -.. - - -. -. - -. - - -. -... - - -... -.... - --
, ,"
700
600
500
400
300
200
o
o
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
x = Number of Employees
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
------ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.794 Ln(X) + 0.575
R2 = 0.83
~..IS
Trip Generation, January 1991
946
Institute of Transportation E~eJ.rs2 2003
110 n 111I1'
--
'~{l,m~f~.~~~~~~1J2~:vt:_
General Office Building < 600 Employees
(710)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Employees
On a: Weekday,
P.M. Peak Hour
Number of Studies: 157
Average Number of Employees: 654
Directional Distribution: 170/0 entering, 830/0 exiting
Trip Generation per Employee
Average Rate Range of Rates
See Table 3 N/A
Standard Deviation
N/A
Data Plot and Equation
500
(Subset of Data Plotted on Page 946)
x:
400
. . - . -'. . . - . - - . . . . - . '. . . - . - - . . - . . . '. ~ . . . . . . # . . - .
. . .
1Il
"0
c
W
c..
'C
I-
Q)
C3
:.c
Q)
>
Q)
OJ
e!
Q)
>
<C
II
I-
x
. x
Xx
x
x
x
300
. . .
-.... - - - -. -.... - -... -.... -.. #.. -... -.......
. ,
x
:>:<x
:x
200
x
.......x...;.......
x'
, >i::: x
.....:....x...x...:..........
% Xx '
:x Yf. x x
x
x
100 .....
. >i::: .
.x.....~........... .0............~............
~
x
x x:
x'
~:
>i:::
x
x
o
o
100
200
300
400
500
600
x = Number of Employees
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
__u__ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.794 Ln(X) + 0.575
R2 = 0.83
~,
SEP 1 2 Z003
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, January 1991
947
General Office Building
(710)
1
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Employees
On a: Saturday
Number of Studies: 17
Average Number of Employees: 346
Directional Distribution: 500/0 entering, 500/0 exiting
Trip Generation per Employee
Average Rate Range of Rates
N/ A N/ A
Standard Deviation
N/A
Data Plot and Equation
600
x
500 '
(/J
"0
C
W
a.
.;::
I-
a>
(3
1:
a>
>
a>
0>
al
...
a>
~
II
I-
400
, , ,
-. -. -'. - - - -. - - - - - -. -'
, , ,
- - . '. - - - - - . -'. - - - . . - .' - . - . - - - .'. - . - . - . .' - - - . - . . .. . - - . - - . ~ - . - . - - .
, ,
.1'/;,,;,'" :
, /
X .//.~//
- . - - - A:' - - - . . - .'. - - - . - . -:. ; ",-/:"". - - .' . - - - - . - : . - - - - - .
/'
/ ,
. ",/ X
,,~/
300
/
, . . , ,", .
~ - . . - . - - . - - - . - - - . - . - - . - - . - . - . - - - . . - . - . - - . - . "'" - . . . - . - - - . . -
, , , . '//' ,
~ /~~/
, ,
-.. -'" - - - - -. -. -. -. --
, ,
x:
100
.
X //
, /
.
.
'x"--- ....-_. -.-!../.""/.--. -. - -.,. -.-.- -.,".' -'" -,_. ..-.. -..
, ,
-. -.' - - -. - - - - - -..
, ,
200
x:
x '
x '
o
o
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
x = Number of Employees
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
------ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.845 Ln(X) + 0.135
R2 = 0.56
Trip Generation, January 1991
.;).. I 7
948
)E~' 1 2 2003
Institute of Transportation Engineers
General Office Building
(71 0)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Employees
On a: Saturday,
Peak Hour of Generator
Number of Studies: 10
Average Number of Employees: 427
Directional Distribution: 540/0 entering, 460/0 exiting
Trip Generation per Employee
Average Rate Range of Rates
N/A N/A
Standard Deviation
N/A
Data Plot and Equation
80
70
C/)
'0
c:
W 60
Q.
.;::
~
Q) 50
'0
:E
Q)
> 40
Q)
0>
~
Q)
~ 30
II
~
20
90
......... .. ....... .. .......... x...... I......x..... ],/~J0.......
, , . . . , ...........: ,
. . . . . . . . . - - - . . . . . . . - . - - - - . . . . . - . - - - - - - - - - ".' - - - - - - - - -/- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . - - - - - - -
. , . , . ';" ,
: //",/
..."...,.:....
- - . - - - - - - - . - . . . '. . . . - - - -'. - - - . - - .'. - - - - - - -:' -....~;,,- -
~ /"",;/
- - - - - _:. - - . . - - .:. - :,....~/_ - .: - . - - - - - -I _ _ _ _ . . _ .: _ _ . _ _ _ _ .. _ . _ _ _ _ . ~ - - - . . -
, ... ""
,.:...../
"...//.... :
x
- - .. . . - - - - - ~ - - - - - -
, ,
10
x:
x
. . . . . ,
- - - - -.. -. - - - -.. - - - - -. - -. - -. - - -.. - - - - - - - - -. -. - -.. - -.. - - -. - - -.
. ' , , . . ,
~
, , . , . , .
-.. - - - -. -.. - - - - - - -.. -. - - - -. - -. - -... -. - -. -. - -.' - - _.......-
. . . , , , ,
o
o
x :
800
900
1000
700
200
300
400
500
600
100
x = Number of Employees
Fitted Curve
------ Average Rate
X Actual Data Points
R2 = 0.60
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.986 Ln(X) - 2.366
~/ f
~tY 1 2 2003
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, January 1991
949
General Office Building
(710)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Employees
On a: Sunday
Number of Studies: 17
Average Number of Employees: 346
Directional Distribution: 500/0 entering, 500/0 exiting
Trip Generation per Employee
Average Rate Range of Rates
N/A N/A
Standard Deviation
N/A
Data Plot and Equation
400
I
I
x
300
. -. '... -.. - .'.. -. -.. .'..... -. .'....... .'. -.... - .'... - -.-
. . .
- - - . - . - - . . - - - - . . . ~ - - - . - -
. . .
Ul
1:l
c:
W
0.
.;::
~
Q)
"0
:E
Q)
>
Q)
OJ
e
Q)
~
II
~
200
. .
. '.. . ':'" . . . ":'" . . ,x,:", . .. . .;..... . . .:.. .... . .:.. . .. . . ';'" . "";' . . " ~;.~. ., . . . .
~~
. ~~
~~
~~
100
~>}(~
~~ ,
,,/
, , . . .... ,
-' - '," -. -.. ',' - - - - -. -,' - -. - -. ',- - - :;...... - -,-'
, " ,
~
~.,
~~
x
x .
o
o
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
x = Number of Employees
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
------ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.847 Ln(X) - 0.914
R2 = 0.45
Trip Generation, January 1991
eQ "
950
,. OOj
.. .t .
')~p ....22. .
Institute of Transportation Engineers
-
__~.._.'__..k__~--- _._
--
2~;r;~'~1~,~QFts;f?~d,~~11\;~c~~['{r!~'~1~,~~~~~
General Office Building
(71 0)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Employees
On a: Sunday,
Peak Hour of Generator
Number of Studies: 10
Average Number of Employees: 427
Directional Distribution: 580/0 entering, 420/0 exiting
Trip Generation per Employee
Average Rate Range of Rates
N/ A N/ A
Standard Deviation
N/A
Data Plot and Equation
40
><
30 ..
_.. .'....... .'...... _ .',.. _.. _ .'.. _.. _. .'. _..... _..... _ _.! _.0.
. . .
UJ
'0
C
W
a.
.;:
I-
Q)
'0
:c
Q)
>
Q)
Cl
(lj
...
Q)
~
II
I-
~.
~
"
~ .
, .
20 ...
x: : ~/
. '. . - . . - . .'. . . - ., . . .' - - . . - . . .'. - - ; . - ~ .'. . - - .....:'-:~~ - . -
. . , . : /"",// .
. ,
,J/
x:
10 ..
. .
-,_.... -....
~
x
o
o
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
x = Number of Employees
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
------ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.715 Ln(X) - 1.793
R2 = 0.55
~o
" -.c I ;,.'. ? ao'
~ ." 3'
'-
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, January 1991
951
Inn fI
r,
,
!
i
j,'
i
i..:..........
,
r It!
i:l
1:\,',
f.,.,
~l \.i:
F
II
I~
, ~
H\',
I
Ii
11
Ii
l
,
,
,
1
Ii:
I~
1d
I';
'~
fi
,~
~
!~
r,
a
r'
General Office Building
(71 0)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Weekday
Number of Studies: 66
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 199
Directional Distribution: 500/0 entering, 500/0 exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
See Table 4 N/A N/A
Data Plot and Equation
15,000
14,000
13,000
12,000
fIJ
"0
c:
W
C.
.;:
...
Q)
(j
1:
Q)
>
Q)
Ol
e!
Q)
>
<(
II
I-
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
_ .: _ _ _ _ .; _ _ .. . ;. . . _ . ~... .. .:. ... . .:.. . . . .:. .. .. .:. . .. . .:. .... .x.....: .. ...: . . ...
, . , , , . .
~ . .. . . . . _ . ~ . . _ . _ ~ . J . . . . . .. .. _ _ .. . _' _ . .. . _ _' _ .. . ~ .. .' _ _ _ . _ _ '. _ .. . _ _ ,_ .. - _ _ . '. . . . _ - .. - _ . _ _ ~ .. . . _ .
, , ,
_ _ .. .. _ l _ . _ . _ J .. _ _ .. .. J _ _ _ . _ n' _ . _ .. .. .' . .. .. . _ .'.. . . _ .. _, _ . .. _ _ _'. _ . . .. _ '. _ . _ .. .. '. ~ _ .. _ .. '. ~ _ _ _ .. L _ _ . .. -
, . . . , . , , . . . .
.. . . - .. ~ - - .. . . ~ - - - - - ~ . . - . - .' .. .. - .. .. .'. - .. - . ..' - .. . . - -'.. - - - - ..' - - - - - - '. . .. - . - '. . . . - - '. ~ .. -
, . , .
, , , . . , . . , , . .
. -. -.. - - - - - - -. -. - - _.... -.... -.. -" -... -""'... - - - -. - - -... -.... -... -.... -. -... --
, , . , , , . , . . .
, . , . . . , , . . . .
.....,.....,. ....:.....-'......,......,.._.x.,. -....'......'......'......'..-. .,.
. , . . . , , . , , . .
, , . . . . . ., ..
.... - -.. -. -. -. -.. - -. - -. -. -. -.. - -........... -..' - - -.. - -. - - - - - - - - - -..... -. -... - --
. , , . , , , , . . . ,
. . . . , , . . . . I ,
.,. _.... _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _.. _ _.. _ _. _ _ _.. _ _ _. _ _" _.' _. _ _. _ _" _. _ _. _ _. _ _. _ _. _ _ _. _ n _ _._
, . . , . . . . , . . .
, . . . . ~ . . . . . ; . - . . . ; . . . . . .: . . . . . .:. . . . . .:. .x. '," - . . .:. . . . . .:. . . . . .:. . . . . . :. . . . . . ~ . . . . .
,. ,., ....
, , , , .
.. ..:.... -;.. . ..~. . . .*... . . .: - ....:-.. -X-:' - '" -:.. . ...:. . ....:.... . .:. .....:. " . .
... --;.. .x.;.. --.; -X. -- :~... ..:... -- .:... -. .:.. --. .:..... .:..... .:......;.....; --...
, x
,x: :x" , ,
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. .. . . ... . . . . ',' . . . . .:. 'x' . .,. . . . . . ,. . . . . . ~ . . . . . - . . . . .. . . . . .
x
- -.. - - -.... - - -.... - -.. - -,- -' - - -,- - - -. -,- - - - - -.- -. - - .'-'" - -,. - -. - -... - - - -. - - -.-
, ,
xx
. . . , , , . . . , .
, x. . . . ~ . . . . . " . . . . . ~ . . . . - .:. - . . . .: - . . . . .:. . . . . .:. , . . . .:. . . . . . ~ . . . . . : . . . . . : - . . . .
:x
o
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
------ Average Rate
3.000
2,000
1,000
R2 = 0.82
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.756 Ln(X) + 3.765
SEP 1 ? 2003
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, January 1991
952
1m n 11111
P-
i
I
~i~~~~_
General Office Building
(710)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Weekday,
A.M. Peak Hour
Number of Studies: 192
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 209
Directional Distribution: 890/0 entering, 11 % exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
See Table 4 N/A N/A
Data Plot and Equation
3,000
o
lIJ
"'0
c:
W
a.
.;::
I-
CD
(j
:2
CD
>
CD
Cl
CIl
...
CD
>
<(
II
I-
2.000
, , , , . . , . , . , ,
.. - -.. - - - - - -.. -. - - -....... - -. - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - -. -.. -. - -. - - - - - - -. - - - - - - -. -..
. . , , . , , , . , ,
x
:x
, ,
-. - -... -..-
. , ,
, x
1,000
, ,
-. - - -'. - - - - -. -..-
, .
. , . . . .
;-----0-----.:..... .:-.-...:.....-:..
:x ,x x'
x' x '
,x '
: X>< x:
x
:x
o
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
_UU' Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.777 Ln(X) + 1.674
R2 = 0.81
;<~~
.: 'J> 700'1
- .~ [". '., ,j
Trip Generation, January 1991
953
Institute of Transportation Engineers
General \Jffice Building < 300,000 SF GFA
(71 0)
J
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Weekday,
A.M. Peak Hour
I,
I
fi
Number of Studies: 192
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 209
Directional Distribution: 89010 entering, 11 % exiting
H,
f?
l
I
1
I'
I
I
\
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
See Table 4 N/A N/A
Data Plot and Equation
700
(Subset of Data Plotted on Page 953)
x
600 .....
, . . ,
"........ -.. -....... - - -. - -.. - -. -.,............. -.. -. -..,
, . . ,
x
:>.<
(J)
"0
c:
W
0..
.>:
I-
Q)
(j
:E
Q)
>
Q)
Cl
~
Q)
~
II
I-
x :
x .
x
XX
500
. ,
.. -. -........ -..... -........ - -. -.... - - -..
, ,
x
. X
X :X Xx ~ f< X
: : ~ X
..................00,-... .Xx.... 0'" .... OX""
X
400
. ... . . . . . . o. ~ . . . X' 0
100
Xx
Xx >xX:
x X X: x
0.0........0........ 'x'" .:... x. 0..... .:....... .. O. .:.... 0 0..... O.~.. 0...00 ..'
: * X X: : X X :
X X' xx~xx :xxx :x
......... ./" x x ..~ .. .x*~ xx. x . x... ..................
: XXX X : xx: X 0 X
x>x:xx; ~x 'x
x...~. .~o.K. fx.X........ ..........0....... ....................
X ~
x
0-
300
200
o
o
50
100
150
200
250
300
x = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
------ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.777 Ln(X) + 1.674
R2 = 0.81
Trip Generation, January 1991
~ ~ 3 SEP 1 2 ZOO:~
954 Institute of Transportation Engineers
I~n n 11111
r
-~;:~:~'~'tf~~1~~?;:~~}'ill~:~;~~~~~~~F:~~rz:' ,;.;~~;~:,_::.,'r"'::;FC<";)_i.
General Office Building
(710)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Weekday,
P.M. Peak Hour
Number of Studies: 208
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 203
Directional Distribution: 170/0 entering, 830,10 exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
See Table 4 N/A N/A
Data Plot and Equation
1,600
1,500
1 ,400
1.300
l/) 1,200
'0
c: 1,100
W
a. 1,000
.;:
I-
(I) 900
13
1: 800
(I)
>
(I) 700
Cl
f!! 600
(I)
~ 500
II
I- 400
300
200
100
0
0
-.;.. -.. ~... ~. ~. _....:..... .:.. -'. .:. -..' .:..... -:.. -.. -:.. -.. .x-....:. -. -. - ~....-
. " """,.
. ^ -....... -. -. - -.. -.' -.' - -' - - - - -.' -.' -." -... -............ - - - -.. -..... - -... -.
. , , , . , , , . . , ,
, . . . , . . , , , . .
....... -. -. -.... -.. -. -.... -..... -. -. -' - -..... -' -..' -.. - -... -. - - -......... -.' -.
. . . , " ."..
, . , .
- -. - -." - -..... -... -... -.
. . ,
_ _ .:- _)( _ _:. _ _ . . .'. . . . . .:x . _ . . '. . . . . . '. . . . . . '. . . . . . , . . .
_ . ." . _ _ . .'. . . . . .'. . . . . .'. . . . . ". . . . . . :. .0. . ., ....'.....
. , . .
, . . ., ,....,
. . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . - . . .,' . . . . -:. . . . x.,. . . . . .:. . . . . .:. . . " ~..... ~ . . . . . : . . . . .
, , , , ,x : , . , , , ,
- . - . . . . . - - . . ~ . . . . - - . . . . - - - . - . - . . . - . - - . - . - - . . . . . . - .. - - - - . . - - - - . . - . - - . - - - . . - -
, . . . . , . . . . I ,
, . . . , " .. I .
. - . ~ . . . . . ~ . . . . . ~ . . . . . ~.~. . . .:. . . . . .:. . . . . .:. ..' _:. . . . . .:. . . . . . :. . . . . . :. . . . . . ~ . . . . .
, , , , x . , , , , , ,
.. .. ~ . . . . . ~ . . . . . ; . . . . . .::X. . . .:. . . . ..: .... .:. . . . . .:. . . . . .:. . . . . .:. . . . . . :. . . . . . ~ . . . . .
, x
. . - - . .' - - - - - .'. - . - . - '. - . - - - '. - . . . . '. . - . - . '. - . - - - ~ . . . - -
, . , , , . .
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Fitted Curve
------ Average Rate
X Actual Data Points
R2 = 0.78
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.737 Ln(X) + 1.831
~E=-I; 'f 9: ').Ofl'{
v r ~ I, !. t,.
Trip Generation, January 1991
955
Institute of Transportation Engineers
General Office Building < 300,000 SF GFA
(710)
,
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Weekday,
P.M. Peak Hour
Number of Studies: 208
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 203
Directional Distribution: 170/0 entering, 83% exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
See Table 4 N/A N/A
Data Plot and Equation
700
(Subset of Data Plotted on Page 955)
X
600 ...........;............ .:.......... ..x........... .:............ .:.......
x
:x
x
en
"0
C
W
Q,
'':
r
Q)
'0
:c
Q)
>
Q)
C)
e
Q)
~
II
r
500
,y, . x '
. . . ',' . . -.. . ....' ',' .... . . . . . . . ','" ..' ... . .. ''-'" . .." x'
~ : , x
>< x:x:>.<:x
: x: : x ,x :
. . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . x . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . x . .0. ><. . .
, , x: 'x: x x
x x'
x
400 .........
100 .
: -f x
, 'x)<
...........:............ ~x"'~""" .:.......
, *' ,
: :x x : x '
: x ~ ,x % x: x.x X :
x ' 'x, x X- x x,' x'
............;'5<:.;1'.~.. ..:x x --x... --:.. .~. -- .x... .:. x.......... .:........
x: x ~ :x :x x x ~ : x :
x : 0- xx :X : x :
x x' , x
'" .:x.~ ..' x.. .x.... ~.>.<.><:........ .:............ .:.................
:x~ ~ ' , ,
x~
. . . . ~ . . . -- ..\. . . .
.....x..... .
x x ~
Xx
x
300
x
200
50 100 150 200
X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
250
300
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
------ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.737 Ln(X) + 1.831
R2 = 0.78
Trip Generation, January 1991
~~5"
956
'JFP ,1 2 200.1
Institute of Transportation Engineers
-
General Office Building
(710)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Saturday
Number of Studies: 17
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 78
Directional Distribution: 500/0 entering, 500/0 exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
N~ N~ N~
Data Plot and Equation
600
>K
500
-.. -. .'.. - - - _. .'. _ _ - - _ .', _ _ _.. _ .'.. _ _ _ _. .'_ _ _ _ _ _. _'.. _ _ _.. .'. _. _ _ _. j.. _ _ _ _ _ J. _ _ __
, , . . . , , . ,
1Il
"C
c:
W
C-
.;:
I-
Q)
'0
:c
Q)
>
Q)
Cl
e!
Q)
>
<(
II
I-
x
///:~
400
~
, , , . . . , ,"
. . . . . . - . - - - - - . - - . - . - - . . . - . - . - - - - . . . . . . - - . - - - . . . . - - - - . - . - - . . - - - - . . ./" . - - - - . - . - .
. , . . . , . ,."..,
,~
~ '
. ~
, ~~
~~
~,
300 '
. . , . . .,.
",....""" ',""'" ',"'" -, """"~ ':'" '~'~~>>/'
~
'x
200 -" , , , ':' , ):<" , -:' - - . , _ - -:' , , , , , _ ':- - - _ -- ':- - , , , , -x. ' - " " .:' p - , , , ~, , . - , , - ; , , , , , , ,
x: ' , ,
x'
>K
'x
100 _., _ _, _.' ", _, ><" _ ,:, , ", , _ _:_ _ , _ , " ,:__
x ~~~~~~~~~~~' , , ,
- - - . - -,. - . - - . . ~ . - . . . . - .. - - - - - . - . - - - - - - .
, ,
o
o
Xx
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
x = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
------ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 2.136(X) + 18.473
R2 = 0.66
Trip Generation, January 1991
~,,~
957
SEP 1 2 70rn
Institute of Transportation Engineers
110 n III I'
General Office Building
(710)
\
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Saturday,
Peak Hour of Generator
Number of Studies: 10
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 97
Directional Distribution: 540/0 entering, 460/0 exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
N/A N/A N/A
Data Plot and Equation
80
(/)
'0
c:
W
Q,
'c
I-
(1)
:'Q
.t:.
(1)
>
(1)
C>
e
(1)
>
<(
1\
I-
/x
, /
70 . H . .... .. ... .. <. .. .. H H.... ..... . ....... . . .. . .;. '. . '. < >>/ .' . .. .
. . . , , , ;I'" .
60 _. > . > ,...... _'. .:_ ~. _... _.:. _. _. ~ _ _ l. -... - _.:_.. ~... - .'.. -. ~;;/.:"~... -.. - - - -:..
/
/
V
/
50 _ _.. . ,. . __ __ . . .:.- . . . . . . ~ . . . . . : p . p . . _ ~ . _ >/X'.:.
/~//
x
x
x:
/
/
40 .... ..... _ . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . : _ . ~/.. ....... - . . '. . . _ . . . . .' - . - . . . . . . . . .
. , . '''' . . .
//~/
30 .. ....:._...................'-<~~..:__.__.............,....... -.................--
. . < : x' . ,
:///' : x. . . , .
20 ...... ..>>;/......".......;......... .......... ........."....
10 ;' . , . , , ._..#.-'.~....._:-..-....
/ ~ / >' -. .. -- '.' .. . - - . p. . .. .. .. . ; - .. . .. .. .-- p -- - . -. p . ,
o
10
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
x = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
------ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.814 Ln(X) - 0.115
R2 = 0.59
Trip Generation, January 1991
j, ~/
958
SEP 1 2 200:!,
Institute of Transportation Engineers
110 n 11111'
-
General Office Building
(710)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Sunday
Number of Studies: 17
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 78
Directional Distribution: 500/0 entering, 500..10 exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
.Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
NM NM NM
Data Plot and Equation
400
~
Ul
'0
c:
W
Q,
'C
f-
a>
:2
.c:
a>
>
a>
Ol
as
...
a>
>
<(
1\
I-
300
, . . , . , . ,
-... -. - - - -. -... -... - -. - - - - - - -... - - - - - -..' - - - -.... - - - - -... - -'" -. -.
, .. ".,
200
...............);(......<........>.......:..
. ,
- -..... - -' - - - -. - - - -.. -" -..
, . .
-"
~'
-' .
x ........,
~-
100 ....... :. . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . .:. . . . . . >:, ~ <<.x .: . . . . . . . .: .
. .... .:x- .. . ..
"
x - - -
-
x Xx:
:X
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
x = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
------ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.863 Ln(X) + 0.306
R2 = 0.50
~~g'
SEP 1 2 2003
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, January 1991
110 n mil'
959
,
l'
If ,r
i'
:' r
~
,
11'-:
i:
,I,
lir;
I~
General Office Building
(71 0)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Sunday,
Peak Hour of Generator
Number of Studies: 10
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 97
Directional Distribution: 580/0 entering, 420/0 exiting
\'
\ ~
I
\:
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
N~ N~ N~
Data Plot and Equation
40
x
, , ,
30 _.'. -. -'........ .'....... - .'... -... -,........ '........ .'........ .'....... - .'- -. -.
, , . . . . , ,
(/)
"0
C
W
c..
'C
~
CI>
"0
:c
CI>
>
CI>
OJ
to
l0-
CI>
>
<(
II
I-
'~
~<"
x ' ~~
. " , """
20 ...... -.:-.... .' . .:. .'" . . . .:. . . ." . .;. . ..' . ..:. """ . .:. . . '/~'~' -:.. . . .. ...:. . .. .x..
" ... ............ ,
10
~ ,
~~
, ,
.... .,".' - -. - .," -. -.-
x
x
x
~~
o
10
30
50 70 90 11 0 130
X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
150
170
190
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
nn__ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.605 Ln(X) - 0.228
R2 = 0.56
Trip Generation, January 1991
~~q
960
SEP 1 2 ZOOJ
Institute of Transportation Engineers
1m n 11111'
li'
Land Use: 715
Single Tenant Office Building
Description
A single tenant office building generally contains the offices, meeting rooms, and space for file
storage and data processing of a single business or company, and possibly other service
functions including a restaurant or cafeteria.
Related land uses include General Office Building (Land Use 710), Corporate Headquarters
Building (Land Use 714), and Office Park (Land Use 750).
Additional Data
Information on transit trip ends is not available.
Information on person trip ends is not available.
Information on truck trips is not available.
Vehicle occupancy: Average of 1.1 for nine of the sites surveyed. The range is 1.03 to 1.10.
Peak hours of the generator: Typically the same as the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic.
75% of the studies were conducted in the late 1980's, at sites throughout the United States, with
nearly 90% of the studies from the Washington, D.C. , Kansas City, Philadelphia, and San Diego
areas. The sites average 541 employees, 159,000 square feet gross floor area, 27 acres, and
579 parking spaces. Average densities are summarized in the following table:
Ran e
1.03 - 8.57
0.58 - 1.64
1.67 . 81.08
0.18 - 0.64
0.22 - 29.73
1.28 - 71 .62
+ The relationship between gross square footage and gross acreage varies considerably and is a
function of the local zoning code, the nature of the development and landscaping, and the type of
parking provided. It is suggested that when only the acreage of a building site is known, the
probable building size in gross square feet be estimated from the average square footage per
acre as shown in the above table.
Source Numbers
89,92,212,262,273,279,303,304,322,323,324,327
~3o
SfP 1 2 2003
Trip Generation, January 1991
968
Institute of Transportation Engineers
-
~
~.
t
[
t
i
i
Single Tenant Office Building
(715)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Employees
On a: Weekday
Number of Studies: 12
Average Number of Employees: 349
Directional Distribution: 500/0 entering, 500/0 exiting
Trip Generation per Employee
Average Rate Range of Rates
3.55 2.09 - 7.61
Standard Deviation
2.43
Data Plot and Equation
5,000
CIl
"tl
c:
W
Co
'c
I-
Q)
~
.c:
Q)
>
Q)
0)
~
Q)
>
<(
II
I-
3,000 ...
, " ."..
. .:...... ~ . . .. ..:.... ...:... . .. ~ .. . .. .:.... . .: . .. " .:. ... . ..:... . . .:.. . >>~,-:. ..
, /
//~'-'
/
, /
./
.:. - - . . . -:. . . . . . :. . - - - . -:- . . . . . : - . . . . .:- . /-...-...~~ -: - . - . - .:- . . - - . .'
4,000
, ,
-'. -... - -... - --
, ,
x
x
2,000
1,000
:x
x
, /
/
/:%... .. ..:. . .. . . ~.
/
/
o
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
X = Number of Employees
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
------ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.756 Ln(X) + 2.701
R2 = 0.78
,;< 3/
Trip Generation, January 1991
969
SEP 1 2 2003
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Single Tenant Office Building
(715)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Employees
On a: Weekday,
A.M. Peak Hour
Number of Studies: 35
Average Number of Employees: 555
Directional Distribution: 890/0 entering, 11 % exiting
Trip Generation per Employee
Average Rate Range of Rates
0.52 0.27 - 0.95
Standard Deviation
0.74
Data Plot and Equation
1,500
1,400
1,300
1,200
III 1,100
"t:l
C
W 1,000
0.
'C
I- 900
Q)
'0 800
:E
Q)
> 700
Q)
C> 600
~
Q)
> 500
<(
\I 400
.-
300
200
100
0
0
........'.,. .................................x..._._._________
...... - -... -.. -... - - -.' - - .'. -. - -. - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - -. - -'- - -' -. - - -. - - - -. -. - - - -.....
. .
, .
. - . - . - - . . . - . . . - - . - - . - . . . - .' - - . - . . - - - . - . - . - . . . . . . - . . . . '. - . - . - . ",:' - . . - . - - - . - - - - - - . .
. . ' /,,/'
. . . - - - - - . . . . - . - - . . - - . . . . . - - . - - . - - . . - - - - . - - . - . - . - . . . -', - . ~ . - - . - . . . - - - - - . . . - - - - . .
://
../:
. - - . - . - . - - - . - - - - - . - - - - . . - . . . . - - - - . . - - - - . . - . - - - - - - "/A . _ _ _ _ _ . _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . _
,/"X :
- - - . - . - . - - - . - . - - - - - - - - - - - " - . - . . - . - - - . - . . ~~,',>'-'- - - . - .'- -' - - . . . - - - - - . - - - . - - - - - - .
- - . . . - . . - . - . - . - . - . . . - - - - - " - . . . - - . . - - - . ;/"/' - . - . - - - - - . ,- . . - - - . . . - - - - . . - . - - - ~ . ~ . . -
/
" .
. . . - . . . . . - . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . " - . . . . . ~~;/- . . . . . . . - . - . . . . - - " . . . . - . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . .
,
,
, / .
. - . . . . . . . . - . . . - . . . - - . . . - - ., . . '/'" . . ~ - - - . - . . . - . . . . . . . - . " . . . - . . . - - . . . . . - . - - . . . . - . .
.... -....... -......... _. .....~~~/.. -~... -. -. - -..... -... - .'... -.. -., -.... - - -'.' - -.. -.
///: x '
X // :
-. - - - - -.. -' - .xx-. :..,-:. -. - -,- - - - -... -. - - -.- - - - - -. - - -. -.-. - -. -. -.- - - -.... - - - -' - - -.
x *,' 'x
1000
X = Number of Employees
2000
3000
Fitted Curve
h____ Average Rate
X Actual Data Points
R2 = 0.83
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.886 Ln(X) + 0.050
b\~?..
'I:p. '1 "'?OO.{
:)L., .l !v c.. v
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, January 1991
970
liD! 1111I
Single Tenant Office Building
(715)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Employees
On a: Weekday,
P.M. Peak Hour
Number of Studies: 35
Average Number of Employees: 555
Directional Distribution: 160/0 entering, 840/0 exiting
Trip Generation per Employee
Average Rate Range of Rates
0.50 0.29 - 1.08
Standard Deviation
0.72
Data Plot and Equation
1,200
1,100
1,000
(/) 900
"C
c:
W 800
0..
.t:
I- 700
Q)
:2
J: 600
Q)
>
Q) 500
Cl
ell
...
Q)
> 400
<(
II
I- 300
200
100
0
0
/
. /' X
- - .'. . . - ;/" - - - . . . . - - . - . . - - . . . >> -
...................... .................. /->-;J/..............
~ . . . . . . - - - - . . . . . - . - - - - . . . .' . . - - . . . . . . - - - . ;"./. .. - - . . - - - - . . . . . . . - >> - - . - - - . - - . - . . " -
/
/
/
/
, / '
. - - . - >> 0 - . . . . - - . . . - . - . - . - . " - - - . . - . . ';r -. . - - . . . - . . . - ',' . - - - - . . . . - - . . - . - . . . . - . . . -
/
/
/
/
- - - . . . . . - - . . - - - . . . - . - - .' - - . . -/! - - - - - . . . - . - - - . . . . . - '. - - - - . - - . . . . - - - . - . " . - .. . - > .
, " ,
, //
, /
, / ,
. . - . . - . - . . - - . - . - - . . . . - . - - .". . - . . . . . . . . - . . - - . - . . . - . . . - . . . - . . . . - - . . - . - . . . - - - - - . . .
",,,,.I'I ,
/ '
. . . . . . . . . . . . .x. . . ./< .x.:. . . X. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
x X / '
.
, ,
- -,- -". -... -. -.... -.. - - - -.. -,_.. -..... -.. - -.... - - -.....
1000 2000 3000
X = Number of Employees
Fitted Curve
uu__ Average Rate
X Actual Data Points
R2 = 0.89
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.916 Ln(X) - 0.158
~a3
'[::p' 'f ')I ZOO'\
;) . .1L Jo.:' J
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, January 1991
Inn 'II 1"'1"
971
Single Tenant Office Building
(715)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Weekday
Number of Studies: 12
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 107
Directional Distribution: 500/0 entering, 500/0 exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
11.50 5.33 - 35.68 8.60
Data Plot and Equation
6,000
5,000
,
. . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ '. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ .'. . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _, _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _; _ . . _/_",t'~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
. ,
......~.......
..",/ .
,
,
,
4,000 .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ '. _ - - . _ - - - - . - - . - .' - . - - - - - - - - - . - - - .' - - - - - - . /"': - - - . - . .' - - . - - . - - - - - - . - .
, . : ,,// .
/...~//
3,000 . . . . . .. . . .x . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. //>/<> . . . . . . . . . .. . '. . .. . .. ........
" x
, /...~
2,000 .. .... _. .. _ . . .:. . . . . . _,.>;/~x_:... .
,
,
f/)
'0
c:
W
a.
'C:
I-
0>
'0
:E
0>
>
0>
Ol
('lj
L-
0>
>
<
II
I-
. .
- - - - - -. - -.. -. - - -". - -. -. - - -." -. -.
. .
x
1,000 "'" .>:<. . . . ~/~:~ x. . . . . .. - - .. . ..:. . - - . .. . . . - - - . ..:. . .. - - .. .. .. .. . :. -- - - . .. -- . . .. .
,
,/ x:
//x
)5>"
o
o
100
200
300
400
500
x = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
-- - - - - Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.614 Ln(X) + 4.265
R2 = 0.56
Trip Generation, January 1991
~~tf
972
5EP 1 2 2003
Institute of Transportation Engineers
ln1l 'fI
r
r
I
r:"
.i!'E!!l'Q!S!:';~S;:~~~~~:~C';.'f@'~
Single Tenant Office Building
(715)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Weekday,
A.M. Peak Hour
Number of Studies: 39
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 163
Directional Distribution: 890/0 entering, 11 % exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
1.78 0.75 - 4.57 1.51
Data Plot and Equation
1,500
1,400
1,300
1,200
f/) 1,100
'0
c:
W 1,000
a.
'C
I- 900
a>
:2 800
.r::.
Q)
> 700
a>
Ol 600
('lj
L-
a>
~ 500
II 400
I-
300
200
100
0
0
, , , , ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . , , . . . . . . , ~ . . , . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . .:. , , , . . . . . , . . . ~ . . . . . . . . , . ?C.
" "
_.... -... - -... -...... -.. -.. -'-.. - -. - -... - -,..."... -.... .'-.. -. -. -. -............ -....
, , , ,
. _.... _.. _ _ _ I.... _ _ _ _ _ _.. _'.... _ _...... .'. _ _ _ _... _' _ _ .'_... _..... _ _ .,_..... _... _..
, , , , ,
, , , , ,
. - - -..... -..... -..... -. -.. -... -... -.............. - -..... -.." -.. - - -. - -...... -..
, , , , ,
I , , , ,"""
" - . . . - - - - - . . . . - . - . . . . . - - . . . . . . - - . - - . . . - . - - - - " - . . . . - - - . . . . . - - . . - . . - - - . . . - ."... . - .
, , , , ,"""
: x ,~,,~
, , , , ,
: : : ' : : : : : : . : ; : : : : : : : : : : : . ::: : : :: : .. : : : : :;, : : : : : .: : : : : :;. . ::: ~,~~~':~~~~~~ : : : : : : : : : :
, , , ., .
. _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . . ~ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . .' . _, _ . . _ . _ _ . . . . . _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ :;...r, _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . . _ .- _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~ .
. . . , . . . . . . , . ; . . . . . . . . . . . , .:. , . . . . . . . . . . .:. . ',>')( . , . . . .:. . . . . . . . , , . :. . , , . . . , , . . . .
: : , :/~ x: :
- . - . - . . - . . - - ~ . . - - " - " . . . - . ", " . . . - . - - " :,..../. ',. . - . . - . - . . . . ,. - - - - . . . - . . . . " - - - . . - - - . . . .
, '''''''' , ,
, x. ,,', , .
............,... .X....... '.' ",'l:"" .... .......,...... ',"""""" ..'.,.....,....
: x x;' : : x :
. ' . . . . . . .x. . ; . . . . ' . . . _,~' '" . . . . . .:X; . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . , , ' . . . . .. . '. ' .. . . . . , . . . .
%: x / : x : : :
. . . . -xX . - . . ://. . . . .~x. , .:. . , ' . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . , . . . . . , .:, . .. . . . , . ,. . . ~ . .. ' . . . . . . . .
X / ' >K
---~x.x:..,.......,. .:.......''.
'x '
100
300
600
200
400
500
x = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Fitted Curve
------ Average Rate
X Actual Data Points
R2 = 0.73
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.760 Ln(X) + 1.764
SEP 1 2 ZOO:~
~ 3r;-"
973
Trip Generation, January 1991
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Single Tenant Office Building
(715)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Weekday,
P.M. Peak Hour
Number of Studies: 39
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 163
Directional Distribution: 160/0 entering, 840/0 exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
1 .73 0.79 - 5.14 1 .50
Data Plot and Equation
1,200
~
,j
!
i
I
~
II
,I
~
~
1
I
1
I
i
i
i
1,100
1,000
f/) 900
'0
C
W 800
a.
'i:
I- 700
Q)
'0
:E 600
Q)
>
Q) 500
Ol
e!
Q)
> 400
<
II
I- 300
,
- j... - -. -' -.. - -'....... - -. - - .'- -.. - -..... - .'.... - -'.. - -. -..... - - - - - -.,,---
, ' , : ;////
, ,x ,/
- - - . . - . ~ - - . . . - - . - - . . .' - - . . - - - - - - . . .'. - - . . . - . - . - - . '. . - - . . . . . - - - . '. - ./. - . . . - . . . -
. ' . , /'..-",,"
. , .
,
- . - - - " - . . . . - ~ - - . . . - . - . - - - .' - - . . - - . . . . . - -'. . . . . . - - - . - . . '. - - . - - . . ~ - . . - '. . - . . - . . - . . - -
. ' . . ,,/// .
, x ' .;'/// .
. . . , , . . - . . . . ~ . . . , . . . . . , . , .:- ' . - ' , . . , . . . -:. . . ' . . . ,~,';><' . ' . . . . . . . . ':. - . ' .
.. - . . -. , - .. - ,. .. . .. . . ... ..:. .' , ..., . ." t~~~>'x'" -. ':" ." -""":""""""-
. . . . , ; - , . . . . . . . . ' . .: . . . . , . . ~,->;/-:, . . . ., ."...:,...,...,..,.:....,..,.. ..
: , , . ' . . . , .:X; . . .: , 'X/<. ....:.......,..".:...... X' . . , . . :. . . . ' . . , . . -
x: x : / : : :
x./ .
. . x' ,. ... oX' . .~~;"'~. 'x. , .~.. . .:.. o~. ...... ,.:.. . . . - ' . .. . ..; . .. - . ., . . -
x ' '
. . .X.: ,,':'......... ~. -",,""" .:.., - -,...... .:....,. -... -..:,......,. '.
-x ;,' . .
~ /.x 0 : :
, . sP<: . .. . . , . . . -- ..: . .. . .. . .. .. --:. . . . -- . -- . . --:. .. .
x.
,/'1<' x
200 .0
100 ,..
o
o
500
600
300
400
100
200
x = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Fitted Curve
- -- - - - Average Rate
X Actual Data Points
R2 = 0.74
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.784 Ln(X) + 1.614
SEP 1 2 ZQ(P
~3G,
974
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, January 1991
Inn 1I Infl"
Ir
,
f
[
t,
,e
f
~,
!
'2.Till~~~8~~::=;;Y!lS~~3;.::;:'fS~1r_t;::::r~^yg~::];',.,'~-:;1i:,i''J~':'::C2i::t:~Z_
Land Use: 720
Medical-Dental Office Building
Description
A medical-dental office building is a facility which provides diagnoses and outpatient care on a
routine basis but which is unable to provide prolonged in-house medicaVsurgical care, This type
of building is generally operated by one or more private physicians or dentists,
Additional Data
Information on transit trip ends is not available.
Information on person trip ends is not available,
Information on truck trips is not available.
Vehicle occupancy:
Average of 1.37 for six of the sites surveyed. The range is 1,32 to 1.44,
Peak hours of the generator:
Weekdays 10:15 t611:45 A,M. and 3:15 P,M, to 5:30 P,M.
Saturdays 11 A.M. to 12 Noon.
Most of the studies were conducted in the 1980's, at sites throughout the United States, with a
number of studies from the New York, Louisville, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, and San Diego areas.
The sites average 163 employees, 37,000 square feet gross floor area, and 181 parking spaces.
Average densities are summarized in the following table:
Ran e
2.25 - 6,54
0,55 - 2.40
26.00 - 546.67
0,13 - 0.60
7,05 - 156.67
47.20 - 503.33
+ The relationship between gross square footage and gross acreage varies considerably and is a
function of the local zoning code, the nature of the development and landscaping, and the type of
parking provided, It is suggested that when only the acreage of a building site is known, the
probable building size in gross square feet be estimated from the average square footage per
acre as shown in the above table.
Source Numbers
8,19,98,104,109,120, 157, 184,209,211,253,287,294,295,304
Trip Generation, January 1991
:2 ~r
975
SEP 1 2 200:~
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Iln n Rill
--
Land Use: 810
Retail - General Merchandise
Description
A general merchandise retail establishment is an individual free-standing store selling general
merchandise.
Additional Data
Information on transit trip ends is not available,
Information on person trip ends is not available.
Information on truck trips is not available.
Information on vehicle occupancy is not available.
Weekday peak hours of the generator:
The generator peaks at the same time as the P.M. peak hour of adjacent street traffic,
The study was conducted in 1979.
Source Numbers
182
Trip Generation, January 1991
I SEP 1 2 71lL.
~, ;8
1096 Institute of Transportation Engineers
1m I 111I1'
r-
~~
Land Use: 810
Retail - General Merchandise
Independent Variables With One Observation
The following trip generation data are for independent variables with only one observation. This
information is shown in this table only; there are no related plots for these data,
Users are cautioned to use these data with care due to the small sample size.
Independent Variable
Trip
Generation
Rate
Size of
Independent
Variable
Number
of
Studies
Directional Distribution
0005
F tG
FI A
1, )Quare ee ross oor rea
P.M. Peak Hour of 4.80 214 1 50% entering, 50% exiting
Adiacent Street Traffic
P.M. Peak Hour of 4.80 214 1 50% entering, 50% exiting
Generator
Trip Generation, January 1991
"'! 2,(.,-J/ S E P 1 ~ {tf}[jJ Y
"... -'
1097 Institute of Transportation Engineers
---
\J -
:.'f',:
h
I
I
fill,
i,i,1
Iii!
"iT
Hi!:
!"I
i,W
:II
lH
Land Use: 835
Drinking Place
:11
Ii'
ji.i
I!,
it);'
\1'
lit
\'\\
Ii
Ii
II
fl.;
t::
'i"
11
il~
jl\
Description
A drinking place contains a bar, where alcoholic beverages and snacks are served; possibly with
entertainment such as music, television screens, video games, or pool tables,
Additional Data
Information on transit trip ends is not available.
Information on person trip ends is not available.
,Information on truck trips is not available,
Information on vehicle occupancy is not available,
Information on peak hours of the generator is not available.
The studies were conducted in 1987 in Colorado. The sites average 3,500 square feet gross
floor area (range of 1,134 to 5,355).
Source Numbers
291
i
:)4"
SEP 1 2 70i1*
-
Iln n 11'I11'
L--
~...
II
Drinking Place
(835)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.
Number of Studies: 8
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 3
Directional Distribution: 680/0 entering, 320/0 exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
15.49 3.73 - 29.98 8.63
Data Plot and Equation
1 20
x:
1 10
1 00 " ." ..
f/) 90
'0 '.
C
W
a. 80 , ..
-'
"-= , ..
I- , '.
,
Q) .. ..
, ..
:2 70 '. >X' '.
.r:. .. ..
Q) .. ,
> ..
60 '; ~. -'
Q) .. ,
Cl , ,
('lj .. ,
.. ,
L- 50 ,
Q) .. .X' ... '/ '. " ,
> , ,
< , /
, ,
II , ,
40 ~ , ~
I- .. ,
.. ,
x .. , x
,
'.. ..
30 -"..... -- .. -
, ,
x , , x
,
, ,
20 , ,
, " . 'x
,
1 0
1 2 3 4 5 6
X = 1 000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
x Actual Data Points ---- - - Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2 = ****
)-1 L-f I SEP ...,
~.., J~
2 2003
Trip Generation, January 1991
1325
Institute of Transportation Engineers
"__.A.I~~~
.'~ ','<0:1" '''''';;C~.i.:.l::';tk(i.,t
........
Land Use: 870
Apparel Store
Description
An apparel store is an individual store specializing in the sale of clothing.
Additional Data
Information on transit trip ends is not available,
Information on person trip ends is not available.
Information on truck trips is not available,
Information on vehicle occupancy is not available.
Information on peak hours of the generator is not available.
These studies were conducted in 1984, at six stores in New England, These sites average 5,000
square feet gross leasable area (range of 2,000 to 9,000).
Source Numbers
210
\
\
\
l
I
~4~
SEP 1 ~ ?Olj;
I
t
t
t.
f<
Trip Generation, January 1991
1444
Institute of Transportation Engineers
~
~~
""
,nn II
- -.'"
Apparel Store
(870)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On. a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.
Number of Studies: 6
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 5
Directional Distribution: Not available
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
3.33 1 .50 - 6.37 2.56
Data Plot and Equation
60
50 .,. ,.. ..;,.,..,..............,.........,...,:,.."..,..."..........>s..."..,..
. . , . . .
f/)
'0
C
W
a.
'i:
I-
Q)
:Q
.s::.
Q)
>
Q)
Ol
f!!
Q)
>
<
\I
I-
40 ~. _ h . _ . . . . ! . . _ . - . - - .. - .'. - . - . - . - - . - '. - - - - . - - . . - ~ - - . . - . . . . -
, . . .
30 __' ,
, . , .
. -. - -. -. - - -.' -..... -. - -..' -. -..... - - - - -.' -. _..-
. . . ,
. .
".. -. -. - -.. - -. - -. -" -. +
. '
--
20 _.'. -. _ . - - -: - - -. - - . . . - .:- - . -. . - . - _.:- . - - '" - -. :.-~~:---:. .
. . --- .
. .
-". '," - -. - -.. - ','" - -." -'-
-~_....-
..-
10 . -- . . .
, . . . . ~:;;':x' . . .' . .. .. .""""" -; . ,. . . .. .. -:. . .. ..' .
o
2
456 7
X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
8
9
3
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
------ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 1.386 Ln(X) + 0.402
R2 = 0.77
~4~
'[r 1 2 200]
Trip Generation, January 1991
1445
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Apparel Store
(870)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Weekday,
P.M. Peak Hour of Generator
Number of Studies: 6
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 5
Directional Distribution: Not available
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
3.77 1.78 - 6.37 2.54
Data Plot and Equation
60
50 .,........ ,......,.,. ,........... .'. ,......,..".,.,..... .',.,.,."., .~......
. . . , . .
f/)
'0
c:
W
a.
'i:
I-
Q)
'0
:E
Q)
>
Q)
Ol
~
Q)
>
<
II
I-
40 __.____....____......
. . , .
.' -' - -.. - -. - -. - - - - -... - - - -. - - -. - - - - - - - -. -. - - -.. - --
. . . ,
30 ........,.;......,... .:..,.....,. .:.......,...;.......... -:,...".,.
20 '. ' . . . . , . ' ; . . . . . . . . . . .:' . . . . . . . . , .~ >~~-::<~~
~.-
-,--
10
o
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
x = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
~44
, EP 1 2 2003
t
1
'-
\
~
I
l
!l
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve
------ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: T = [(0.388/X) - 0.016r1
R2 = 0.85
Trip Generation, January 1991
1446
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Inn 11
Land Use: 895
Video Arcade
Description
A video arcade is a building or space in which video game units are played for a fee. Arcades
generally contain 20 to 100 individual game units.
Additional Data
Information on transit trip ends is not available.
Information on person trip ends is not available.
Information on truck trips is not available.
Information on vehicle occupancy is not available,
Peak hours of the generator (based on a limited sample):
Weekdays and weekends 8:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M,
This study was conducted in 1982 at a video arcade in Connecticut. This site has 78 video game
units, 5,000 square feet gross floor area, and 83 parking spaces,
Source Numbers
219
~45
Sf-I) 1".,'
J ~ Z003
Trip Generation, January 1991
1466
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Inn fI
Ken Ogden
From:
ent:
ro:
Subject:
Ed & Tanya Bemis [tanyab@mind.net]
Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:51 AM
Ken Ogden
Fw: traffic study information needed
lb',','
.....':.:? ..:-.........
:,,0:'__". _
TR2.xls (230 KB)
Ken,
Here is an Excel file from the City. I'm going to try to look at the ITE Trip Generation
Manual tomorrow to find out what our sort of commercial space would generate for trips.
I'll get it to you asap. Thanks! Tanya
According to Ray Smith (Engineering Tech II) 552-2416 smithr@ashland.or,us
Between 1st and 2nd on Hargadine 869/day
Between pioneer and 1st 1043/day
Between Hargadine and E Main on 1st SOS/day
Between Pioneer and 1st on E Main 13093/day
Between 1st and 2nd on E Main 13349/day
Residential units generate 10 trips/day
Commercial units generate?? Go look at ITE Trip Generation Manual
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray smith" <Ray@ashland.or.us>
To: <tanyab@mind.net>
:ent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 12:~9 PM
~ubject: Re: traffic study information needed
>
> Tanya:
>
> I'm attaching the database for my existing traffic counts - should
> be pretty self-explanatory, but feel free to ask if you need any help
> with it. I talked to one of the Planners, and they told me the trip
> generation stuff is not just a "cut & dried" type issue : depends on
> the type of commercial usage (e.g. : fast food restaurant would
> generate a different volume of traffic than a hair salon, for
> instance) and the information on that can be found in the ITE Trip
> Generation Manual.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Ray
>
>
>
~tfto
1
S EP 1 2, 200:~
Iln n 1111'
From: Alberta Swan <alberta@mind.net>
To: <awdb@aol.com>, <cate@mind.net>, <cehearn@aol.com>,
<grimaldg@ashland.or.us>, <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>, <donlaw@mind.net>,
<jmorrison@rvcog.org>, <katejack@opendoor.com>, <mac@ashland.or.us>
Date: 1/3/04 8:09PM
Subject: Re: REJECT THE BEMIS PROJECT
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Please halt all progress on this eyesore to our beautiful city. Ashland
does not need this building.
Thank you,
Alberta Swan
~'71
liD n 1111
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<AIBodin@aol.com>
<council@ashland.or,us>
1/6/045:11 PM
Bemis Project
To the Mayor and City Councilors:
The astounding approval by the Planning Dept. of the Bemis Project to
encompass an area of an 80,000 sq. ft. building located off Main St in downtown
Ashland at the corner of Hargadine and First St. still leaves us reeling from the
impact of such a gigantic development., More than twice the size of Ashland
Springs Hotel and Albertsons Market, it is to include16 condos, three commercial
stores" etc., all squeezed into the present parking lot behind the Ashalnd
Springs Hotel. This mamouth project will tower above street level, and was
conveniently proposed for approval in an incomplete state just several days
before the Big Box Ordinance went into effect. Apparently, an appeal will be made
regarding the Planning Commissions decision. We concur with such an appeal
and ask that the Bemis Project be rejected for the following reason:
1. This would be the largest building to be constructed in downtown Ashland,
a precedent we had for years tried to avoid when we finally passed the recent
Big Box Ordinance.
2. It should be pointed out that it will dwarf other construction sites and
create a totally different environment for a long time touted small town
atmosphere in our fair city, a major reason why folks have relocated from urban
areas to live here, as well as why tourists, who provide much of our revenue
base, claim their prime attraction is to the quaintness and charm of our city
which draws them to Ashland.
3. For city dwellers, who are already seriously impacted by traffic as
drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, this will proposes an additional burden to
navagating the downtown area. Parking space is already greatly limited, and such
a massive development will cause additional congestion, traffic bottlenecks,
unsafe conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicular drivers.
The 3Bemis Project.2 (per Planning Action #2003-127) definitely needs a major
review as to its viability and practicality for all the reasons stated above.
We fervently urge that the City Council see to it that this occurs before an
irrersible decision takes effect.
Sincerely,
Anne and AI Bodin
119 Cypress Circle
Ashland
~'f?
Inn 1I ITI'I"
, Jo~n mcl~~ghlin - ST<2P Bemi~ project t-.JOW-KeElP our to~rists c.~mingm
Pa9.~ 1 .
From: "Alia Gambay" <agambay@hotmail.com>
To: <awdb@aol.com>, <donlaws@mind.net>, <cate@mind.net>, <jmorrison@rvcog.org>,
<cehearn@aol.com>, <katejackson@opendoor.com>, <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>,
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
Date: 1/6/04 7:00AM
Subject: STOP Bemis project NOW-Keep our tourists coming
~41
Iln n 1111'
From: "Ariella St. Clair" <astclair@mind.net>
To: <awdb@aol.com>, <donlaws@mind.net>, <cate@mind.net>, <jmorrison@rvcog.org>,
<cehearn@aol.com>, <katejackson@opendoor.com>, <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>,
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
Date: 1/4/04 12:22PM
Subject: Against Bemis Project
This letter is to inform you that I am totally opposed to such a large
building being built in downtown Ashland. It is too large. Plus, there
is already several other office store projects in the downtown area and
many empty storefronts around town. The condos certainly won't be
affordable to anyone besides the extremely rich. I can't see them
selling for any less than 3 or 4 thousand dollars. I am a former
Ashland resident who now resides in Talent because I could not afford to
buy anything in Ashland. However, I work daily in Ashland and still
consider myself an Ashlandite.
Ariella St. Clair
PO Box 835, Ashland, OR 97520
535-3562
c1. ~ C;
Inn 1I IrII I"
Box
From: <Ashlandla@aol.com>
To: <Awdb@aol.com>, <donlaws@mindnet>, <cate@mindnet>, <jmorrison@rucog.org>,
<Cehearn@aol.com>, <katejackson@opendoor.com>, <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>,
<mac@ashland.or.us>
Date: 1/1/044:42PM
Subject: Re: Stop the Bemis Big Box
Stop the Bemis Big Box.
It will not be a pleasant sight for our town. More shops wll effect the
business already downtown. The parking will become more of a problem. It will
block our view.
It would be nice if that space became a parking facility, but not as large as
plan for the Bem is project.
~5"1
Inn 1I ' 1'11I1"
John mclau
From: "Barbara" <furkids@ccountry.net>
To: <awdb@aol.com>, <donlaws@mind.net>, <cate@mind.net>, <jmorrison@rvcog.org>,
<cehearn@aol.com>, <katejackson@opendoor.com>, <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>,
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
Date: 12/31/03 11 :45AM
Subject: Reject the Bemis Project!
Dear Councilors:
A Big Box of over 80,000 sq. ft. has no place in our downtown in part for
the following reasons:
*Parking within and around the proposed building, already tight, will be
inadequate to handle the demand which will be created by the new 16
condominiums, and three commercial stores.
*No details were submitted on how traffic flow in the area will be affected
by the new residents and users of the commercial facilities.
*The increased traffic and parking demand will further endanger pedestrian
safety.
I strongly urge you to turn down the Bemis Project.
Sincerely,
Barbara J. Keen
847 Hillview Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
541-552-0323
~5~
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Bud Carroll" <budclair@charter.net>
<grimaldg@ashland.or.us>
1/6/04 11 :40AM
Stop the Bemis Big Box
Claire and Bud Carroll
~53
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Char Horning" <charh@mind.net>
<Cou ncil@ashland.or.us>
1/3/04 1 :07PM
Please REJECT the HUGE Bemis project in our LITTLE town
Dear Council Members and Mayor,
I'm very concerned about this LARGE building plan for the BEMIS project
behind the Ashland Springs Hotel that has slid through committees just
before our space limits ordinance was passed. Please do whatever you can to
reject this outsized building complex in our LITTLE town. Parking is
already a major problem. Plus we have been working hard to get people to
slow down and stop for pedestrians. I'll be at the council meeting on Jan.
20. Thanks, Char Horning, 46 Alida Steet
t(~i'
John mclaughlin - Plea~~ hel~~_s STgy the Bemis project in ~ur L1TTLEJown ____ __~__~ .
._~a_ge 1 J
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Char Horning <charh@mind.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/3/0411 :17AM
Please help us STOP the Bemis project in our LITTLE town
Dear John McLaughlin, I'm reading about this LARGE building plan that
has slid through until now. Please do whatever you can to reject this
outsized building in our LITTLE town. Parking too is a major problem.
I'll be at the council meeting on Jan. 20. Thanks, Char Horning - 46
Alida St.
~5o
Iln ~ 111I1'
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Charles R Meek" <meeknelson@juno.com>
<donlaws@mind.net>, <cate@mind.net>, <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
1/2/04 12:21 PM
Fw: Stop the Bemis Big Box resend msg wrong address before
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Charles R Meek <MeekNelson@juno.com>
To: awdb@aol.com,donlaw@mind. net,cate@mindnet,jmorrison@rvcog.org,
cehearn@aol.com,katejackson@opendoor.com,
grimaldg@ashland.or.us,mac@ashland.or.us,
alex@atandingstonebrewing.com
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11 :35:58 -0800
Subject: Stop the Bemis Big Box
Dear City of Ashland Officials
We are writing to request that you consider the negative impact that the
approval of the Bemis Project will have on the City of Ashland. It will
destroy the unique character of our city and certainly will introduce new
problems in the downtown core regarding traffic and parking. Our hope is
that the City will work to make our City more pedestrian friendly. The
Bemis Project will not help. Please give this careful consideration and
appreciate that my wish is that you stop this Project now.
Thank you for what you do.
Charles Meek and Sharon Nelson
584 Great Oaks Drive
Ashland, Oregon 97520
~~
Inn rI
From: <Chkrdzebra@aol.com>
To: <Awdb@aol.com>, <donlaws@mind.net>, <cate@mind.net>, <jmorrison@rvcog.org>,
<Cehearn@aol.com>, <katejackson@opendoor.com>, <grimaldg@asland.or.us>, <mac@ashland.or.us>,
<alex@standingstonebewing.com>
Date: 1/4/0410:27PM
Subject: Reject The Bemis Project
There are many samples of how greed turns heavenly places into living
impossibilities.
You may look at Carmel, - Nantucket - Greenwich to name a few, a marketplace
of vanity and commercial power, versus unique life style.
Ashland has still the unique lifestyle, inspite of Ashland East, the North
Mountain area which changed wilderness of wild flowers into a copy of Daly
city, remember ticky tacky homes?
But there is still downtown, and now we plan high rises, traffic jams and
all the city nightmares we all know?
PLEASE STOP IT ALL. before it begins. Be responsible to the future
generations. Thank you.
Ellinor Gottesmann 769 No Mountain Ashland/Or 97520
~5'7
John mclau~~)in - "Bemi~_':'~oject" Appeal--
Page 1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<DFWi@aol.com>
<mclaughj@ashland.or.us>
12/18/032:14PM
"Bemis Project" Appeal--
I'm another Ashland citizen who objects to the so-called Bemis Project and
wishes to be associated with an appeal of the Project that I understand will
be filed shortly.
With respect, and this particular "Big Box" issue aside, I believe (with
many others) that there has already been far too much high density
development in Ashland. The new development on North Main across from the
Breadboard restaurant is one example, and the relatively high density
housing (condos and small lots) slated for the new "Billings" golf course
development is another. Then there are the politically correct but highly
unrealistic proposals for "affordable housing" in Ashland which must mean
high density construction by definition. Does anyone seriously consider
traffic on our principal streets, or other "liveability" and infrastructure
issues, when these projects are proposed? It seems that there is far too
little governmental concern for the preservation of the character of Ashland
that so many of us have found attractive in the past.
Sincerely,
David F. Williams
1023 Morton Street
Ashland, OR
cc: <donlaws@mind.net>, <cate@mind.net>, <jmorrison@rvcog.org>,
<alex@standingstonebrewing.com>, <Cehearn@aol.com>, <katejackson@opendoor.com>,
<Awdb@aol.com>, <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>
~5~
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<dk@davidkatzconsulting.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
12/31/0310:46AM
Stop Bem is
This town does not need nor want to expand in this way. The charm
of the city is its biggest asset to business and residents alike.
Don't miss this opportunity to preserve it.
David Katz
www.davidkatzconsulting.com
p~~Cf
Inn 1'1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Don Montgomery" <donm12@charter.net>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/3/046:33PM
Request That You Reject The Bemis Project
Councilors
I have written to you previously regarding the Bemis Project, that, if allowed to go forward, will allow the
construction of the largest structure to be built in downtown Ashland. I now understand that a formal
appeal to this project has been filed, and I fully support this appeal. There are many reasons to reject this
project which have been enumerated in the appeal application. One such reason stands out, and that is
the fact that the proposed structure is in excess of 80,000 sq. ft., being more than twice the size of
Albertsons, The Ashland Springs Hotel and the new Fire District 3 Station on Highway 99 in Talent. In my
previous e-mail to you I noted that such a structure would forever alter the historical character of the
downtown area, a character that many residents treasure and which is one of the unique aspects which
attracts tourists.
It is known that the permit application and incomplete plans for this project were submitted to the Planning
Department just four days prior to the "Big Box" ordinance being enacted. This fact not withstanding, The
Planning Department and Planning Commission approval of the Bemis Project flies in the face of the
Councils decision to not allow structures over 45,000 sq. ft. in the downtown area. While the application
and some semblance of plans were submitted a mere four days before the new ordinance was enacted, it
is a fact that the Councils intentions to limit downtown structures to 45,000 sq. ft. were well known prior to
the application submittal.
It may well be a difficult decision for the Council members to reject the Bemis Project. The investors, the
developer, the architect, the Planning Director, and selected members of the Planning Commission will
strenuously argue that they
have met the letter of the law and are not bound by the "Big Box" ordinance. Considerable pressure will be
placed on the Council members to accept the decision of the Planning Department and Planning
Commission. The easiest decision will be for the Council to roll over and retreat behind the legality issues.
I urge the Council to make the difficult decision and reject the Bemis Project, and by doing so,
demonstrate integrity by standing firm on not allowing a structure to be built that makes a sham of the "Big
Box" limitations. I, once again, strongly urge the Council to not allow the Bemis Project to go forward and
terribly alter the unique historical character of downtown Ashland.
Sincerely
Don Montgomery
Ashland
~~D
Iln M 11111'
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Doug Shipley" <Doug.Shipley@ashland.k12.0r.us>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/6/049:07AM
No to the Bemis project
Planners! Unless the condo's scheduled for the Bemis project are low income family friendly dwellings, I
respectfully have to voice my opinion that we don't need the building. We have plenty of upper income
housing but not much that working families can afford. I see this as the major problem we need to
address.
Thanks, Doug
=< b J
Inn II
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Doug Shipley" <Doug.Shipley@ashland.k12.or.us>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/5/0412:13PM
Reject the Bemis Project
Hi City Council,
Please don't build the Bemis project, we don't need more big buildings. Thanks, Doug Shipley
~ "a-...
From:
Date:
Subject:
"Dr. Rick Kirschner" <dr.rick@talknatural.com>
12/31/039:29AM
Reject the Bemis Big Box Project
Season's greetings,
Where will it end? Where is the responsible stewardship of our
community by our civic leaders? I'm not sure how or why the City
Planning Department approved of an over 80,000 sq. ft. building to be
sited off Main St. in the heart of downtown Ashland. The largest
structure ever built here, it would be more than twice the size of the
Ashland Springs Hotel and Albertsons and almost three times larger than
the Elks Building. Known as the Bemis Project, the enormous
condo/shops/parking complex would be jammed into the parking lot behind
the hotel and, viewed from the Main St., loom the equivalent of seven
stories above street level. The building belongs in Portland or San
Francisco, not here!
This lack of appreciation for what we have here makes no sense. But
fortunately, in the rush to get the project approved, it appears that
the builder failed to meet requirements of four separate City Land Use
Ordinances/Site Design Standards.
*Parking within and around the proposed building, already tight, will
be inadequate to handle the demand which will be created by the new 16
condominiums, and three commercial stores.
*No details were submitted on how traffic flow in the area will be
affected by the new residents and users of the commercial facilities.
*The increased traffic and parking demand will further endanger
pedestrian safety.
You can be certain that I'll attend any city council meeting on this
proposal to vigorously oppose the Bemis Big Box Project. on this to
vigorously oppose this project, whenever you set the date. And I'll
make certain to let as many of my fellow citizens know about this
outrageous proposal and terrible attempt to undermine the livability
and desirability of this community.
Sincerely,
Rick
Ashland resident since 1981
Dr. Rick Kirschner
The Art of Change
http://www.talknatural.com
"The future of humanity depends on the integrity of the individual. It
is absolutely touch and go. Each one of us could make the difference."
-R. Buckminster (Bucky) Fuller
~"3
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Duane & Helen Whitcomb" <dwhitcmb@jeffnet.org>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/4/046:35PM
Bemis project
Mac,
I understand this is meant to be sent to you "for the record." Thanks for filing it as such.
City Council folks,
Given the recent changes to the big box limits, I would have to agree with the folks appealing this project's
approval. The fact that it snuck under the wire does not mean it has to go through. Please consider all
options for keeping this project from going through. Thank you.
Duane Whitcomb
Ashland
~~~
John mclaughlin - Please Stop Illegal Bemis Project
.. .--- -... - . ...- .-..
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Duane Light <dlight777@yahoo.com>
<awdb@aol.com>
12/30/03 11 :54AM
Please Stop Illegal Bemis Project
Dear City Council Member:
I am very concerned about the way the Bemis
project is being pushed through without adequate
public or planning department input. Please
reconsider this hasty and poorly-planned decision.
Thank you.
Duane Light
45 Crocker Street
Ashland, OR97520
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search . yahoo. com/top2003
~~6
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
edgar morton <mrpotatoed@yahoo.com>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/5/047:36PM
reject the bemis project
the people of ashland have spoken to this proposal by way of the big box ordinance. please uphold the will
of ashlanders by rejecting the bemis projecUhank you for your time,
edgar morton
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hot jobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
;;.,~~
From: Erin T <shadow_oCa_doubt89@yahoo.com>
To: <awdb@aol.com>, <donlaws@mind.net>, <cate@mind.net>, <jmorrison@rvcog.org>,
<cehearn@aol.com>, <katejackson@opendoor.com>, <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>,
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
Date: 1/2/04 9:35PM
Subject: Stop the Bemis Project
To whom it may concern,
I am a fifteen year old Ashland resident, a freshman at Ashland High School, and I am outraged that a
building like the Bemis Project would ever be approved (and conveniently just before the limit for
maximum building size was lowered to 45,000 sq. ft.
As a resident of Ashland, I have often been downtown with my family and found it hard for us to find a
parking spot, and since I myself may get my learner's permit and become a driver in Ashland, I feel that
more stores and/or condominiums in the place of a parking lot will make it nearly impossible to park
downtown. I also fear that a building of this size is not something that belongs in downtown Ashland, and I
urge you to stop this from being built.
Sincerely,
Erin T errall
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
~~'1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Alex Amarotico" <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
12/301036:51 PM
FW: Stop the Bemis Project
And another, Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: "Gaea & John"<adamsfam@mind.net>
Sent: 12/30/2003 5:36:50 PM
To: "alex@standingstonebrewing .com "<alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
Subject: Stop the Bemis Project
This monster is the last thing needed in downtown Ashland; please do what you can to prevent.
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.5561 Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 12/26/2003
~~~
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Gaea & John" <adamsfam@mind.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
12/31/035:36PM
Fw: Stop the Bemis Project
The Bemis Project is too huge for that location in Ashland. We hope you have the foresight to agree.
----- Original Message -----
From: Awdb@aol.com
To: adamsfam@mind.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 30,20039:48 PM
Subject: Re: Stop the Bemis Project
Under Oregon State law all projects submitted for building are under strict rules. The city Council becomes
the appeals board for citizens and developers. Both the Council and I cannot have any conversation on
the project without declaring the nature and content of that dialogue. If we do not follow the proper
procedure the decision may be questioned by the losing party and may taint that decision, this puts the city
at risk. Your email mustgototheplanningdepartment.mac@ashland.or.us. to be made part of public
record if an appeal is made within the time limit.
Alan DeBoer
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.5561 Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 12/26/2003
~~'1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Dear Gino,
"Gary Einhorn" <beardsleys@earthlink.net>
<grimaldg@ashland.or.us>
12/30/03 1 0:56AM
Bemis Project
I am opposed to the Bemis Project! We do not need an 80,000 sq. ft. building in our lovely small town!
Please turn it down!
Sincerely,
Gary A. Einhorn
~70
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<Garysandye@aol.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/6/0411 :32AM
Stop the Box
Mr. Maclaughlin, This is to register my opposition to the construction of the
huge building behind the Ashland Springs Hotel. Even if size weren't an
issue enough, the disaster created in parking congestion makes this a very bad
idea. I realize that the proposition made it in just before the approval of the
new size ordinance and there are limits on disapproval, but please do not make
any concessions that will allow this project to be built. Thank you for your
careful consideration of all the issues! Gary Moore, Ashland resident
).,71
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
GAYLE TITUS <titus@jeffnet.org>
<grimaldg@ashland.or.us>
12/31/039:56AM
Stop Bem is Project
Dear Councillor,
Please rejct the Bemis project. It would be a blight on Ashland's
skyline and create parking problems in an already tight area. It would
drawf the Hotel, Ashland's tallest building and an historic one. Vote No
Thank you
Gayle Titus
1 Hillcrest St.
Ashland, Or.97520
~i~
From: <GloriaBoyd@aol.com>
To: <Awdb@aol.com>, <donlaws@mind.net>, <cate@mind.net>, <jmorrison@rvcog.org>,
<Cehearn@aol.com>, <katejackson@opendoor.com>, <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>,
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>, <titus@jeffnet.org>
Date: 12/30/03 10:38AM
Subject: Stop the Bemis project!
If you have any feeling for the character and beauty of Ashland, please don't
let it be ruined by such a thing as the Bemis Blight. I, as a fifteen year
resident of Ashland, object strongly as do my friends and neighbors, to such a
project. I can't think of anything that would blight our community more or to
sadden the citizens of Ashland and the people who come to enjoy our quality of
life even for a couple of days, than such a project.
Can you visualize any national publication writing up the city of Ashland --
as they have in the past -- if we have something like the Bemis project
looming over our town?
Think with your hearts -- not with muddled minds.
Don't let the Bemis Blight happen to Ashland.
Sincerely,
Gloria Boyd
207 Hillcrest St.
Ashland
~1'3
John
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"goldyn papa" <goldynpapa@lycos.com>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/5/047:08PM
reject the Bemis project
this project is just silly!! don't do it.
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail... Get Lycos Mail!
http://login.mail.lycos .com/r/referral?aid =27005
~~ 1 t.,/
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<Haspmail@aol.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/4/04 1 :50PM
Disapprove the Bemis Project
The proposed Bemis project will be another step in destroying the
"small-town-feel" of Ashland. I am totally against it.
Harry Spence
327 Ravenwood PI
~~15
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Heidi Parker <parkershames@opendoor.com>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/6/049:38AM
Reject the Bemis project
Dear Councilors...1 urge you to reject the Bemis large-scale building
plan for downtown Ashland. Residents have repeatedly urged you to
avoid such large-scale development for the sake of preserving a more
livable downtown.
Thank you, Heidi Parker
~1
- new
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"James Adams" <james@ashlandinstitute.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/5/042:42PM
new building
I am writing to express my concern at the planned Bemis development behind
the Ashland Springs Hotel and I would ask you to do what you can to stop
this construction.
I have four reasons for opposing the development:
1 . Aesthetics. A building of this scale is entirely inappropriate for a city
of the size and character of Ashland. It will be visually intrusive and
dominate the landscape which no building should be allowed to do in downtown
Ashland.
2. Practicality. Parking pressure is already considerable in Ashland and
this building will only make the situation worse.
3. Legality. The planning application for this building was submitted just
prior to the council placing limits on building size in the city. It appears
that the application was neither legally complete nor compliant with the
letter and the spirit of the new city ordinance.
4. Commercial. A decision now will have a long term impact on the life and
character of the city. The lifeblood of Ashland for its residents and
visitors alike is the appeal of downtown. If that character is eroded over
time, so will the life and business of the city.
I know you care about these issues as much as I do and so I hope you will
oppose this project.
with best wishes, james
James Adams
Chairman and CEO
Ashland Institute for Strategic Studies
PO Box 899
Ashland, OR 97520
www.ashlandinstitute.com
P 541 4828610
f 541 482 8402
r., 14
~. !
Inn II
From: "Jack Hardesty" <jfhardesty@charter.net>
To: "cate hartzell" <cate@mind.net>, "alex@standingt amarotico"
<alex@standingstonebrewing.com>, "chris hearn" <cehearn@aol.com>, "don laws"
<donlaws@mind.net>, "john morrison" <jmorrison@rvcog.org>, "kate jackson"
<katejackson@opendoor.com>
Date: 12/28/03 11 :29PM
Subject: Appeal of Bemis project
For Immediate Release, Dec. 30, 203 Street 482-8017
APPEAL FILED ON MONSTROUS BUILDING COMPLEX
Members of Citizens for Responsible Government have filed an appeal to the
City Council to reject plans for a massive nearly 90,000 sq. ft. building
complex to be jammed into the Ashland Springs Hotel parking lot.
CRG members Raymona DeVaul, Jack Hardesty, Bryan Holley, and Bill Street
signed the appeal submitted Dec. 26, charging that the Planing Department
submitted incomplete plans to the Historic, Tree, and Planning Commissions.
Eric Navickas was the 5th signatory on the appeal which also said the plans
failed to meet requirements of three other separate Ashland Land Use
Ordinances or Site Design Standards.
If approved by the Council, the proposed structure will be the largest one
ever built downtown, more than twice the size of either the hotel or
Albertsons and almost three times larger than the Elks Building. Known as
the Bemis project, the enormous condo/shops/parking structure, when viewed
from Main St., would loom the equivalent of seven stories above street
level.
"A Big Box complex of this size has no place in downtown Ashland and belongs
more in Portland or San Francisco," according to Bill Street. "Aside from
being incomplete and not meeting other building requirements, the plans were
also snuck in just four days before the City Council voted to restrict the
downtown building size to 45,000 gross sq. ft. This hardly meets the spirit
of the council's decision or the February 2003 the recommendations of the
Planning Commission about building size downtown."
CRG also points out several other problems associated with the proposed
building:
*Parking, already tight in the area, will be inadequate to handle the
increased demand created by the 16 new million dollar condominiums and three
commercial stores.
* No details were submitted on how traffic flow in the area will be affected
by the new residents and users of the commercial facilities.
* The increased traffic and parking congestion will further endanger
pedestrian safety.
CRG is asking concerned citizens to contact the Mayor, Council members, the
City Administrator, and the Planning Director urging that the proposed
project be rejected. The City Council will likely hear the Appeal on Jan.
20th in the City's Council Chambers..
...") ..~ <l
~', {,<i
Inn JI . lilli"
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<Javna@aol.com>
<Cou ncil@ashland.or.us>
1/5/046:25AM
Reject the Bemis project
Jan. 5,2004
Dear Councilpeople:
I'm writing from Italy, where I'm spending a year before returning to our
home in Ashland. I received an e-mail calling attention to the approval of the
Bemis project by the planning commission. I am very upset by both the manner in
which the proposal was apparently approved--ie, slipped in under the wire,
in clear disregard for the direction our community has chosen for downtown
development--and by the way it will change the experience of living in Ashland.
I support private enterprise and people's ability to profit from their
investments. But there are times when private enterprise must take a back seat
to the public good. This is one of those times. A few landowners/contractors
will make money, and the rest of the community will suffer as the feel and look
of our downtown is changed forever.
This, I reiterate, will take place after the decision has already been
made not to allow such a change. It should not be permitted.
Preserving Ashland's downtown is not simply an aesthetic consideration.
Our economy is based on tourism, and the "quaintness" of our town is one of
its primary selling points. Start changing that, and you'll be encroaching on
the ability of established businesses to support our residents.
All in all, I think the Bemis project, as approved, is a bad idea.
Please reject it.
Best wishes for the new year,
John Javna
"1a
c.l I
1m'
From: "Joan Steele" <empress@mind.net>
To: <awdb@aol.com>, <donlaws@mind.net>, <cehearn@aol.com>,
<katejackson@opendoor.com>, "Cate Hartzell" <cate@mind.net>, <dna@mind.net>,
<j morrison@rvcog.org>
Date: 12/30/039:18PM
Subject: Stop the Bemis Project
Dear Mayor DeBoer, Councilors, and Staff--I appeal to you to reject this
behemoth project that will forever alter the character of our historic
downtown.
Joan Steele
Former Member, Ashland Historic Commission
cc:
"John McLaughlin" <mac@ashland.or.us>, <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>
~ f6
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
John Fisher-Smith <john@ashlandhome.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
12/30/03 6:02PM
Stop the Bemis project
Dear Mac,
In my opinion the Bemis project doesn't belong here. It would ruin
Ashland's pedestrian downtown and will create more unwanted traffic.
It is way too big for Ashland
John Fisher-Smith
~ ?(
Inn II ' 111I1"
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"John Kalb MS DC" <john@drkalb.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
12/30/03 8:27PM
Please Stop Bemis Box!
John M. Kalb MS DC
The Wellness Chiropractor and Health Coach
www.DrKalb.com 541.488.3001/888.488.3001
~'gL
HID II ' 111I1"
John G. Ouellet
350 Guthrie Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520
Phone 541-488-8192 Fax 541-488-6795
e-mail ouelletjg@aoLcom
VIA E-MAIL
January 2,2004
TO: ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
I understand the Ashland City Planning Commission has approved a plan for construction of a
large (over 80,000 sq. ft.) commercial/condominium building to be located on what is now the
Ashland Spring Hotel parking lot at the comer of Hargadine and 1st Street. This is identified as
Planning Action #2003-127, also known as the 3Bemis ProjecU
I understand other citizens of Ashland have decided to file a formal appealof the Planning
Commissions decision. I support this appeal, and urge your rejection of the Bemis Project. My
basic concerns are the following:
1. This would be the largest building ever constructed in downtown Ashland.
2. It would be more than twice the size of the Ashland Springs Hotel
3. It would be more than twice the size of the Safeway or Albertsons.
4. The plans were incomplete when first submitted just to beat the deadline
ofthe 3big box2 ordinance, which was approved four days later.
5. No details were submitted regarding the impact on traffic or pedestrian
safety on Hargadine & 1st Street. We all know of the pedestrian fatality
last year near this site.
6. Parking within and around the proposed building is inadequate to support
the Hotel, 16 condominiums, three commercial stores, and public spaces.
I believe, along with many others, that the size and scope of this project would totally change the
look and feel of the historical downtown area.
I respectfully submit these concerns for your consideration, and again, urge
you to reject this project.
Sincerely,
dl/tJ~
John G. Ouellet
o? '! :3
1'1. II II. I
John
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
1'1. IT
"Kathleen Provence" <kprovence@opendoor.com>
<grimaldg@ashland.or.us>
12/30/03 11 :24AM
Bemis project is not for Ashland
I< ~4
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<kathmeag@opendoor.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/1/047:14PM
stop Bemis project-Planning Dept.
Copy of e-mail to Mayor and Council.
Dear Council Members, How this proposal became a project to move ahead
on with out the proper hearings and due legal process is NOT
ACCEPTABLE. The proposed project is exactly what will ruin the
Ashland that the majority of Ashlanders tell you we want to preserve.
Are you in office to represent and serve the majority? or business and
money?--- which ultimately destroys the character, aesthetics, safety
and traffic minimization without concern for anything other than
money. What is your concern for and responsibility to Ashland and its
future?
Kathleen Meagher
~~S'
!'I. II II. I
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Lance Bisaccia" <Iance@mind.net>
">My friends" <Iance@mind.net>
1/1/0411:12AM
Stop the Bemis project
The e-mail below calls for action by everyone concerned about the
(immediate) future of Ashland. I urge you to read it.
Stan
(Comments? -> sd194@webtv.net)
P.S. "From 'Development' to Progress" (in attachment) provides a
perspective you may find relevant to the "Bemis Big Box" project.
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Hardesty <jfhardesty@charter.net>
Subject: Stop the Bemis Big Box
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 11 :34 PM
Dear Citizens for a Responsible Government and Friends,
Christmas came a little early this year when our City Planning Department
gave us a huge unasked-for gift, the approval of an over 80,000 sq. ft.
building to be sited off Main St. in the heart of downtown Ashland. The
largest structure ever built here, it would be more than twice the size of
the Ashland Springs Hotel and Albertsons and almost three times larger than
the Elks Building. Known as the Bemis Project, the enormous
condo/shops/parking complex would be jammed into the parking lot behind the
hotel and, viewed from the Main St., loom the equivalent of seven stories
above street level. The building belongs in Portland or San Francisco, not
here!
To make the project even more questionable, the plans, which the Planning,
Historic, and the Tree Commissions all said were incomplete, were submitted
just four days before the City Council voted to limit the building size
downtown to 45,000 gross sq. ft. That's questionably good timing for the
builders but bad news for community activists who have been working for
several years to get the Big Box ordinance amended to limit building size
downtown.
In the rush to get the project approved, however, it appears that the
builder failed to meet requirements of four separate City Land Use
Ordinances/Site Design Standards, and several of us are appealing which will
at least get the City Council to look at the project. The hearing is likely
to be held on Jan. 20th in the Council Chambers. Put the date on your
calendar.
An appeal, however, just allows us to get our foot in the door, and
decisions at the Council level are often made on reasons other than strictly
legal. Therefore, any and every one who believes that a Big Box of over
80,000 sq. ft. has no place in our downtown should let the Mayor, the
Planning Department, and, most importantly, the individual City Councilors
know how they feel in no uncertain terms. Without a substantial public
reaction to this outrageous proposal, the Council is unlikely to overturn
the approval of both the Planning Department and Planning Commission.
~ ~"
. When you take your pen or computer in hand, there are several other issues
which you might want to mention:
*Parking within and around the proposed building, already tight, will be
inadequate to handle the demand which will be created by the new 16
condominiums, and three commercial stores.
*No details were submitted on how traffic flow in the area will be affected
by the new residents and users of the commercial facilities.
*The increased traffic and parking demand will further endanger pedestrian
safety.
If you communicate to the City officials bye-mail, make the subject
something like: "Reject, Turn down, Stop etc...the Bemis project". A
succinct and to-the-point identifying subject is essential because Council
members are advised not to read messages on planning actions they may have
to rule on. Therefore, you must make your position known in the subject line
of your e-mail. (They have to know what the message is about before deciding
whether or not to read it.) Fortunately, if the subject of your
communication is clear, they don't have to read it all to get the point that
you disapprove of the project. Their e-mail addresses are below.
PLEASE SEND THIS MESSAGE ON TO ANYONE YOU THINK MIGHT BE EVEN THE SLIGHTEST
BIT INTERESTED. THE MORE CITIZENS WHO REGISTER THEIR OPPOSITION TO THIS
INAPPROPRIATE BIG BOX, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT IT WON'T GET BUILT.
Yours for a more responsible city government,
Jack Hardesty
Alan DeBoer - awdb@aol.com Don Laws - donlaws@mind.net
Cate Hartzell - cate@mind.net John Morrison - jmorrison@rvcog.org
Chris Hearn - cehearn@aol.com Kate Jackson - katejackson@opendoor.com
Gino Grimaldi - grimaldg@ashland.or.us John McLaughlin - mac@ashland.or.us
Alex Amarotico - alex@standingstonebrewing.com
,.., (21 "'1
("1'( ~ .
From: "Larry Kellogg" <Iarrykellogg@charter.net>
To: "Don Laws" <donlaws@mind.net>, lOCate Hartzell" <cate@mind.net>, "John Morrison"
<jmorrison@rvog.org>, "Alex Amarotico" <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>, "Kate Jackson"
<katejackson@opendoor.com>
Date: 12/20/03 10:25AM
Subject: Re the Bemis Project
Dear Council member:
I attended a meeting on November 12, 2003 where the Ashland City Planning
Commission approved a plan for construction of a large (over 80,000 sq. ft.)
commercial/condominium building to be located on what is now the Ashland
Spring Hotel parking lot at the corner of Hargadine and 1 st Street. This is
identified as Planning Action #2003-127, also known as the 3Bemis Project.
I understand other citizens of Ashland have decided to file a formal appeal
of the Planning Commissions decision. I support this appeal, and urge your
rejection of the Bemis Project. My basic concerns are the following:
1. This would be the largest building ever constructed in downtown Ashland.
2. It would be more than twice the size of the Ashland Springs Hotel
3. It would be more than twice the size of the Safeway or Albertsons.
4. The plans were incomplete when first submitted just to beat the deadline
of the 3big box ordinance, which was approved four days later.
5. No details were submitted regarding the impact on traffic or pedestrian
safety on Hargadine & 1 st Street. We all know of the pedestrian fatality
last year near this site.
6. Parking within and around the proposed building is inadequate to support
the Hotel, 16 condominiums, three commercial stores, and public spaces.
I believe, along with many others, that the size and scope of this project
would totally change the look and feel of the historical downtown area. I
respectfully submit these concerns for your consideration, and again, urge
you to reject this project.
Sincerely, Larry Kellogg
ftJ " ()
()I .... t:;
!'18 II II. I
Page 1 .
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Louis Leger <Iegerdeuxmains@yahoo.com>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/5/04 11 :56AM
Reject the Bem is Project
Please reject the Bemis Project for some or all of the
following reasons:
It's too big.
It's in violation of the Big Box ordinance.
It was rushed in to beat the deadline.
Ashland doesn't need another huge building.
The traffic in downtown is bad now and will get worse.
The parking in downtown is bad now and will get worse
with this project.
Ashland is a small town and needs buildings that are
smaller.
People in Ashland are against large buildings and the
council needs to listen to and represent the will of
the people rather than the developers.
Thanks for listening (er reading)
Barbara Richert
243 N. Laurel Street
Ashland, Or 97520
488-0012
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search . yahoo.com/top2003
Q 'f,j" ,-1
: Joh~!!1~I~u~~_li~~_~~mis Proj_ec_t~NO!
Page 1 :
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Lynn Michaels" <Iynnmichaels@charter.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/6/042:46PM
Bemis Project - NO!
TO: Planning Department
You have a tremendous opportunity to right the cynical approval you gave to the Bemis Project when it
was perfectly clear what the will of the people of Ashland wanted for the character of this small town. It
most definitely did not want to have a monster project imposed in the center of our town.
We do not want to look like every other place we came from! This abomitable monster of a project must
not be allowed here. You are on a very slippery slope.
Please listen to the people who live here and care deeply about the character of the place, not the
developers whose pockets will be lined.
Thank you, Lynn Michaels
" J
~-
From:
Date:
Subject:
Maridale and Bill Moore <bilmarmor@opendoor.com>
1/6/049:38AM
Please! No Big Boxes!
Just because someone manages to slip a building proposal through the
City Planning Commission four days before the Council is to act on
setting size restrictions should not guarantee its approval.
A building (or complex) the size of the Bemis proposal is certainly
out of place in Ashland. Ashland has had disasters in the past: for
one, the Cooper fiasco on Granite Street some years ago which could
have been avoided if profit were not the most important goal.
Where is it written that a city has to grow until there just isn't
another place to build anything? Why can't we say this is enough?
This is not the type of housing that will keep young families from
leaving Ashland so we can keep our schools and wonderful small town
feeling. Let's take care of the people that are already here, not keep
trying to attract new ones.
Sincerely, Maridale Moore
" ."
.st.>).
Pa
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Marshall Umpleby" <mumpleby@mind.net>
"Marshall & Mimi Umpleby" <mumpleby@mind.net>
1/7/0410:45AM
Stop the Memis Porject!
What on earth was the City Planning Department thinking when it approved the Bemis Project, an
aO,OOO-sq. ft. monolith in the heart of Ashland? We are unalterably opposed to this project for the
following reasons:
1. Parking will be inadequate to handle the demand created by new condos and stores;
2. No details have been submitted regarding how traffic flow will be affected by the new residents and
users of the commercial stores;
3. Increased traffic and parking demand will further endanger pedestrian safety;
4. The monolith, looming seven stories over Main Street will be ugly as sin.
Please stop the Bemis Project before it destroys downtown Ashland.
Marshall and Mimi Umpleby
1012 Hillview Drive
Ashland
~}cl "'"
"'W' . ~>
!!!
From: MATT SHEEHAN <sheehan1962@yahoo.com>
To: ALEX AMAROTICO <ALEX@STANDINGSTONEBREWING.COM>, GINO GRIMALDI
<GRIMALDG@ASHLAND.ORUS>, KATE JACKSON <KATEJACKSON@OPENDOORCOM>, CHRIS
HEARN <CEHEARN@AOL.COM>, JOHN MCLAUGHLIN <MAC@ASHLAND.ORUS>, JOHN
MORRISON <JMORRISON@RVCOG.ORG>, KATE HARTZELL <CATE@MIND.NET>, DON LAWS
<DONLAWS@MIND.NET>, alan deboer <AWDB@AOL.COM>
Date: 12/30/03 6:35PM
Subject: REJECT THE BEMIS PROJECT!!!!
NEED I SAY MORE?
1. THERE WON'T BE ENOUGH PARKING,
2. IT'LL INCREASE THE DANGER TO PEDESTRIANS
3. IT'LL CAUSE MORE DOWNTOWN CROWDING
4. I DEFINITELY DON'T WANT ANOTHER HUGE BUILDING LOOMING OVER ASHLAND! THIS ISN'T
NEW YORK, AND I DON'T WANT IT TO BECOME LIKE A BIG CITY! THIS WOULD BE
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THE SMALL CITY FEEL OF ASHLAND THAT SETS US APART.
THANKS,
MATT SHEEHAN, ASHLAND
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
~q.J
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<MBTinsley@aol.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
12/31/0310:03AM
Please Stop the Bem is Project
I feel very strongly that development on the scale contemplated by the
Bemis Project is a huge mistake for Ashland, both logistically and aesthetically.
I urge you to question the current approval of the project and consider the
down-sides further.
Thanks in advance.
Molly Tinsley
:214-
Page 1 '
From: "Nancy" <keeleyn@mind.net>
To: <awdb@aol.com>, <donlaws@mind.net>, <cate@mind.net>, <jmorrison@rvcog.org>,
<cehearn@aol.com>, <katejackson@opendoor.com>, <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>,
<mac@ashland.or.us>. <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
Date: 1/1/049:22PM
Subject: Reject the Bemis Project
I am appealing to you to turn down the Bemis project. I believe it is
inapporpriately large for the location and would adversely affect the
character of downtown Ashland. Traffic flow in the area is already
problematic as is parking. Please reject this proposal
Thank you,
Nancy Keeley
78 N Third St
Ashland, OR
r;q s-
, John mclaughlin - PLEASE st()e.~he Bemis proje~t!_'__
From: "Nancy Carter" <ncarter@mind.net>
To: "Alex Amarotico" <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>, "John McLaughlin"
<mac@ashland.or.us>, "Gino Grimaldi" <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>, "Alan DeBoer" <awdb@aol.com>,
"Don Laws" <donlaws@mind.net>, "Cate Hartzell" <cate@mind.net>, "John Morrison"
<jmorrison@rvcog.org>, "Chris Hearn" <cehearn@aol.com>, "Kate Jackson"
<katejackson@opendoor.com>
Date: 1/1/043:14PM
Subject: PLEASE stop the Bemis project!'
It seems suspect that the Bemis proposal was approved by the Planning
Department just 4 days before the vote to limit building size. It is clear
that a project of this size has no place in our city. The traffic and
parking problems which exist in the downtown area would be greatly
exacerbated. If a poll were taken of the city's inhabitants it would be
clear that the public would not be served by a project of this magnitude.
Sometimes it seems that there is no developer's project that isn't approved
when one by one they are making our city one that the majority of the
inhabitants deplore. PLEASE listen to the public and vote against this
monstrous proposal.
~'rc::'
~~ge_1 :
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Nancy Nerenberg" <nancy@floatart.com>
<alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
1/1/041 :29PM
stop the bemis project!!
Dear Alex,
I am strongly against approving such a huge building in downtown
Ashland.
--It will change the wonderful character of our town too dramatically!
--Parking within and around the proposed building, already tight, will
be inadequate to handle the demand which will be created by the new 16
condominiums, and three commercial stores.
--No details were submitted on how traffic flow in the area will be
affected by the new residents and users of the commercial facilities.
--increased traffic and parking demand will further endanger pedestrian
safety.
We don't need such a monstrosity here. Please stop this project!
Sincerely,
Nancy Nerenberg
Float Art Design
853 Hillview Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
www.floatart.com
nancy@f1oatart.com
1-888-323-5628
1-541-301-8022 (cell)
~97
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Natalie Pad no" <natalie@mind.net>
<grimaldg@ashland.or.us>
12/31 /03 7:43PM
Bemis Big Box
Dear Mr. Grimaldi,
Please reject the 80,000 square feet BEMIS BIG BOX
project. We object because:
1) No details were submitted on the proposed traffic flow
in thjis conjested area; and what about parking facilities?
2) Pedestrian safety endangered.
3) Ashland is not San Francisco, New York or Chicago.
Thank you for your consideration.
Natalie and Milton Padno
573 Carol Street
Ashland, Or. 97520
~crf
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"John Morrison" <jmorrison@rvcog.org>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/7/04.1 :OOPM
FW: STOP THE BEMIS PROJECT!!!!!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Goodwin [mailto:pamelagoodwin1@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 200412:19 PM
To: awdb@aol.com
Subject: STOP THE BEMIS PROJECT!!!!!!!
This is an OUTRAGE!!! It makes me think about who's on the Planning
Commission and in the Planning Department because they've clearly not paid
any attention to what Ashlander's have made clear in the past about BIG BOX
buildings! Not to mention the traffic problems this project would cause and
the increased danger to pedestrians. An ugly tall building squeezed into a
little space a block behind Main Street.. what ARE they thinking?!?!?
PLEASE STOP THIS OUTRAGE!!!
Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan.
~q1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Pat and Ken Marlin" <marlinkp@charter.net>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/5/04 11 :56AM
Bemis Project Downtown Ashland
We will be out of town and unable to attend the January 20th City Council meeting, but want to state our
opposition to the proposed Bemis construction project behind the Ashland Springs Hotel. Our objections
are similar to those most people are raising, namely congestion caused by additional vehicle traffic,
additional parking problems and the overall size (square footage) of the project. These things are just not
in the best interest of the residents of Ashland.
It what we hear is true, that the approval was given by the Planning Commission without completed, final
plans in hand, this certainly should not have been done. If completed plans were in hand when approval
was given, it was certainly known that there was strong opposition to projects of this size from the
community. We urge you to reconsider and overrule this approval given by the Planning Commission.
Kenneth and Patricia Marlin
85 Union Street
Ashland
P',), ;"" /"
\~",,J 4.,.i' .....;
l'ln n III I
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Philip Gagnon" <philg@internetcds.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
12/30/03 9:48PM
DOWN WITH THE BEMIS PROJECT!
John. Village Ashland is one of scale. Let's keep it that way. 45,000 gross sq.ft. is sensible. 80,000 sq.ft.
is definitely out of scale with our village. Please don't let this happen.
Phil Gagnon 399 Morton St. Ashland.
,
~l) (
From: RJ Waitt <rjwaitt@opendoor.com>
To: <awdb@aol.com>, <donlaws@mind.net>, <cate@mind.net>, <jmorrison@rvcog.org>,
<cehearn@aol.com>, <Katejackson@opendoor.com>, <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>,
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
Date: 1/7/042:08PM
Subject: Reject the Bemis Project
Reject the Bemis Project! This proposal is just too large for the downtown
area. Parking, blocking views, and just the huge size of the building
looming over the existing modest -sized buildings would be out of
proportion. A smaller scale might be acceptable if it did not block views.
The former Copland property might be more suitable for a combination of town
houses and stores. Jan Waitt, 147 Manzanita St. Twenty-five year resident
3o?-
['in n IIII
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Sandy Alexander" <salexander4640@earthlink.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/4/04 2:58PM
Reject the Bemis Project
Will Ashland really allow such a huge and ugly addition to our beautiful and what was once "quaint" city?
Not only will this box destroy the beauty of the downtown area by looming over the Ashland Springs Hotel
and hiding the hills behind it, but what about the following:
*Parking within and around the proposed building, already tight, will be inadequate to handle the demand
which will be created by the new 16 condominiums, and three commercial stores.
*No details were submitted on how traffic flow in the area will be affected by the new residents and users
of the commercial facilities.
*The increased traffic and parking demand will further endanger pedestrian safety.
The reason many of us have moved to Ashland and those who continue to choose to stay, is because we
love the small town look and feel of Ashland. Why do we insist on changing what attracts people here in
the first place.
Please do the right thing and REJECT THE BEMIS PROJECT!
Sandy Alexander
158 N. Wightman St.
Ashland
303
P
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"John Morrison" <jmorrison@rvcog.org>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/7/0410:29AM
FW: Reject the Bemis project, as designed
----Original Message--
From: Sandy Friend (mailto:friends.2@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 9:49 PM
To: Don Laws; Cate Hartzell; John Morrison; Alex Amarotico; Chris Hearn;
Kate Jackson; Alan DeBoer
Subject: Reject the Bemis project, as designed
Dear Councilors:
The 80,000 sq. ft. Bemis project is totally out of scale with it's site and
defies the spirit of the 45,000 sq. ft.'big box' ordinance. As the largest
building constructed in the City, ever, the fact that the Bemis project, as
currently designed, will be 2 times the size of Albertson's AND 2 times the
size of the hotel is an appauling lack of respect for the wishes of Ashland
residents.
To begin with, it is hard to believe that, knowing the ordinance was in
process, the planning department did not put a moritorium on accepting
building plans for review and permitting until the ordinance either passed
or failed. Now we have a project moving through Commissions that is
contrary to the wishes of the Council who agreed to the ordinance and the
Ashland citizens who support the ordinance.
Where are the details on the mitigation of the traffic impact at Hargardine
and 1 st Street just one block from the site of the fatal pedestrian accident
last year at this time?
Reading the plan, it appears that only one parking space has been allocated
for each residential condominum. Where will the residents park their second
car? With retail as part of the project, where is it anticipated that
shoppers will park when there is generally no parking available on the
street at this moment without the new retail? Summer should be a nightmare
with visitors trying to get to the Cabaret theatre, OSF, the movies,
restaurants and shops with less parking and more people and cars circulating
through the same spaces.
We respectfully request that you reject this project, as designed, when it
comes before you on appeal this month.
Sincerely,
Howard and Sandra Friend
965 Pinecrest Terrace
Ashland
604
!'In n
, John mclaughlin - REJECT BEMIS PROJECT
Page 1 :
From: <Scots2A@aol.com>
To: <Awdb@aol.com>, <donlaws@mind.net>, <cate@mind.net>, <jmorrison@rvcog.org>,
<Cehearn@aol.com>, <katejackson@opendoor.com>, <grimaldi@ashland.or.us>,
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
Date: 1/3/042:40PM
Subject: REJECT BEMIS PROJECT
To All of the Above-referenced:
It would be an outrage if the above project was put into effect. The whole
idea is contrary to what the majority of citizens of Ashland want for our town.
Parking and congestion is already a major problem in this area.
The size of the building is way out of line. Ashland does not need this.
The plans submitted were incomplete. The builder failed to adhere to four
separate City Land Use/Site Design standards.
STOP THIS BEFORE IT GOES ANY FURTHER.
Eirlys Mcintosh
1036 Oak Knoll Drive, Ashland.
3oS-
John mclaughlin - Reject the Bemis Project: Progress or 'Development'?
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
S D <SD194@webtv.net>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/4/04 4:48PM
Reject the Bemis Project: Progress or 'Development'?
Ladies and Gentlemen:
No proof has been presented that the Bem is project represents progress
rather than pseudo-development (see "From 'Development' to Progress" in
my earlier "Takings" e-mail).
It's long past time for Ashland to begin thinking about the full costs
of proposals before approving them. Waiting for q federallaw--as one
of your number has suggested--requiring Genuine Progress thinking is
both unnecessary and irresponsible. Worse, it tends to favor special
interests over the public interest.
Sincerely,
Stan Druben
~o"
From: "Sharry Teague - Winning Year" <sharry@winningyear.com>
To: "Alex Amarotico (E-mail)" <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>, "Cate hartzell (E-mail)"
<cate@mind.net>, "Chris Hearn (E-mail)" <cehearn@aol.com>, "Don Laws (E-mail)"
<donlaws@mind.net>, "Gino Grimaldi (E-mail)" <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>, "John McLaughlin (E-mail)"
<mac@ashland.or.us>, "John Morrison (E-mail)" <jmorrison@rvcog.org>, "Kate Jackson (E-mail)"
<katejackson@opendoor.com>
Date: 12/31/032:27PM
Subject: Reject the Bemis Project
I am concerned that this project will impact our downtown area too
drastically. The size is too large. The planning has not been adequately
considered as to impact on congestion and safety. Please check into this
most carefully.
Sharry Teague - Winning Year
http://www.winningyear.com/
sharry@winningyear.com
541.488.8016
~D7
.~.'., """'0"""".. >>~"..'-...-'-'-'c,^,'-,-,,,'-""" A______.-<-.,. ''<-'" d','" <<:. ""_'~.-.,.::""..,..;,.:."'-;.:'-,,,.,:;. "y,;...... ;';.,',c'_,"""''''
John mclau hlin - Blow Off the Bi Box!!!
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
sugar plumb <sugarplumb65@yahoo.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/7/049:58AM
Blow Off the Big Box!!!
1/7/04, 10:53 a.m.-
these ACA kids are absolutely right to object to the proposal of a Bemis 'Big Box' structure
downtown. if it has to happen at all, couldn't it happen down by the Albertson's/railroad bridge area, or
over by 1-5...or better yet, in downtown Medford? or underground or in the side of a hill? let's keep ashland
small and simple and non-vertically-built so we can still see/breathe/bathe in sunshine...nothing is worth
losing that!!! just ask Chicago/NY/L.A. ...and Eugene...
-Joshua C. Maltsberger
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hot jobs: Enter the "Signing B.onus" Sweepstakes
308
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Susan Lander" <sueland@ccountry.com>
<mac@ashland.oLus>
1/1/049:05AM
Stop the Bemis Project
I am dismayed and appalled by the approval of an over 80,000sq. ft building in downtown Ashland.
Ashland is not going to remain Ashland if such projects are carried out. We cannot both remain a
uniquely attractive town and construct buildings of that size. It doesn't belong in Ashland.
I understand that the plans were submitted just a few short days before the City Council voted to limit
downtown building size and that in the rush to get approval, some requirements were not met.
I am adding my voice to those urging the City Council to look at the project and re-consider the wisdom of
having such an outsized structure in our town.
Additionally, it is unclear about how parking, already a problem in the area, would be handled, how traffic
flow would be affected, and what the potential risks to pedestrian safety would be with the increased
parking and traffic.
Sincerely yours,
Susan Lander
~ t; r:;
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Susanne Krieg" <susanabe@ashlandhome.net>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/6/0410:31AM
REJECT the Bemis project
City CoucH Members,
Such a huge structure as the projected Bemis project is totally out-of-
scale and out of character for the city of Ashland.
Big boxes do NOT belong in our historic downtown. Ashland's streets
cannot take an increased traffic load which a parking garage would
encourage.
We should do everything possible to encourage pedestrian traffic & NOT
increase building density downtown.
Sincerly,
Susanne K. Krieg
Change ok, but tastefully IN Scale.
s/o
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<StvBerman@aol.com>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/4/046:22PM
reject the Bem is project!
Dear Council members,
As an Ashland city resident, I am urging you not to approve the Bemis
project. I feel strongly that such a large structure would do significant damage to
the small-town image of Ashland, an image which is important to maintain - not
only for esthetic reasons, but also for the continued success of the local
tourist-based economy.
Thank you, Stephen Berman
3/1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
sugar plumb <sugarplumb65@yahoo.com>
<Cou ncil@ashland.or.us>
1/6/043:04PM
No 'Big Box' Downtown, Please...
1/6/04, 2:52 p.m.-
these ACA kids are absolutely right to object to the approval/construction of a giant 'big box' Bemis
structure downtown. if something like that needs to be built around here, why not put it somewhere that it
will 'fit in' such as in downtown medford or, if it REALLY needs to be in Ashland, then why not down by
Albertson's/I-5/the railroad bridge where things are ALREADY getting ugly? or better yet why not
UNDERGROUND or in the side of a hill? hey- that's a good idea...
-Joshua C. Maltsberger
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hot jobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
~I ~
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Susan Boehnke <jsboehnke@opendoor.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/1/0411 :34AM
Please stop the bemis project
Dear planners,
I sincerely hope you do not allow this project to proceed as projected..
This will add to the traffic congestion down town. It will also take away
from the ambiance of ashland. Tourists come here to escape the cities
hustle and bustle. It will make the city less liveable. I would hope you
greatly limit the size of the structure it's immpact on our town. Thank you
Susan Boehnke
~/~
.. J?hn rnclaug~nn - Stop ~~~_~.E:!m_is project
Pag~1 J
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Susan Boehnke" <jsboehnke@opendoor.com>
<alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
12/31/039:04PM
Stop the Bem is project
Dear Council member, It is ridiculous to permit a building of this size
added to downtown with traffic already being a huge headache most of the
year. What are you going to do to our quaint town. You are going to make it
bearable to live in Ashland if you allow projects like this to be pushed
through. Don't bring California to Oregon. What ever happened to the city
ordinance limiting the height of buildings. I know the Lithia Springs Hotel
was built before the limits. I thought there was a three story limit now.
Thanks. susan boehnke
6)/4
Page 1 '
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<T Jaco21 028@aol.com>
<grimaldg@ashland.or.us>
12/30/03 12:40PM
PLEASE STOP THE BEMIS PROJECT
3/5"
John mclaughlin - Objecting to the Bemis Project
.. -- -
From: "Tom Marvin" <marvin@sou.edu>
To: <awdb@aol.com>, <donlaws@min.net>, <cate@mind.net>,
<katejackson@opendoor.com>, <jmorison@rvcog.org>, <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
Date: 1/2/0411 :32AM
Subject: Objecting to the Bemis Project
City Council-
I request that you re-consider the Bemis action and reverse any city
approval of it.
The grounds for rejection lie in the incomplete application. The reason
I oppose the construction is the negative impact it will have on
Ashland's small town atmosphere. Ubiquity is not the virtue any of us
sought while investing our lives in Ashland, building roots here, so
long ago.
Why make it easy for people to come here and change our town? Only
fools do that.
Tom Marvin
SOU Physics
31'
.. ..~_.,_..,-_..... . .. -.. - -.. -..
! John mcla~g~~.i.~_.~. J~~.9~ .~~~~ the Bemis ~.?x]
...... P.age 1:
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
wendy eppinger <wendye@mind.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/7/0411 :39AM
[Fwd: Bash the Bemis Box]
----- Original Message ------
Subject: Bash the Bemis Box
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 11 :37:09 -0800
From: wendy eppinger <wendye@mind.net>
Reply-To: wendye@mind.net
To: council@ashland.or.us
Dear Council people: Please look seriously at the oversize Bemis
project above the already oversized hote!..... There are some
considerable design standard requirements that were not met as well as
some procedural mis-information (or non information) available to the
planning commission and the planning department.
No matter what the developers claim: this whole project appears to have
not really made it under the wire.... Frankly, we do not need this
large structure.... it is out of place for our town: parking and
driving would be made more difficult.
Please look at this carefully; listen to the opposition careful and
send it back for revision..... the whole scale is out of place.
Thank you for considering this message.
Wendy Eppinger
482-7303
~/1
From "Development" to Progress:
A Needed Paradigm Shift
Prepared by Stan Druben
for delivery 12/15/03 at monthly meeting of
Jackson County Alternatives to Growth Oregon
The set of assumptions behind "development" is a straightjacket keeping this valley from focusing our resources
on progress.
Tonight we're going to attempt a difficult task, the task of shifting paradigms, of breaking out of the prevailing set
of conscious and subconscious assumptions about how the world works. We'll discuss a number of familiar and
unfamiliar terms, starting with
paradigm
and continuing with
Gross Domestic Product (GDP),
takings,
growth,
development, and
Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI).
By the end of our discussion, I hope we at least are aware that we carry assumptions in our heads, even if we are
not yet able to see the world through a new and better paradigm.
Paradigm--what's that? Maybe an example can serve for a definition.
Until Copernicus, the prevailing view was that the Sun circled the Earth. This was obvious. The evidence was
unmistakable. The reality could be seen with our own eyes. The only problem? The prevailing view was wrong.
Assumptions prevented seeing the truth that the Earth orbited the Sun. The assumptions included the notion that
a circle was perfect and that God, being perfect, would make the objects above the Earth move in a perfect way.
Every piece of evidence was filtered through such assumptions. When Copernicus realized the truth. . . well, you
know the resistance he and others ran into. By the way, initially, the predictions of the Earth-centered view were
better than those of the Sun-centered view.
Gross Domestic Product or GDP is more than a statistic issued in Washington, DC. It is a paradigm--an
inadequate and misleading paradigm--for understanding the world. Tonight we'll explore a few aspects of what,
for shorthand purposes, I'll refer to as -quote- GDP thinking -end quote-. This is thinking which equates our well-
being with development and development with the rise or fall of GDP. It is a model that, for example, counts
family breakups as a contribution to development. After all, divorces require legal services and a divorce
produces two households where formerly there was one. These results add to GDP. And GDP is a model that
sets economics and ecology against each other.
Whoa!, you might say. What is this GDP?
Roughly speaking, GDP is the total market value of the final goods and services produced by a nation's
economy. That's a bit esoteric, so let me repeat, " . . . GDP is the total market value of the final goods and
services produced by a nation's economy."
The GDP is generally equated with progress and well-being. In GDP thinking, when GDP goes up, we are
making progress, we're better off. When GDP goes down, we are losing ground, we're worse off.
Before (if you'll pardon the pun) we get a little more down to Earth, let's note the crucial point about GDP: it
deals only with market values and, then, as we'll see, inadequately (for example, it only adds, never subtracts).
And if something does not have a price, as far as GDP thinking is concerned it does not exist. More accurately, it
is priced at . . . zero.
A couple of years ago and then again this year, an Ashland city councilor expressed the following view:
31 P
-quote- [No] or miniscule growth would mean astronomical increases in housing costs. Figure it out: if you
still have people who want to live here and you slow down even further the houses available on the market,
the prices of the limited supply will be bid out of sight. -end quote-
I have responded several times to the thinking behind the councilor's words. Tonight I'll do so in the broader
context of GDP thinking.
Let's accept the council member's argument. In fact, I do. But if we break out of GDP thinking, we see the
argument in a very different way: what the argument tells us is that city government policies can, do and must
affect the price of property. Therefore, in part, the price of property is created by the community. From a slightly
different perspective, the price is partly a function of the commons, e.g., the climate that makes an area attractive.
I'll return to the commons shortly.
When community policies affect growth--a legitimate and unavoidable community effect--a crucial decision-
making question arises: Who should receive the market value created?
If government policies increase growth and thereby affect home prices negatively--the "development" is a "taking"
given to builders. If government policies decrease growth, then the resulting higher home prices can be a taking
given to property owners as a windfall gain--or a taking kept for community uses, for example to provide
affordable housing.
Note that there is a taking in each case. (Considering this truth reveals how misleading the debate over Measure
7 was.)
We'll continue with takings in a moment, but first let's briefly deal with growth. Notice, for instance, that the city
councilor's argument suggests that growth is needed and is a positive--and that the councilor's meaning is
population growth. Notice also that, at least here, the councilor makes no mention of the downside effects of
population growth, though they are obvious--from increased crowding to weakened community (for example,
less civic involvement and more crime).
Population growth is caused by several factors. One is the fact that government in Oregon massively subsidizes
in-migration--even now, even in the face of public opposition, even in the face of a huge state budget deficit. (For
the details, see Eben Fodor's work on the Alternatives to Growth Oregon website.) In-migration represents 60%
of Oregon's population growth. The rest of Oregon's population growth comes from natural increase. And the
primary cause of the natural increase is poverty. Yes, poverty. Last year Andy Kerr, founder of AGO, noted:
-quote- Outside of its poorest groups, Oregon does not have a high birthrate. The middle and upper classes are at
replacement levels. -end quote- In short, critical factors in Oregon's population growth are subsidies to in-
migration and the poverty among residents.
The latter is very relevant tonight because GDP thinking does not measure poverty. We'll come back to this.
Now let's return to takings. In a 2001 article titled "The Hidden Commons," Jonathan Rowe made the following
observation:
-quote- People are working on issues relating to the commons already. . . [But] people have been fighting
separate battles, plugging holes in a thousand dikes. They've been fighting pollution of the natural and
cognitive environments. They've been trying to stop the commercializing of the public schools and the
corporate assault on their kids. They've been battling traffic, sprawl, noise, the patenting of life--so many
battles that it's hard to keep track.
"It is time now to declare that these are really aspects of the same battle. They are not just assertions of a
vague 'public interest.' They are not attempts to violate property rights. They seek rather to protect a
property right--a common property right.
"Two centuries and some ago, people looked at the economic life around them and saw many different
things. They saw factories and farms, shipping firms and theaters, and on and on. . . . It was [Adam] Smith's
3/9
genius to give mental shape to the whole, and [his] idea [the market] has dominated the public imagination
ever since.
"Now we need to do that with the commons. We need to declare that atmospheric pollution is not just a
health threat. It is a violation of common property rights--a form of taking. Sprawl is not just an inefficient
use of land and energy. It depletes the social commons, which rarely thrives in a world of freeways and
malls. [Etc.]
"For decades the libertarian Right has been fighting what it calls 'takings' of private property by government.
Now it's time to fight the taking of what belongs to us all. -end quote-
In GDP thinking, development means increasing the total value of marketable items: houses and buildings, for
example. Within the GDP paradigm, it's legitimate to accomplish this increase even if doing so creates a Rogue
Valley filled with air, water, land, and noise pollution, higher crime rates, and other such "nuisances." These
"nuisances" are by definition non-existent as far as GDP thinking on progress and well-being goes. In recent
decades, the best the GDP approach has done is to label noise, pollution, etc. as "externalities," as if there is
somewhere external to the Earth from which we draw our resources, into which we dump our wastes, and on
which our social relations exist. As if, moreover, the environment is external to us humans.
Worse, in the GDP paradigm, pollution, to take only one example, is a positive--a very positive--thing:
-quote- In fact, pollution shows up twice as a gain: once when [for instance, a] chemical factory produces
[pollution] as a by-product, and again when the nation spends billions of dollars to clean up the toxic waste.
Furthermore, the extra costs that come as a consequence of that environmental depletion and
degradation--such as medical bills arising from dirty air--also show up as growth in the GDP. -end quote- ("If
the GDP is Up, Why is America Down?," by Clifford Cobb, Ted Halstead, and Jonathan Rowe)
And if that seems too far removed from the everyday, then I recommend checking out the ongoing maneuvers to
lower air-quality standards in the Rogue Valley. It is essential to note that this debate calls for the paradigm shift
we are talking about tonight. We need to be debating within the recognition that the atmosphere is a commons,
common property that belongs to all of us. Making profits from the polluting of this commons is a form of taking
by some from all.
So, in short, today we are faced with a barrier to addressing progress and well-being more clearly. We are faced
with GDP thinking that distorts and contorts the idea of development into an increase in the total of market
prices. We are faced with a paradigm that externalizes the downside of its own false picture of development. We
are faced with a set of assumptions which blindly and destructively encourages population growth.
Are we stuck, trapped in this misrepresentation of reality? No more so than those who recognized that the Sun,
not the Earth, was at the center of the solar system.
A superior paradigm has been under construction for well over a decade. This better paradigm recognizes that
the market tells only part of the story, that GDP thinking excludes as much as it includes. This new paradigm is a
conservative one. It starts with GDP and makes corrections to it, rather than starting from a different base. This
paradigm's most well-know incarnation is the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) developed at Redefining
Progress, a think tank in Oakland, California. It is a paradigm being applied to local as well as national
situations, e.g., in Nova Scotia at the provincial and county levels.
What, then, is this GPI?
-quote- GPI adds up the [market] value of services and products consumed in the economy. . . Then it
subtracts out three categories of expense related to consumption (emphasis added):
"1) defensive expenditures (which compensate for past costs)
"2) social costs; and
"'"'\
~)" 0
"3) the depreciation of environmental assets and natural resources. -end quote-
(from Cobb, Halstead, and Rowe's _The Genuine Progress Indicator: Summary of Data and
Methodology_ [Copyright 1995 by Redefining Progress])
And GPI recognizes the value of household activities, volunteer work, and leisure time--all of which increase GPI.
I've noted that GPI is conservative. For instance, it consciously accepts the current premise that more
consumption means a greater experience of well-being. We don't have the time to delve into this assumption in
any depth. So let me just cite the following in passing:
-quote- Regular surveys by the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago reveal. . . that
no more Americans report they are 'very happy' now than in 1957. The 'very happy' share of the population
has fluctuated around one-third since the mid-fifties, despite near doublings in both gross national product
and personal consumption expenditures per capita. -end quote- (Alan Durning's _How Much is Enough?_
[1992])
Though GPI begins with consumption, it makes a very important starting adjustment, one which relates to
poverty and, therefore, as mentioned before, to population growth in the Rogue Valley. GPI adjusts personal
consumption to reflect poverty. The more poverty, for example, the more maldistributed national income, the
greater the downward adjustment in GPI. This makes practical as well as theoretical sense:
-quote- Economic theory suggests that the value of extra income declines as family income increases. Thus,
the poor benefit most by increases in family income. Also, helping the poor is supposedly a goal of national
policy. [So] When the share of the poor falls, the GPI falls accordingly; when the share rises, the GPI also
rises. -end quote- (Cobb, Halstead, and Rowe, _The Genuine Progress Indicatoc)
As I just noted, GPI addresses 1) defensive expenditures, 2) social costs, and 3) depreciation of environmental
assets and natural resources. What are these?
Let's consider defensive expenditures.
Here's a homey example which may resonate for you as much as it does for me. Imagine a city that allows its
watershed and other water-supply infrastructure to deteriorate. The stuff coming out of the tap begins to smell or
look or taste bad. So we "privatize" the issue: we go out and buy bottled water or install an expensive home
filtration system. Our spending is added to GDP. But the reality is that, at best, the jugs and the filter are (if
you'll pardon another pun) a wash physically. The truth is they are defensive expenditures which do not add to
our well-being, so they lower GPI.
An aside: The most recent estimate by the American Society of Civil Engineers is that we face an
infrastructure deficit nationwide of over one-and-a-half trillion (yes, trillion) dollars. Yet demagogues tell us
this is a great time for so-called tax cuts!?
Another example of defensive expenditures? How about the paper shredder that many have made into one more
home appliance and that's good for the GDP? Why are folks buying these gizmos? Because the rising crime that
often accompanies an area's rising population has led to thieves going through our garbage to find credit card
slips, Social Security numbers, and such in order to steal our identities. That paper shredder is merely a defensive
expenditure and it is, logically, a subtraction from GPI.
Let's turn to social costs.
As I mentioned before, family breakdown is good for a GDP-defined economy. GPI is smarter:
-quote- GDP ignores the contribution of the social realm--that is, the economic role of households and
communities. This is where much of the nation's important work gets done, from caring for children and
older people to volunteer work in its many forms. It is the nation's social glue. Yet because no money
changes hands in this realm, it is invisible to conventional economics. The GDP doesn't count it at all--which
.ElL/
means that the more our families and communities decline and a monetized service sector takes their place,
the more the GDP goes up and the economic pundits cheer.
"Parenting becomes child care, visits on the porch become psychiatry and VCRs, the watchful eyes of
neighbors become alarm systems and police officers, the kitchen table becomes McDonald's--up and down
the line, the things people used to do for and with one another turn into things they have to buy. -end quote-
(Cobb, Halstead, and Rowe, "If the GDP is Up, Why is America Down?")
So, for example, the fact that I and many other volunteers make the ScienceWorks Museum viable is irrelevant in
GDP thinking. But, in contrast, the value of volunteer work is estimated and added to GPI. Sensible, right?
Let's consider the third category of GPI corrections to GDP, depreciation of environmental assets and natural
resources.
Imagine, for example, a small town that starts building parking garages in its charming downtown area. The
move brings in more and more cars--these days, SUVs. The influx increases air and noise pollution (not to
mention the danger of casualties in the streets). In GDP thinking these and other negatives are additions. In GPI,
negatives are subtractions. Equally important, when we break out of the current paradigm, we see that these
kinds of pollution are takings from the commons. As Jonathan Rowe put it in "The Hidden Commons": -quote-
We need to [recognize] that atmospheric pollution is not just a health threat. It is a violation of common property
rights--a form of taking. -end quote-
And if noise, for example, seems like a trivial matter, it's worth noting that -quote- The damage caused by noise
pollution in the U.S. in 1972 was estimated at $4 billion (and $9.2 billion in 1982) by the World Health
Organization -end quote- LThe Genuine Progress Indicator: Summary of Data and Methodology _ [Copyright
1995 by Redefining Progress])
The GPI also, in sharp contrast to GDP, subtracts the costs of water pollution, loss of wetlands, loss of farmland,
depletion of nonrenewable energy resources, ozone depletion, and other long-term environmental damage from
its measure of our well-being. GPI's more complete reckoning unites economics and ecology. And, as
mentioned, GPI adds the value of household activities, volunteer work, and leisure time.
OK, OK! But in the end, do these contrasts between GDP and GPI really count? Most assuredly. Perhaps the
briefest way to make the difference obvious is to note that from 1950 into the 1970s, GDP and GPI were both
trending upward. Then they began to diverge: GDP continued to say we were getting much better and better off.
But GPI indicated we were doing slightly less well. I think most Americans sense that the latter is closer to
reality.
So why hasn't everyone shifted paradigms? Here are two of several reasons.
The first has to do with the difficulties a new paradigm has in getting itself up to snuff with the old paradigm.
Remember that the Earth-centered solar system, with centuries of theory-building and data collection behind it,
continued to out-predict the Sun-centered system for some time. The fact is that lots of data have not been and
are not being systematically collected for use in a GPI-type model. Many people--especially "winners" within the
old model--quite expectedly resist change until the superiority of the new is overwhelming. Some never make
the shift.
A second reason for resisting a shift to GPI is related to power, money, and status. As management consultant
Joel A. Barker has starkly put it, "When a paradigm shifts, everyone goes back to zero." That's part of the reason
Swiss watch executives, who dominated the world market, rejected quartz watches even though the idea came
from Swiss engineers. The Japanese seized on the idea; their power, money, and status did not derive from
mechanical watches. Anyone not know who dominates the watch market today?
A shift from GDP thinking to GPI thinking is of course far more important than gaining or losing market
dominance. Confining our thoughts to Southern Oregon, the shift relates to whether or not the well-being of
those who live here will improve or deteriorate. The evidence suggests that continued GDP thinking will take us
down, not up.
~..1~
As a management consultant and writer with PricewaterhouseCoopers has succinctly put it: "What gets
measured, gets attention." (Ian D. Littman) And right now, only a portion of what must be measured is. The
results are increasingly devastating.
In a July e-mail to our County Commissioners, I wrote: "We in Jackson County need a robust public debate over
whether a county-level GPI is called for and practicable."
The five months which have passed since my e-mail have increased the need for that public debate. Bring it on!
E:23
Cate. Village Ashland is one of scale. Let's keep it that way. 45,000 gross sq. ft. is sensible.
85,000 sq. ft. is definitely out of scale. Please do something about this.
Phil Gagnon, 399 Morton St. Ashland Philip Gagnon [philg@internetcds.com]
Dear Mayor DeBoer, Councilors, and Staff--I appeal to you to reject
this
behemoth project that will forever alter the character of our historic
downtown.
Joan Steele, Former Member, Ashland Historic Commission
Joan Steele [empress@mind.net]
Please Stop Bemis Box!
John M. Kalb MS DC
The Wellness Chiropractor and Health Coach
www.DrKalb.com541.488.3001l888.488.3001JohnKalbMSDC[john@drkalb.com]
Susan Lander [sueland@ccountry.com]
I am dismayed and appalled by the approval of an over 80,000sq. ft building in downtown
Ashland. Ashland is not going to remain Ashland if such projects are carried out. We cannot
both remain a uniquely attractive town and construct buildings of that size. It doesn't belong in
Ashland.
I understand that the plans were submitted just a few short days before the City Council voted to
limit downtown building size and that in the rush to get approval, some requirements were not
met.
I am adding my voice to those urging the City Council to look at the project and re-consider the
wisdom of having such an outsized structure in our town.
Additionally, it is unclear about how parking, already a problem in the area, would be handled,
how traffic flow would be affected, and what the potential risks to pedestrian safety would be with
the increased parking and traffic.
Sincerely yours,
Susan Lander
Ashland, Oregon
MATT SHEEHAN [sheehan1962@yahoo.com]
NEED I SAY MORE?
1. THERE WON'T BE ENOUGH PARKING,
2. IT'LL INCREASE THE DANGER TO PEDESTRIANS
3. IT'LL CAUSE MORE DOWNTOWN CROWDING
4. I DEFINITELY DON'T WANT ANOTHER HUGE BUILDING LOOMING OVER
ASHLAND! THIS ISN'T NEW YORK, AND I DON'T WANT IT TO BECOME LIKE
A BIG CITY! THIS WOULD BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THE SMALL CITY
FEEL OF ASHLAND THAT SETS US APART.
THANKS,
MATT SHEEHAN, ASHLAND
Dear Cate,
The Bemis project doesn't belong here. It would ruin Ashland's
pedestrian downtown it will create more unwanted traffic. It is way
3:;"'1
to big for Ashland
John Fisher-Smith
Much too big for Ashland; especially in that location!
Gaea & John [adamsfam@mind.net]
Dear City Council Members,
I feel very strongly that development on the scale contemplated by the Bemis Project is a huge
mistake for Ashland, both logistically and aesthetically. I urge you to question the current
approval of the project and consider the down-sides further.
Thanks in advance.
Molly Tinsley MBTinsley@aol.com
PLEASE STOP THE BEMIS PROJECT
TJaco21028@ao1.com
Dear City Council Member:
I am very concerned about the way the Bemis
project is being pushed through without adequate
public or planning department input. Please
reconsider this hasty and poorly-planned decision.
Thank you.
Duane Light
45 Crocker Street
Ashland, OR97520 Duane Light [dlight777@yahoo.com]
Bemis project is not for Ashland
Kathleen Provence [kprovence@opendoor.com]
Hi Cate,
I want you to turn down the Bemis Project. We do not need a monstrous 80,000 sq. ft. building in
our beautiful small town!
Sincerely,
Gary A Einhorn
Gary Einhorn [beardsleys@earthlink.net]
If you have any feeling for the character and beauty of Ashland, please don't let it be ruined by
such a thing as the Bemis Bliqht. I, as a fifteen year resident of Ashland, object strongly as do my
friends and neighbors, to such a project. I can't think of anything that would bliqht our community
more or to sadden the citizens of Ashland and the people who come to enjoy our quality of life
even for a couple of days, than such a project.
Can you visualize any national publication writing up the city of Ashland -- as they have in the
past -- if we have something like the Bemis project looming over our town?
Think with your hearts -- not with muddled minds.
Don't let the Bemis Bliqht happen to Ashland.
Sincerely,
Gloria Boyd
3~s-
207 Hillcrest St.
Ashland GloriaBoyd@aol.com
Dear Kate Hartzell,
Please reject the Bemis project, it will destroy the skyline and
the
feel of downtown Ashland and create a nightmare of parking problems.
Thank you
Gayle Titus
1 Hillcrest St.
Ashland, Or.97520
GAYLE TITUS [titus@jeffnet.org]
Dear Council Member,
Attached is my letter urging the reconsideration of the Bemis Project decision.
John G. Ouellet Ouelletjg@aol.com
January 2, 2004
TO: ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
I understand the Ashland City Planning Commission has approved a plan for construction
of a large (over 80,000 sq. ft.) commercial/condominium building to be located on what
is now the Ashland Spring Hotel parking lot at the comer of Hargadine and I st Street.
This is identified as Planning Action #2003-127, also known as the 3Bemis ProjecU
I understand other citizens of Ashland have decided to file a formal appealof the Planning
Commissions decision. I support this appeal, and urge your rejection of the Bemis
Project. My basic concerns are the following:
1. This would be the largest building ever constructed in downtown Ashland.
2. It would be more than twice the size ofthe Ashland Springs Hotel
3. It would be more than twice the size of the Safeway or Albertsons.
4. The plans were incomplete when first submitted just to beat the deadline
of the 3big box2 ordinance, which was approved four days later.
5. No details were submitted regarding the impact on traffic or pedestrian
safety on Hargadine & 1 st Street. We all know ofthe pedestrian fatality
last year near this site.
6. Parking within and around the proposed building is inadequate to support
the Hotel, 16 condominiums, three commercial stores, and public spaces.
I believe, along with many others, that the size and scope ofthis project would totally
change the look and feel of the historical downtown area.
I respectfully submit these concerns for your consideration, and again, urge
you to reject this project.
3.2'
For Immediate Release, Dec. 30, 203 Street 482-8017
APPEAL FILED ON MONSTROUS BUILDING COMPLEX
Members of Citizens for Responsible Government have filed an appeal to
the City Council to reject plans for a massive nearly 90,000 sq. ft. building
complex to be jammed into the Ashland Springs Hotel parking lot.
CRG members Raymona DeVaul, Jack Hardesty, Bryan Holley, and Bill
Street signed the appeal submitted Dec. 26, charging that the Planing
Department submitted incomplete plans to the Historic, Tree, and
Planning Commissions. Eric Navickas was the 5th signatory on the appeal
which also said the plans failed to meet requirements of three other
separate Ashland Land Use Ordinances or Site Design Standards.
If approved by the Council, the proposed structure will be the largest one
ever built downtown, more than twice the size of either the hotel or
Albertsons and almost three times larger than the Elks Building. Known as
the Bemis project, the enormous condo/shops/parking structure, when
viewed from Main St., would loom the equivalent of seven stories above
street level.
"A Big Box complex of this size has no place in downtown Ashland and
belongs more in Portland or San Francisco," according to Bill Street. "Aside
from being incomplete and not meeting other building requirements, the
plans were also snuck in just four days before the City Council voted to
restrict the downtown building size to 45,000 gross sq. ft. This hardly
meets the spirit of the council's decision or the February 2003 the
recommendations of the Planning Commission about building size
downtown."
CRG also points out several other problems associated with the proposed
building:
*Parking, already tight in the area, will be inadequate to handle the
increased demand created by the 16 new million dollar condominiums and
three commercial stores.
* No details were submitted on how traffic flow in the area will be affected
by the new residents and users of the commercial facilities.
* The increased traffic and parking congestion will further endanger
pedestrian safety.
CRG is asking concerned citizens to contact the Mayor, Council members,
the City Administrator, and the Planning Director urging that the proposed
3~7
project be rejected. The City Council will likely hear the Appeal on Jan. 20th
in the City's Council Chambers..
***
":::2 t""
;;J:J.Y
10:25 a.m.
January 6, 2004
Len and Lo Smucker called to express opinion that the Bemis project should be
denied.
~vr:
B~9
CL'r -f\-~'I ""S+r""-.--tO (' I
10,
Hs
10 3 5 .~ LOJ"L.<> )
1\Sh h_~, OK.j75"Zo
:=J)e~c . ::L q ~oo?
. J . ~
, '
D""" "1 ,5 f ~ec t-, PI=-" (\ ~ +Tc-lIO't"\
-:t:f 200;> - '?-7
Con CJ2J'~ C--/J + J.~ c:uL5 w~
I
uSJe yOk ~e.d:: ~. C'0==~
? 2)ec::t '
\t :s -Too \~'1e.... f:, uu..1 Sf'A"'LI\
--t-c,-,.Y\. , \~ lJ-)~ 5-->-b~\il-~ I~~IV--f\ek
~ do. G-' ,1t:" auJ: dv...JL ~A. S ;d.su-~T')<::JA
o ~ =--\\ f (D b\ ~ j I ~ --..J I:> l0<?----<:>t' " e '
O=:J~sh';''\ 4 +-v^=-if;~ J '),,-=--d.~/'-^-=-~
?.....f" k 11, ="- d d =-:J Q r +0 p-e d.Q .s -rr , CVV;J
05eM:J l'I\~tlqn~
& cu~ (fi(L~k'A
.33CJ
!'18 rI
,..,
~J ,.' cl /-<e-" -,~~:~\
~~~ ~, V't-.\0 \ .,.",-~ (,:: ,.' . . .', '
~''-' - ~ \.0- " , ,.i' '
~ ' ~ '.
(12- . ...~
. '.'_ r
. ,., ,- - ,.,
~~or I . ..'
h,Sh(OJ'o. O~Jon
Ke . ~"Y\ \' 5 ~e.c t- .
_iio--<\ '"' lj -It ct"\~<l ~ ::;'-003- I J- 7
A- 6 C-c> 1\ C-QJ'--~ C ., +- \ ? . '"2 S"l5 We..
v.-. IE' ~'Du.. --t= ~ect ~ =-bo.~
f I-6J eCC .
1* ;5+=0 l~ E" ~i' ow SrYlOL\L
fown. It lJ'1c-S 5v..h M-'\~-0 ,'n caf\Af\~~
=-" d ~. :tt- =v.-.:t d u.J.L. C.>Q" S ; cLu. c=.... '\ \ Q y\
..--.
(0 3=:, ~L--~
~~lo..rt.d. of(. 9)520
~u.?1*- .~o03
.
0+ ~l\ ~. p(DblE'.JuJ":) 'l^--0oL)-P-Gl',
~e. ~0e5tJDY' =f +<-=-ff'c/ '~~~7~
p oJ k I r:J ,=-5\ d dC~:J-'V' ---to
r--olsv;~r I ~ .
\?~~~ 11~~\~
iQ (UJL'-ch (/;l2/"iJ~A
331
1'18 n 1..1
~t. ..~~ . ~~l
; . " :-
UL:n:s-G""C:.5IT uT.~jl~:::)
--.............................,.... .........- -.... -... ,.~
MarvK. Cochran 452 em:lcsid~Ddve AshJand~ QR 9752Q
G.f'\~~~" n -\; c-
~,~
@5
December 24,2003
Dear Mayor DeBoer and all city council members,
I understand other citizens of Ashland have decided to file a formal appeal
of the Planning Commissions decision for construction of a large commercial
condominium building to be located on what is now the Ashland Springs Hotel
parking lot. Also known as the Bemis Project.2 I strongly reject the Bemis Project.
1. This would be the largest building ever constructed in downtown Ashland.
2. It would be more than twice the size of the Ashland Springs Hotel
3. It would be more than twice the size of the Safeway or Albertsons.
4. The plans were incomplete when first submitted just to beat the deadline
of the 3big box2 ordinance, which was approved four days later.
5. No details were submitted regarding the impact on traffic or pedestrian
safety on Hargadine & 1 st Street. We all know of the pedestrian fatality
last year near this site.
6. Parking within and around the proposed building is inadequate to
support the Hotel, 16 condominiums, three commercial stores, and public spaces.
I believe. along with many others. that the size and scope of this project
would totally change the look and feel of the historical downtown area. I
respectfully submit these concerns for your consideration, and again, urge
you to reject this project.
Sincerely,
Mj=:~C:~
~3~
a I,-e-c.-J-or
~ s~ \ CAJ'Lcl .
10.35 I '-'~ L~
f1sh I =n 'c( 0 R. /75;;2.0
CDec~b-es ;;2 7~ ).oD3
0+ r~ ft=An~ Gi\~~IS'~" _
Ot-<. 17520.
~.~;s fr::Jed. R"'n()~ fTcftC)'0-
-:::#=- :J-. 'bo:3 - 1:2... 7
fl.5 ~ 1\ C2. r (~ '=-- ; t I' :<- e...v:> tr- \ e
I
~Je. J<:S-lA. --f':J ~e~ ~ ~a'~
p r~eGt .
1-1:. t's nl:l l~€-~', avS ~{V\..a..ll
~~(\. (t v--.:\C\..0 S~~\~-d lY\~~{e~
~d ~ ;rt::= C) v-:f.:: d\J.JL- ca-rV:) I ~ ~ I a "
0+ "'-ll ~. f'1 'o~ I.(=>~ S ';l0 a \ ~ ,/
l',~. C6~=<;t-I=n. =t Tr""WC,
I Y\. ~ ('-"S,L~, P =-.J' b J =---n..cJ d C"':::J ~J'
~ J~-e.~ \~ .
I?~o fv1~j:-!~
(Q a~/~ (/c,,-f1cl//2'j,
33~
1'1. n 1"1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"The Living Gallery" <heidi@thelivinggallery.com>
<mclaughj@ashland.or.us>
11/12/03 3:07PM
Bemis proposal on S. 1 st St.
Hello Mac-
I'm the owner of The Living Gallery on S. 1 st Street, right across from this
proposed project.
I'd like to pass on my opinion of what I understand so far. It sounds as
though they were able to propose this project just before the new
"footprint" proposal was actually passed.
I believe that since the new and smaller laws were clearly being discussed
and up for a vote, that they are proposing something much larger than is
clearly wanted by the council, and much of the town.
As a business owner, of course I would welcome more business off Main
Street, which might bring people in my doors; but I also treasure the feel
of this town, and given what 'my' side of the street looks like, I think
that the new proposal has far too much size to it.
So, I would prefer something far more in order with the rest of the
'neighborhood' .
Thank you -
Sincerely,
Heidi Grossman, owner and director
The Living Gallery
20 S. First Street
Ashland, OR 97520
541-482-9795
www.thelivinggallery.com
"2 ~ ,,1..
;;;; ...... I
Mr. Bill Molnar, Senior Planner
City of Ashland Planning Department
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
October 31, 2003
Dear Bill:
Enclosed please find the revised portions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Ashland
Springs Mixed Use Development project. These findings have been revised pursuant to the recommendations
and suggestions made by the Planning Commission during the October 12 public hearing on this project.
Please note the following important changes to this project which are reflected in the revised findings:
. The Request for a Variance from the required amount of permitted use has been withdrawn.
The amount of commercial space has been increased to 65% of the ground floor footprint through the
creation of five public parking spaces on the First Street level (including 2 handicapped public
spaces). The number of parking spaces for residents of the project has been reduced to 16.
. The Request for an Administrative Variance from the Downtown Design Standards has been
withdrawn. The design ofthe building has been revised to eliminate the projecting balconies.
Instead, fewer balconies - recessed into the building fayade - have been used to provide outdoor
living spaces.
. The Request for an Exception to the Large Scale Project Standards has been withdrawn as
inapplicable to this project. As noted by planning staff during the public hearing, this standard
applies only to multiple buildings on the same property. As part of this planning action, the subject
property will be partitioned so that it can be sold to the applicants. The adjacent parcel containing
the Ashland Springs Hotel will remain under the current ownership, and is not a part of this project.
. The concerns of the Historic Commission have been addressed with an appropriate level of
information. Through a series of meetings with the Historic Commission, the design of the
building has been developed and modified to address their specific concerns about scale, massing,
materials, and detailing. As noted during the last public hearing, our office will continue to meet
I'. n n. I
Bill Molnar, Senior Planner
October 31,2003
Page 2
with the Historic Commission during the remainder of the design process, to ensure that the final
project meets with their approval.
All references to the recently enacted amendment to the"big box" ordinance have been
removed. In an effort to address potential questions about this issue, oUI original [mdings included
references to the proposed amendment, as it stood at the time of submission. Since the ordinance
was changed before it was [mally enacted, this information is now invalid. And as noted by the
commissioners during the public hearing, this project falls strictly under the jurisdiction of the
ordinance in place at the time it was originally submitted, so the point is moot.
ln addition to the revised [mdings, we have modified our drawings to reflect the revised design as well as
other concerns raised by the Planning Commission. All plans now include additional dimensions, square
footage calculations, north arrows, and graphic scales. Additionally, the Site Plan shows clearly shows all
'public space,' including both the widened sidewalk as well as the Pedestrian Plaza. For your. reference, we
have included a Project Data Sheet that lists the pertinent statistics about the building.
We wish to make the enclosed information part of the public record for this project, for consideration and
review by the Planning Commission during the November 12 public hearing. If you have any questions about
the information we have provided, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
J.bJ:!\Y/2"t
1. David Wilkerson, II AIA
Associate
enclosures
cc: file, Bemis
1"1 II n'l
s:::
..... 0
s::: C)
(1) (1)
E s...
c..0
o "'
_'0
(1) s:::
> CO
(1)-
c~
(1)<C
tn "'
::> tn
.....
'0 (1)
(1) (1)
><,b
.- en
:E (1)
tn s:::
C) .-
s:::'O
.- CO
ae>
en CO
'OJ:
~~
- .....
.t: tn
tn s...
<CLL
.....
(1)
(1)
.t:
en
(OM
.....0
co~
C~
..... M
o '-
(1) (I)
'_ .c
o 0
s...-
D..8
~g~~~ffi8N
N.l.C)~l.C)co.qC'?
~O'l~C'?NNex::>ex::>
-
c
.;::
c..
<i. 0 Q) Q)
I- 0 ar (.)
<( LL. Q; ~
CQ)Ol>U)
.~ c 0 .~
WU):Q():o
~O:JO:J
,,, ....J CO ....J Q..
I/)
~
C'il co
[tl ~
0:: "0
C Ci5
.~ "0 "E
_ Q) C'il
I/) C _
Q) Q) ....
"0 :Q :J
~ s 8
"0
Q)
....
"0 :J
Q) 0-
"0 Q)
.:; 0::
o Q)
.... (.)
Q.. C'il
Q) c..
(.) U)
~ .~
U) :0
.~ ~
:g E
Q.. :J
co E
o .~
r- ~
...J
<(
l-
e
I-
-
z
e
~:i
...JO
:JW
o~
0::
o
C'?NO'lOex::>NCD"<t
O"<tl.C)CD"<t..-O..-
"<t. ex::> L{) L{) ex::> N.. N.. r--
"<tex::>O'lO'lex::>..-C'?N
-r- ~ or- ~ co
CD L{) N r-- co co
L{)C'?ex::>NOO
L{). "<t ..- N.. "<t. ex::>
..- N "<t C'? ..-
..-
r-- r-- CD 0
o "<t C'? l.C) "<t
'1Jex::>.Nex::> O'l
e> c: N u-i C'? ..-
Z 0 ..-..- C'?
52~
0:: a;
<(-
ll. 0
..c:
~ g
<( .-
- ~
o ...
ffi ~
~ .~
~:o
8 ~
. I/)
...J E
~ :J
o 'c
0:: .-
W E
~ 0
~1J
e g
o (,)
. UI
-
....J c:
~ ~
0-
0:: ~
W 0
~iii
~-
e.s
o ~
N
....
.
...J
~ UI
I-~
Z c:
W :J
C
UJ
W
0::
C'?
r--
L{)
l.C)
..-
l.C)
co
o ex::>
r-- "<t
..- O'l.
C'? ..-
ex::> N 0
..- "<t co
ex::>. "<t. N..
ex::> l.C) "<t
..- N
C'?
r--
L{)
l.C)
..-
L{)
co
ex::>
..-
..-
L{)
"0 :J
Q) 0-
"0 Q)
.:; 0::
o Q)
.... (.)
ai Q.. C'il
> Q) c..
Q) (.) U)
....J ~ C'il
ai ~ U) .~
> ffi co Q)
.3 ~ '0 E
c..-N ....E
2:' ill Q)E 0
0- aiai ()
~~~~~ ~E
...J Q) ....J ~ 0 0 ....J () :J
W I/) C'il "0"0 <( co .~
~ g [tl ~ g g 5 0 ~
...J () 0:: LL. () () r- r- ~
~
C
C>
z
C
-J
:::>
CCI
Q)
(/)
:J
"0
~
E
....
Q)
Q..
co
'0
Q)
c..
U)
...J O'l co "<t 0 0 O'l
<( "<t C'? ex::>
l-
e
l-
e>
z
52
0::
<(
ll. O'l CD C'? ex::>
...J "<t ..- CD
W
l-
e
~
e>
z
52
0::
<(
ll.
0 L{) L{)
::i
m
:J
ll.
e>
z
52
0::
<(
ll.
..J
<( CD co
~ ..- ..-
z
W
c
UJ
W
0::
ai
>
Q)
....J
Q)
ai (.)
> c:
Q) C'il
....
....J -
~ C ..- N
ill ai ai
ai -a> > >
ro > Q) Q) Q)
~ Q) .... ....J ....J
...J ....J Ci5 ....J
W Q) 0 0 <(
(/) C'il "0 "0
> C N en c c I-
W 0 C'il .... 0 0 0
...J () 0:: u::: () () I-
....
.E
"0
Q)
.:
.(
!;:
C
C>
z
::.:::
0::
<(
a.
ADDENDUM TO
Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL
for
ASHLAND SPRINGS
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
First & Hargadine Streets, Ashland, Oregon
(Structured Parking with Residential Units and Retail / Commercial Spaces
to be constructed on an existing parking lot adjacent to the Ashland Springs Hotel)
TL 100, Assessors Map Page 39-lE-09BC
OCTOBER 31,2003
Submitted to
CITY OF ASHLAND
PLANNING COMMISSION AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Submitted for
ED & TANYA BEMIS
Prepared by
OGDEN KISTLER ARCHITECTURE
1". II n.l
ADDENDUM TO Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31,2003
Page 1 of 14
PROJECT DIRECTORY
1.1 Owner
Mark Antony Historic Property LLC
212 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
1.2 Applicant
Ed & Tanya Bemis
P.O. Box 1018
Ashland, OR 97520
1.3 Consultants
OgdenKistler Architecture
2950 East Barnett Road
Medford, OR 97504
Hofbuhr & Associates, Inc. Surveying
3155 Alameda Street
Medford, OR 97520
Zbinden - Carter, Civil & Structural Engineering
104 N 11 th Street
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
Greg Covey, Landscape Architect
295 East Main Street, #8
Ashland, OR 97520
1.4 Property Description
Tax Lot 100, Assessor Map Page 39-lE-09BC
1.5 Current Zoning
C-l, Commercial Retail with Downtown Overlay,
Historic District Overlay, and Detail Site Plan
Review Overlay
1.6 Current Use
Surface Parking Lot for adjacent hotel use
1.7 Proposed Uses
Structured Parking for adjacent hotel use
(existing conditional use to be maintained)
Professional Offices / Retail Storefronts
(permitted use)
Multi-family Residential, including affordable unit
(special permitted use)
1.8 Request
Site Plan Review for new residential and
commercial development
Preliminarv Approval of Minor Land Partition of
existing tax lot
1'" II n.l
ADDENDUM TO Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 2 of 14
PROJECT NARRATIVE
2.3 Site Coverage
Based on the proposed partitioning of the property (See Exhibit 2, Drawing P.I - Preliminary
Partion Map), the project site will contain 24,253 square feet. The gross building area footprint
is 19,560 square feet. Thus, the building occupies 80.6% of the site. Public spaces, in the form
of a Pedestrian Plaza, widened sidewalks, courtyard, and other pedestrian amenities, comprise
8,300 square feet, or 10.2 % of the gross square footage.
2.4 Available Public Facilities, Services, and Utilities
The project site is well served by a full range of public utilities and transportation services.
Utilities include municipal water, sanitary sewer service, electrical service, natural gas, and
underground storm drainage. The existing overhead electrical lines along Hargadine and First
Streets will be removed as part of this project, and the existing underground electrical lines
(which were upgraded as part of the New Theatre project) will be used to service the facility.
Additionally, new underground storm drainage lines will be run to the existing 10" line located
in East Main Street.
Since the project site is located on First Street only a half block from East Main Street, it is well
served by public streets. The site is also served by a public transportation bus stop located in
front of the Ashland Springs Hotel, near the comer of East Main and First Streets. According to
research data obtained from the Department of Public Works and based on conversations with
Paula Brown, City of Ashland Public Works Director, the slight increases in traffic generated
by this project will not tax the public streets beyond the level for which they have been
designed.
ADDENDUM TO Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 3 of 14
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
3.3 C-1 Retail Commercial District Regulations (18.32) - excerpted
18.32.020 Permitted Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Professional, financial, business and medical offices, and personal service establishments
such as beauty and barber shops, launderette, and clothes and laundry pick-up stations.
B. Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services, such as a
department store, antique shop, artists supply store, and including a regional shopping
center or element of such center, such as a major department store.
C. Restaurants. (Ord 2812, S21998)
Finding: Professional service establishments are an outright permitted use in this zone.
Finding: Stores, shops, and restaurants are outright permitted uses in this zone.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the professional offices (commercial
condominiums), retail storefronts (commercial tenant spaces), and public parking
spaces included in this project are outright permitted uses in this zoning district.
18.32.025 Svecial Permitted Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of
this section and the requirements of Chapter 18. 72, Site Design and Use Standards.
D. Residential uses.
1. At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of
the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted
or special permitted uses, excluding residential.
Finding:
I Finding:
I Finding:
I Finding:
The residential units included in this project are a Special Permitted Use,
permitted outright when at least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground
floor is designated for an outright permitted use.
The total gross floor area of the building footprint at its maximum extents is
19,560 square feet.
The plans indicate that a total of 13,206 square feet at the various ground floor
levels of the building is designated as commercial space.
Therefore, a total of 67.5% of the ground floor footprint area is designated as
commercial space.
ADDENDUM TO Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Conclusion:
I Finding:
Finding:
I Finding:
Page 4 of 14
The applicant concludes that the amount of space at the various ground floor
levels designated as professional offices and retail storefronts exceeds 65% ofthe
ground floor footprint area.
2.
Residential densities shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1
District, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-D District.
Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design
standards as for permitted uses in the underlying C-1 or C-1-D District.
Off-street parking shall not be required for residential uses in the C-1-D District.
If the number of residential units exceeds 10, then at least 10% of the residential
units shall be affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the
standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through
procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units required to be
affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit.
3.
4.
5.
12 residential units are included in this project. The site is approximately 0.5
acre. Therefore, the density is 24 dwelling units per acre.
The residential uses comply with the setback, landscaping, design, and parking
requirements of the C-l- D district.
12 residential units are provided. One unit has been designated as affordable..
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the residential units indicated on the drawings
comply with the criteria 2 through 5 above.
18.32.050 "D" Downtown Overlav District
A. In all areas within the "D" Downtown Overlay District, all uses are not required to
provide off-street parking or loading areas, except for hotel, motel, or hostel uses. All
parking areas provided shall comply with the Off-Street Parking chapter and the Site
Review chapter.
Finding:
I Finding:
Finding:
Off-street parking is not required for the commercial spaces, and none has been
provided.
Off-street parking is not required for the residential units, but has been
provided as a convenience to the residents.
Off-street parking has been provided as required for the adjacent hotel use (i.e, in
the same quantity as the existing surface parking lot).
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the project meets the above applicable requirements
for projects in the Downtown Overlay District.
ADDENDUM TO Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 5 of 14
3.5 Site Design and Use Standards (18.72) - excerpted
18. 72.050 Detail Site Review Zone
A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted
pursuant to Section 18.72.080.
Finding:
This project is situated in the "North Main Street, Historic District, and Oak
Street" Detail Site Review zone.
B. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards
adopted pursuant to this chapter, which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100
feet in length or width, shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure.
Finding:
The length of the proposed building is 160 feet.
C. 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.
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted "gross square footage of
45,000 square feet" as meaning 45,000 square foot footprint, and not the gross
floor area square footage (Planning Action 2000-074).
This project contains two floors of commercial and residential units located on top
of a parking structure that contains 2 12 floors of enclosed parking spaces. This
parking structure also contains some retail storefronts, as required by the AULO
and the Site Use and Design Standards.
According to the interpretation of the City Council in effect at the time this
project was submitted, the calculated size of the proposed building is 19,560
square feet (gross square footage footprint size at maximum extents).
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project is subject to review under the Type 2
procedure and the Detail Site Review standards.
Conclusion: The applicantfurther concludes that, according to the interpretation of the City
Council, this project complies with the size limitation outlined in criterion C
above.
ADDENDUM TO Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31,2003
Page 6 of 14
18.72.070 Criteria for Avproval
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
e. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council
for implementation of this Chapter.
Finding:
The proposed development meets or will met all applicable City ordinances,
applicable requirements of the Site Review Chapter, and applicable portions of
the Site Design and Use Standards, as outlined in items A through C above.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-
of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards
Options.
Finding:
Finding:
1". IT n.l
Adequate capacity of City facilities and utilities are provided to the project site.
The following existing utilities are referenced on the survey plan prepared by
Hofbuhr & Associates (see Exhibit # 3):
. Water: There is an existing underground water line located in First Street and
Hargadine Street. There is a fire hydrant in the sidewalk adjacent to the subject
property, at the intersection of First and Hargadine Streets
. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 10" underground sanitary sewer line in Main
Street, and a 6" line in Hargadine Street.
. Urban Storm Drainage: An 8" underground storm drain line exists at East Main
Street, with a catch basin on First Street at the mid-block alley.
. Electricity: The electrical lines are located overhead along the Hargadine
property line and the First Street property line. Underground electric lines are
located in the alley adjacent to the parking garage.
. Natural Gas: An underground natural gas line is located in First Street and the
adjacent parking garage alley. .
. Transportation access: The nearest public transportation bus stop is located near
the corner of East Main and First Street, approximately Y2 block from the subject
property.
Based on research data obtainedfrom Ray Smith (Engineering Tech II) 552-
2416 and the City of Ashland's Department of Public Works' records, this
project will not tax the public transportation facilities beyond the level of
services for which they have been designed.
ADDENDUM TO Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 7 of 14
Finding: Existing Traffic Loading is as follows:
- Between 1st and 2nd on Hargadine 869 vehicles/ day
- Between Pioneer and 1st 1043 vehicles/ day
- Between Hargadine and E Main on 1st 808 vehicles/ day
- Between Pioneer and 1st on E Main 13093 vehicles/ day
- Between 1st and 2nd on E Main 13349 vehicles/ day
Finding: Residential units generate 10 trips per day. 14 residential units would generate
approximately 140 additional trips per day.
Finding: Since there are no specific tenants for the commercial spaces, the following trip
generation data is based on the closest breakdown for 10,000 square feet of
general office area. The commercial area included in this project is
approximately 11,000 square feet, so actual trips should be within this range.
According to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, an additional 246 daily trips
should be expected. Approximately 32 trips will be generated between the peak
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 34 trips will be generated between the
peak hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that, based upon existing traffic loading and the slight
increases in vehicular traffic that will be produced by this project, the existing
street capacity and available public transportation will be more than adequate.
Paula Brown, City of Ashland Public Works Director, reviewed this project in a
meeting on October 16, 2003, and agreed that the trips generated by this project
would not impact the public street infrastructure.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this application meets all the criteria required for
approval of the application.
18.72.090 Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards
An administrative variance to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to
the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 if, on the basis of
the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are
found to exist:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design
Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site;
B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties;
C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use
Chapter; and
D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty.
Finding: The design of this project incorporates balconies in a manner that complies
with the Downtown Design Standards.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that an Administrative Variance is not required to
allow the balconies shown on the design.
ADDENDUM TO Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 8 of 14
3.8 Variances (18.100) - excerpted
18.100.010 Variances - Purpose
Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general
purpose of this Title may result from the strict application of certain provisions thereof, variance
may be granted as provided in this Chapter. This Chapter may not be used to allow a use that is
not in conformity with the uses specified by this Title for the district in which the land is located.
In granting a variance, the City may impose conditions similar to those provided for conditional
uses to protect the best interests of the surrounding property and property owners, the
neighborhood, or the City as a whole.
Finding:
According to AULO Section 18.32.025, Special Permitted Uses, residential uses
are a Special Permitted Use in the C-I-D zone, permitted outright when at least
65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor is designated for an outright
permitted use.
Finding:
In this project, at least 65% of the ground floor footprint area (as calculated in
Section 18.32 above) is designated as commercial space, including retail
storefronts, commercial space, and public parking.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that since the amount of space at the various ground
floor levels designated as commercial space exceeds 65% of the ground floor
footprint area, a variance is not required.
NOTE: The remainder of this section is 10 longer applicable to this project.
3.9 Procedures (18.108) - excerpted
18.108.160 Ordinance Interoretations
A. When in the administration of the Land Use Ordinance there is doubt regarding its
intent, the suitability of uses not specified or the meaning of a word or phrase, the Staff
Advisor may interpret the provision in writing or refer the provision to the Commission
for interpretation. The Commission shall issue an interpretation in writing to resolve the
doubt. Neither the Staff Advisor's interpretation nor the Commission's shall have the
effect of amending the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. 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.
ADDENDUM TO Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31,2003
Page 9 of 14
B. The interpretation of the Staff Advisor shall be forwarded to the Commission who shall
have the authority to modify the interpretation. The interpretation of the Commission
shall be forwarded to the Council who shall have the authority to modify the
interpretation. Whenever such an interpretation is of general public interest, copies of
such interpretation shall be made available for public distribution.
Finding:
The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted "gross square footage of
45,000 square feet" as meaning 45,000 square foot footprint, and not the gross
floor area square footage (Planning Action 2000-074). No further interpretations
or ordinance amendments have been issued as of the date this project was
submitted.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this interpretation may be relied upon in submitting
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (this application) for this project.
NOTE: The remainder of this section is 10 longer applicable to this project.
ADDENDUM TO Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 10 of 14
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
4.4 Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects (II-C-3) - excerpted
Developments (J) involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet or a building
frontage in excess of 100 feet in length, (2) located within the Detail Site review Zone, shall, in
addition to complying with the standards for Basic and Detail Site Review, shall conform to the
following standards:
II-C-3a) Orientation and Scale
2) No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings shall exceed a gross square footage
of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. 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.
Finding:
The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted "gross square footage of
45,000 square feet" as meaning 45,000 square foot footprint, and not the gross
floor area square footage (Planning Action 2000-074).
Finding:
According to the interpretation of the City Council, the calculated size of the
proposed building is 19,560 square feet (gross square footage footprint size).
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that, according to the interpretation of the City Council,
this project complies with the size limitation outlined in criterion 2 above.
3) Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the
height of the tallest building. Ifbuildings are more than 240 feet in length, the separation
shall be 60 feet.
Finding: This project contains only one building. Since the site must be partitioned in
order for the applicants to take ownership of the property, the adjacent Ashland
Springs Hotel will be situated on a separate parcel.
Finding: According to the direction ofplanning staff, this criterion applies only to
buildings on the same property, or on separate parcels that are part of the same
planning action.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that, since there is only one building on this site and
included in this planning action, this criterion does not apply. The applicant
further concludes that any other interpretation of this criterion would render
this site, and most sites in the downtown area, completely undevelopable
ADDENDUM TO Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 11 of 14
4) All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate a streets cape which includes curbs,
sidewalks, pedestrian scale light standards, and street trees.
Finding:
The new public plaza and the existing sidewalks have been enhanced by the
introduction of the street trees, landscaping, seating amenities and lighting as
demonstrated in the drawings in Exhibit 2 and described above.
II-C-3b) Public SlJaces
1) One square foot of plaza or public space shall be requiredfor every 10 square feet of
gross floor area.
Finding:
The existing parking lot is not landscaped, nor does it provide any public plaza.
The gross floor area is 81,212 square feet. A new 3,542 square foot Pedestrian
Plaza has been integrated into the design. Additionally, a courtyard and
widened sidewalks, including benches and seating areas, have been provided
on First and Hargadine Streets- behind the property line on the subject
property - to provide an additional 4,758 square feet of public space. The
pedestrian plaza and public spaces represent 10.2 % of the gross floor area.
2) A plaza or public spaces shall incorporate at least 4 of the 6 following elements:
Finding:
Finding:
a)
Sitting Space - at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet shall be
included in the plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of16 inches in height and 30
inches in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum depth of 30 inches.
Approximately 40 sitting spaces have been provided in the Pedestrian Plaza and
at the widened sidewalks. This equates to 1 space for every 490 square feet of
building footprint.
b)
A mixture of areas that provide both Sunlight & Shade
The building entrances and overhangs, and the seating areas located beneath trees
provide opportunities for shade.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that a mixture of sunlight and shaded areas has been
provided.
Finding:
c)
Protection from wind by screens and buildings.
The plaza is inherently protected from the wind from the North and South by both
the existing hotel and the proposed structure. Alcoves within the plaza, adjacent
to the building provide some EastlW est screening.
d)
Trees - provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of 1 tree per 800 square
feet, at breast height.
ADDENDUM TO Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31,2003
Finding:
Finding:
f)
Finding:
Page 12 of14
Four trees have been provided in the public plaza, this equates to 1 tree per 590
square feet of plaza area.
e)
Water features or public art.
As shown in Exhibit 2, drawing L.l - Landscape Plan, two water features have
been incorporated into the public Plaza.
Outdoor Eating Areas or Food Vendors.
An area has been allocated for a coffee or snack vendor, within the retail space
adjacent to the new public plaza.
4.9 Downtown Design Standards - excerpted
VI-B) Setback:
3) Recessed or projecting balconies, verandas or other useable space above the ground
level on existing and new buildings shall not be incorporated in a street facing elevation.
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
Finding:
This project is a mixed-use project that includes residential units above
commercial enterprises, in keeping with the stated goals of the City of Ashland's
Downtown Plan.
While the subject property is "downtown", it is not contiguous to a row of
existing buildings where a continuation of prominent storefront architecture is at
issue. This building addresses the design standards that meet the requirements of
the downtown core in terms of massing, roof articulation, setback and commercial
frontages.
Certain elements of the city's Multi-Family Residential Development Design
Standards have been incorporated into the project, to enhance the livability of
the residential units. Terraces and balconies have been integrated into the
upper levels of the First Street and Pedestrian Plaza facades in a discreet
fashion that diminishes the mass of the building and that does not detract from
the building's appearance.
These terraces also differentiate between the ground and upper levels, as
required in section Vl-E2 of the Downtown Design Standards. The detailing of
these terraces, with wrought iron railings similar to those found on other
downtown buildings, articulates the fafade and reduces the massing of the
building, in keeping with numerous other design standards for projects in the
Downtown area and the Historic District.
ADDENDUM TO Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
October 31, 2003
Page 13 of14
Conclusion: Based on the mixed-use nature of this project, and based on the findings
outlined above and conversations with planning staff, the applicant concludes
that an exception to this particular criterion is not required.
VI-K) ExcelJtion to Standards:
An exception to the Downtown Design Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of
Section 18.100 of the Ashland Municipal Code and may be granted with respect to the
Downtown Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
1) There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due
to a unique or unusual aspect of the site, an existing structure or proposed use of the site;
Finding: The specific requirements of the Downtown Design standards have been met
through the design of this project, including the creation of limited outdoor
spaces that do not create a balcony or terrace.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes, and planning staff concurs, that the use ofbalconies
and terraces as outlined above does not trigger the requirement for an
administrative variance.
NOTE: The remainder of this section is 10 longer applicable to this project.
~-
Cl -.
S~
< -
~Qo
cr
CD ::::r-
~~ C
""'....
gee
<">c
CL.. '"
::;.-c
C'D ....
V\ -.
::;- ::::::I
C'D CQ
a",
V\
_.
"'--'s::::!';"
... CD....
'" ,,'"
--
-;;a",
- .-
_II.....
Q ~m.
::::::I CD
c.. CD
<
Cl
-
o'
:::J
c
V\
::7'"
Q
:::I
_CL..
o
....
C'D
ee
o
:::I
3
-.
><
CD
c..
c:
'"
CD
c..
CD
<
CD
-
o
-c
3
CD
::::::I
.....
~~o
I~i
hf~
~ a. in-
e~ =
IrcCD
)>-,
)>
1'1. II 'II
~-
=_.
:::s~
0""
-< -
1llQo
e.-
CD ::T"
-~ C
~~
:Scc
""'c
CL.. ~
=i" -c
C'D .....:
..,. - .
~ ::;,
C'D cc
a~
..,.
c ~ E...
~ !!'Ci)
:::::r- ~
_II'S!!-
C ~~
::;, So
c.... o.
:I
c 3
..,. - .
::T" ><
Q CD
~ c....
~c:
~ ~
JgCD
gc....
CD
<
CD
-
o
"'C
3
CD
::;,
-+
~~o
Ie-:i
hf~
~ ~ in-
m ,..
,...
I (1) CD
)>-,
);
~-
=_.
=....
oV\
<-
~QO
cr
CD ::::r-
-.... c
gca
c..>c
CL. '"
:;' '"'C
CD ....
V\ --
=t~
CD CQ
s.",
V\
-.
c ~i5
'" .....
-gc
_ .C1
_Ij~
C ~:;.
~ ~
c... =t
C'D
C'D
-
C'D
(j)
<
CI
-
O'
:::I
c
V\
::::r-
Q
=
_CL.
o
....
CD
CC
o
=
3
--
><
CD
c...
c::
'"
CD
c...
CD
<
CD
-
o
'"'C
3
CD
~
~
~~o
~e::i
ht.~
~~iir
g ,..
,,-
I (1) tD
~..,
)>
c: ~ CI I--g
s ~ ~ :'2:
c;i - =-..;::;.
3QO -.!!."'CII
!f:::r CI <I Q
N~ = ~
S2(Cl ca.... CD
t:Sc -
CL.~ ~
:;. "'C g.
CD..... C)
'" __ ::I
=t =
CD CCI
~~
_.
c
""
:::r
Q
:::::I
-Q...
o
....
CD
(Cl
o
:::::I
3
-.
><
C'D
ca....
c:
~
C'D
ca....
C'D
<
C'D
-
o
"'C
3
C'D
=
......
~~o
l8::i
hf~
~ a. in-
mE; =
I n. ft)
~.,
)>
~-
~~.
"0 _
roc
g..::s
~s::::::z....
-...., ::r
gc
<..:> -..
co V'\
~""t:S
::;. ::::::!.
CD :::::s
~cc
CD V'\
CD
vr3
c ~~
V'\ .. =-
:r~~
0_
c~t--:l
~ 9~
C- <:=,
V'l
-
CO
~
C
:::I
c
V'l
::r
c
::s
s::::::z....
o
-..
CD
CO
o
::s
-.
><
CD
C-
c::
V'\
CD
C-
CD
<:
CD
-
o
""t:S
3
CD
:::::s
--to
!H1U ~["'
H~-!H ~ s
o!S <>! t
~i"i~~f ;;
i~i5-$;'-- f[
;t~~1} CD
ln~ifs 1
[i~ :; if
g;; <iI;;; a
1 if[ ;;
~ 0
o to
;0
~ c..
~ 1"''''".1 CD
~ ;"Mr;l.t"t'::::J
~ A
I __
~ '.",- (I)
l;l .....
-i "..--
rn CD
(5 .ii~-'\', ...,
Z 'l ;';..
...
.
...
"'
...
I
J
L
-J
L
existing residential R-2zone
I
I
1
f
\ I
r- - - - -G- - - - -G- - - - -G- -- - -G- -- - -G- - - - -G- -- - -G- - -\- -G- -- - -G- -- - -G- -- --Gr - - - -G-/-.'- - -G- _ _ __
I.- ) //
-----1 -----ss _L__II "'---ss -----Sl -----IS -----Sl -/-L-~-IS -----IS -----IS -----.JI\-----.::---ss -----IS _
I 3 -- ---1
I l HARG-A-[}11.(E STREET / /:
I ,r __~/ __,'- ~
<;'I r----WL -----Wl -----Wl --7C-Wl -----Wl -----Wl -----Wl --~-WL -----Wl -I--f--Wl -----WL _____\
: I ,ff I -i-nl;, I 10 _/- I I
:: __ I-iei=.c -1---=l..EW--l= E1= -+, 'E_ ~~+E40_I~I' IJ~__~O I.'" I Ji--EF~--E-----E
'.JJ--""-':-, ,..,.-;-';-t1'-;r-~-' :r-'Ii-- :.-H.... -it H -I...~r:.;."":;-_:l-I.;..,_ -I.I_I_.~, ~ I ~
'I ~ % I ! f-- J.O..:...I.\ X M -~- ~ ~~ 2...: I } - --
:: : : Ii _ - - - - - -IJ\ - - - 1/;\ L - , M -f + -- 1
[I I"i!.. ~ _/- III! I I
~ ~ "'. /- IV ~ ~ y 11''1 T
i ~ i 1- r V ~ ~l r p \ 1- ~ : i
: I / ~ ~ ,\T lY if! If-
~ 'I I ~/ ~ / r.I/1
'i-_~__llbl---h IB \ //-I-~~~
:: : ~ ~-j~~fX\----/------ ~= :H
: ~ "'II rI. _/-~_/~----~7\ -Y~VH ~ : i~i
I: r=~T 1- j/ f -~ ~ g ~ I I :::
~ I j/ \\ ]-,,_ ~==_! II ~I ::;:;
'-1--)1// OI61-- i.~ ~ ~ JI ~ --IX'! if ~/ \ Yv~ j il ~~::I ~
~ += ,\ 7\ '7 ,,~;;; =--' \ r
It i i ~ --;-l~ !J^~'fr/ l~t//---/ :~/
I ~ ~ 4!-!!~---- ---- '&7~l:J~// ~ ~ : ~
I : i /~ / I~ ---------------------------------~0fp' :~!i
11'~I-~:--I'bl// ~~'] : -J i~
"I : ~ I II
I r1 ~~ ~ii I ~'. I
, I I I 1 II .g 6--~ lr I I--
I il' I \\ [a A''' /.. / 1'-/ / -
I I H 1 : ,,'.... r/}; _ ,
I I H 1-1 I -_,::?p/ I I
I =E -I I ____ ---- ---"" I <;'l
: ~ .~fS~ ! //--- <? :
I 'k> - 1 L____-. /' ./ ~ Q ~ I I
I /' ! - - l // ~ : n> I I
I I __ 1-'0011 --, : .__ ~ ~
'-.f ~ __ o~h\-- T \.... ~/ ~ I
-.-- - ++- ~-~, .__ I ~ I
I I I-!i-. '.__: _nl
I I -n T" ~;;,'_____~____~.-- , =; II
I I ~ ~ - ~ =: III
I' ~ I I : li'~
: ~ -t r>1 /' X; ~/ tx" 11 ~-g,;~ 'd~_,j l ~'S:rA}~-JX;~t ~ -B~#:ScH~' : I;~:
:: ~ p::jl><f><( ~" tf.r :lr-2i/ ~ -rr~~~~FJltt[}.Rl/,' ::~:: /
I I I'"M "" l I <<t/)L..-Pr ~ r-~ ig-r: t~L_--U-1U~-jt~~ ~:~r-__--/ 1~~---_~:-1 \ ISI~
C"> 1 rT'1 I. c::" I """" 7<;V, :.,. (, I~ ~:I ~.r - --;r-' I~--:::h---'l 11\ "''I... I~' -r=,--' UII:;;II
J I --l r:"! 1~'lrl1G l -~,..~ 'i Ilil\ 1)1 I -:I!I I
~~' rOlll do-.ln I I 11 II If' .( I I 1/' .1/11 f{'" If.....
G ~ ~ l II:! l{i;l '-!,u...>- :~ ~\""'l
P II UJ U.J u"~';7~~ I i I I
.---- L, I I I
~II'I
] I111
I I ~I
1111
: II~
~I II
1111
11I1
,1"'1
[ ,i I ~
1111
~. II
': II
I-.!..i;t>
[1,-1 r-
11[I'Ir-
I i~111 :;
~IS I
I i~: I
'I-I
'i ;'1
I111
~i II
III:
~ ::;1
'116
~ ~II
Ii I
II.!..
Ii -
III i'
~ !.oi I !
~ o. I ~'
f : i L ~
,1- -
Ii I
"I
"-
"-
'--- /
iriri~
Hili
~ ~ ~
~ [~
. "
i ~
a i !
~~ .. ..
Ii. ~
~g
i ;;;
..;tit
if.. ~
. ".
01 ~
if"
"
..
l
K
'"
1
[
-~
~.
5' .....
~ g
c 5'
~~
~. ,...,
"
'"
II
-<
rr
'"
I
I
I
I
I
;!'
I
I
,I
.., I
~ I
;!'
f I
I
I
I
I
;!'
I
I
I
I
I
;!' "'
I '"
I ~
I ~
I
I "i
;!' "
I ~
I
I
I
I
;!i
I
I
I
,
I
;!'
I
I
I
I
I
;!i
<!J
o
- I , ' I I II I J. , ,
, j ri~~-g
~ I I
~- " I I I :tt.:l\ +t+
. III 1'11'1 1)]21 ~ I I I "-
"'" E , I
rm
F~!
:.
t
.
[;;z
~
j
..
,
"
g- ~ pal~.
0-< E1=
-rt~
'-,
10
II!
....:. ~.
~. ~.g'
= --< ~
!-
J
f
1-
.,
. "".
~ ,
ti
c:: =.
"'=
~~
[
10
L
;:;
I~l
I~
~
I!
I r ,_, 1 I
_J:J
~. ~j:
= --< [
~. ~!:
= --< [
~.
~. ~ ~
=--<~
'"
6
::j
I
M r
I
,b
D[
~
~
I
~
I
r- IT
I~j
"-
a
I
!
~
i
"l
I
~J
I
-----10 -----so --1:10
I
I
I
~
-----Sl -----ss -r-~~--SS -----IS -----IS -----11 -----ss -----IS -----ss -----\S _____1\ _____\\ _____\\ _
MAIN STREET
~ - - - -so - - - - -so _l ~'- -so - - - - -so - - - - -so - - - - -so - _ _ _ -so _ _ _ _ -so
- - - - -10 - - -- - -so -
1
3
~
(
~-
""-.
~~
-c -
c;;o
3:::1
;fc...
~ =:r-
go
c..> .....
c.c '-"'\
~""'C
- . .....:
:::I _ .
CD ~
~CC
CD '-"'\
CD
-
V\
_.
c @.~
'-"'\ "':::r-
:=r~~
"-
C II ""
. I
~ <=i :'='
c....
-=
.....
CD
o
V\
=:r-
o
:::I
c..
-
3'
~
c
~
-=
c
:4-
~:
o
~
J
II
L
o
.....
CD
c.c
o
:::I
3
-.
><
CD 3
c.....g
c:::
'-"'\
CD
c....
CD
<:
CD
-
o
""'C
3
CD
~
.....
43'.6"
~
existing residential R.2 zone
HARGADINE STREET
r ,,.. _ -.J _, _,.. o_L. _ _ ~ ~~m dP~k:3!:lb!2 .21'
I
I
~
I
I
'r---;-
~
I
I
I
I
---+
01
--i
I
I
It
.
1~~'{ l ~1
a. ~ -:. ~ :>... .... Oll~
HH UH
:;~"~1"'!~'"
lUhf ~ sit
~~~i~,~ I i ~
~~ -~ g
_a.
!
'2
--l
01
~
8:
I
I
w
~e!1
~n I
rTi~
~ -cd
~ r- I
~
~
01
~
I
I
I
I
I
--q
o i ~
I
I
I J-
, ~
I ·
f---(
-n 0,
1,-
~ I '
~I
""
V>
-<
--r.J-~
~
I
i
I
Ie;;
i:
i~
I~
It
T
C ~"'C
=81-..J;;
~ t3-g
:""'..0 ~
= <=
~co
>< ~ -
~ co
(.o.:J -- -=::;
",-,co
- ~
V>
-<
""
lT1
lT1
-<
I
~... \e;l~
~I !'ill'med (~ o"umedPlS~, ~'I~'E 75.55'
~ I ~6\IltLj1iL1ll1
tll
~~ II
~I
:::i
~.
.r- :
g:~ I
IL I
ofi
i
!
,m
:'f - ~:~,
o-'i ~i
-iik
I
'"
~
I
EEl
i I I
811
~I
iFt I
I . I
, l
1
,T
[
~ri
o
.,
8 0
.-
> to
'"
0
'" c.
~ (
<: (I) 1
'"
~
"0 :;,
'"
0
> ="
n
:I:
I -.
:I: en
0
z
'" .....
U>
-< --
0 (I)
'"
U>
C5 .h -,
Z " .
~
Q
~
:1.
~
h
l
.
..--1
. <
~1
I
I
!
~. i ~
-=
~ij
! I I I Ii 1
I II I
!A:'iII1PI
~~c...
.... Q B:
!~~.
.
.
..
~ ~:
~. ~~.
='"
CI ~ "'C
-c __ ~
-c = 0
~ ""'-c
~ ~ ~
u:; -g c..
~ @ ~
"'-'m
~ s. -
-'5
I
El;;'~~
-. .... <:;:;'
c; d =".
~..;!.E
'ZlJlIV
555'16'37'"1/ 133.21'
~-~-
I
~
0-
III
}. i.1
~~: ~
c: 3 g:
~... ~
~
..
o II
I "\
o
r\
~!
~;:E
"
'"
"
m,.
n!
r'-V r
i
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I)>
I;::
I..,.,
1 -<
I
1
I
I
I
I
I Q 1
I ~ :
Ii!.. 1
~~ I
I~ I
I~ I
i~ 1
I~ I
.~ :
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I~ :
i.:: I
I~ I
i~ 1
I:;; :
J ~ 1
~\-~ \
jy 1
I 1
I 1
I :
I 1
I 1
I I
I 1
I 1
I :
I 1
I 1
Ie 1
I~ 1
-3 )>
Ii!.. r-
~~ r
It/J k
I~ I
i;1 I
~~ I
~ :
I
\
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I I
,[ allumed Pl S54036'IB"E 37.64'
~!
]
:E ~ 5'
=:;' '0 co
(0 -< S
'"
11
..1>0 ~:
~. a-~'
= -< [
l; :::'.
"'=
3.[
[
10
L
=
r L,
;;
I
.J
r
__---.-J
~
f----~
"'
l
~.
"
'"
It
:.... S'
~~
S-.2'
~~
IL
<:
-.II
~
Q,
'"
!<-
[
~. i1
l~
3' g
~~
MAIN STREET
f(L'
C;:::::!':' C ~~
~ ~ v-t :~
<: - ::::r- ;:;, c-
3 S?O _'J:::;'o
g-:::r C ~~
~c ~ .(..v
:5ca c.... 0
"^"c ::::!:l
c.... "" 0
5' '"C ~
co """"I: '"'!:L
V"'I -- c
=:- ~ :::J
co c.c '
~ "" ....
V'l 0
~ 3 ~
'-"'t __ ;:::
~ >< c
C CD ~
~c....-<
CD
o c:: c5
Cti "" _
co CD =-
o 0
::J c.... co
CD C'D
<: <::
CD ~
- 1'0:)
o .0-
'"C
3
CD
~
--+
~ 0
~ to
~ c..
~ CD
~ <:J
~ ^
I _.
~ en
~ ~
-< -
~ '...h\' ~
en ' ;1 ,.,
~ (~~tt) ..,
, '~
-,--,- - ,- -' - -,- -,- -,- -,-- ,- -,- -'- -, --',
r-'--'--'--'--'--'- I
:~~
I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: J
I
I
I
n - I
I---!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II h
D
I
[I
II
I
_~J::::_>--i
/
II
EEJ
]!
~ :
I
I
I II
~
~ I
'"
'"
~ ~
..
"
~ ~
.- I I E
~'-~,I
~ c
60
:::r- =>
e--
L
--
cr
~ "
~~~~
~~Ir' 7\ /\
Y/\/ J ,I
~ I Il1m ~ f\"
~ V~V --= 19 \I/~~
,~ ;:v~i ~ ~_:/~~
j IV~-\:" ~! 1\ .~
I lL--y \; . T~ I
I /\~ II .:.c:-
tel ~e*1b
I v!\Y\ l
I IJ (1. \ ,\\.1.
f-- ' - - , - - , - - , - - , - - , !~ \/~/
A II I 1\ I;; \^/~ _
111';. ! [;\)(I I
r ~~ hr
~ ~ \lJ\--
....--...6'2',3.
~B;~
~
tj
Ilj
I ~
t:T"a..~
5- ~: ~:
:E(Cr3
,-------,
1 ~. 8 ..~ :
J 2~~1
1 CO U) I
I :=-. -- ~ I
: ge~]
l:-'~~J
I ~"'C_ I
I a-. ~ G") I
I ,"",3:'~1
I ..p =:s - I
I ::::t" <.c I
I ....t-..:l I
I = I
I :t::i I
I ~ I
I -P I
I ~ I
I . I
L_______-1
o
~ ~
~~
~. [
S1'-6'
---t
f
I
"
20'.3'
11'-7."
"
/OJII(
17,1'
'- -
~ro
_ c ~
g ~ ~:
3 ~~.
'0- ~
~ ~.
'Hi
c ~
" c
..:<_ !E:.
ro
!,j:
I
:21
I
L
[
~r-
r
J
..... g- ~
~ i~:
WE]
~'Y'1_,I~I,1 D"
1\ ;J , ;7 Lf\~l:
I f\ jffi L~-" i ~". II ;~
( lr\ L.-_-_-_-~_J ~ _
rJ ~ ~~I ~ ~Il) ~F~I~
I
I
I
I
I "
.-J .~~
IIIII111111
~~ ~J
p
~ ~~:
::E......:~
I !~T~TI
I~ It.'i ~J
=> - /I:: ~~f7_~
0 ~ ~
~ /, \- ~~
c:: I
- ~ "'~ L ~
:::r- <to
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I l
I
ll:
t5 ~
o
~~
l}--
-( ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
~ --- I r-
1 r , ,
i I
i i I , i I ~ n
I
fUIIP I I I i I
I I : [ I i I
" i , ~
'<.lw
! Ii--
I 1-
!
! I -r I I-
I - -+-
i --~~~J~- -
0 I , I
! r:IJ101 ~ ~
I ~
"ctl
---~~ ~~
;"~ ~ ~o:-
~ -.. ::::r- ~ =;:
3$?O-.!!,t-..:)
cr~ C -"1.
-~ C::::3 <J.)
8cd c... ::::
""'~~ 0
---0 ~
:::J -,: ""S!..
CD _. c
~::::3 ~
Cti c.c I
~ ~ ~
~ 3 ~
C _
V\ _. CD
::::r >< CI5
C CD .:::
~c...g-
, c:: co
o _
..... ~ ctl
Jg CD CI5
gc...~
CD
<
CD
-
o
"'C
3
CD
::::3
-+
~
~
~
<
'"
~
-0
'"
o
>
("")
:I:
I
:J:
o
:z
'"
~
o
'"
en
i5
:z
o
(C
c..
(I)
":::J
~
-
en
......
,...-
(I)
/'1. ...,
. .~
~~ :
~~
~ ~ <>:-
~9
"
"
~
l;' '"
'" "C
o _
~ c
'" -
o ~
~ c::
r-'-
1\-
I
I
I
t-
I r-
I
I I
I)
~ Ie::
---.Jr-.
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I _
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m-
-
-
-Ii
='
I
J t[J
II
I I
C-
o
~
'"
~
0-
~
~if
I
-
""
r-.
-
~ I II
? down 2' - 5.3%
<>
I
-
l
~
-
(.:>
r-.
~v
--'--'--'1
I:~ jl~
c~~ ~
,~ ro ~ F===E
~ i t==u
lh~hL
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
II
-
II
~-=
lZT-/I'
~
r-8-8-~.-~-'='l
13 3 ;::: g _...01
13 3 =-c-~I
ICDCtl9.~...o1
: g, g, ~r 5" b :
r~~~~>:
~ IC= ~ co-g ~I
Ig e. ""'-J -. G'")I
I"" =~57~'
1""0 - cc-'
:~* w :
I::::J....... Co J
I~ - ~ :
:'!:o ~ I
I
.., !cl I
L_________.J
f\; /
I
.....
-
B,~
I I
,-,
I I
'-___.J
~~
q r~-~'
~_~ -1='=
I I-
I ~n"~
-
gJ
~~
~
'\R<
~t~
/ IT; \.
1/ '\
I>
I ,><-;,
1>0'
0-
V'>
"
".10'
~
-
~
~ 3 ~
::::r ><. CD
~ ~
::; CD ~
_Cl- c.. ~
o c: c
Cti V\ ~
cg CD CD
=:J c.. a;
CD
<:
CD
-
o
""C
3
CD
~
.......
,-
r
;JJ= ~
<?
"
~= ~
-0-
~
o
-0 ~
.... '"
0- -
~~
v
0- ~
.-
-HI /, ~
""
,.....,
-
=-
~
CD
....
,.....,
~
c:::
-"'-
~ O::D )
((
..
r-
CD
-<
CD
I
~!
"'11
OF
I I ?T Jd
/l-, -c ~.
~ ~~.
~ g.~
co C>
V'>
""T"l
PUIO ij
~ ~ cr::Ol
~
~
3 '"
c -
~ c
.c _
~ ~ ~
-'" -
c -<!
c-
c
<
'"
41'.6'
1&'.8'
--0-;:- ,,=
~:
H'.()"
"
~
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
i\l~
~
..H
)J
17.6"
- ~
\;=J
"
~ = ~
3 ~
c c
~ ~
.c ,....
c= :;.
'" co
-'" '"
..
~-
..;
o
v
~
=
V'>
~'= ~
"
~:= ~
~
-
crrOJ
IB'-4'
I T~
""
,.....,
"
w
1 _ ~
-I=-
=~
~~
=-
~ ,~
6'.1~ I
1'-11'
.--..
~ L
- l
I I
I
d:JI
~
~ -c
_CJ.) ~ 8
0:>,.... :::l
U'"'I -. C-
o- :::l C
.p~~
=+" Ctl CD
. c-
.,
-
tN'\ ~ ....,
~~ V; ~
~ 0.> c: ~
---" ;=;' V""\
8""" 1.J,""O
U"1~""'- ......c i
~~Vl ~~
^"^^'\!' "" ~ -: ~ i
- r><J " ~ ~~ ~ ~; " ] :
nvi1 Jl ~,,~~ ,-, f-- I
~ xl '0" ~ yv::j ~n _I'
,..--,IXlrr ~ ~~-~ [~ ,--:
~~~ I D~ ~ 10 t:J~-JDi} II I 1-
~ -tll VltF't--r- --:1.. I -,;;
I "
I I I
I I I
I I I
-Din --D~-;;
S'.';' ,... ,.". r ,". ,...1
~~
n
~
f--
~
If
I
..
17.11'
"-
~ '"
= -
o e,
"" -
~o
~
--
~
A
~ ~ X/V'X
2:: \
FIiii'O rF?nrv ;\/ t'.;;(
L-[~ y '\;1" )~,^ ~
\" r- II""" L...""'" ~r-_ rr' r:;~
I I in n I II" I i
I I! ""
,---- I : : >--f
' 'I--
If--- -- -- 'r-1- 1
4'''' 5'"' S'~' ,....15'-';' r 6''''
1 S' I
I
"
"
"'" ,,0
I -'~
I I
5'-';' "... ,.... N'
g"3
_ C
C ~
'"' .c
c::
'"
'"
~
C
:::l
C
-c
::<
4'-]" 6'.11" 4'-0" 5'~'
9'.]]'
6....
,....
1~.1'
19'.1'
2'-0'
2'1)"
r
J
1
-
121'-/1'
'"' b- CO
~ '"
~ ~ ~
::r ~
- m
!:!!...
u
o
:::l
~
_CD
C
:::l
C
-c
::<
=~
1=
[
L
~
-<
-p
P'
~
[
l
I
I
T
13
J
~
(I
I
J
[
[
[g]
c ;;;;'
!!!...;i'
H-~
~~ ..,
!~ ~
.'
'i
ii:
~ ~
~J
L
[g]
I
~
o
/1
-i
F
1---
~~
. ~
~ =
~l
8
~
'"
~
<:
'"
2C
"'0
'"
~
:J:
I
:J:
o
:z
'"
en
....
c
~
G>
:z
o
to
C.
CD
"::J
~
-.
en
,.....
,....
CD
..,
=
.;'='"
1--
.=
o
I
IT" -- I-
i
rr, Ii ~
~ ~ -
""'~ L!.L~
... ....
-
I
I
I
:::l -
C ~
11 1/120
i ! 'I [f
I [:; >r'""'9"j I
'J1v
_ c::
Ilf
to ry- i"'EeJ
ZliiJ A'
-i-
::r '"
'- AF=
'Zll1Y
~
~
n
-:::!:' C ~ ~
~~ '-" :~
~ - :::::r- B ~
3 f?O _ ~;:::;
g":::rC c:;,
-~ c ~ -~
gca c... :,...
c......:lc ==
c..~ 0
:;0 -C ~
CD ~ ~
~ :::;0 c
..... - ~
CD c:c I
~ ~ 8
V\ ~
~ 3 g-
""" -- CD
~ >< -<
c CD ~
~c...;::
- =-
o c:: 0
..-or V\ CD
Jg CD CD
g c... Cl5
CD 0-.
-<: -
CD
-
o
-c
3
CD
~
-+
~ 0
o UJ
~ c..
<: ""
~ I'""'" ,. .,
~ fM'-'~~ ~ :J
~ ~
I _.
is (I)
i;'i ,....
~ -
~ CD
~ ..,
)>
12)'-6' " 4'.0' 5',0' 11'-10.
. 6'.6' 4'.0' S'-l" r, 6',0. ? 5.4 1 ~~
""". 5"' ?, ",," r 5'"" ",~ "," . ",' I~I! I ,.-L-1-..l., _ _ _ _, ~
' I .L.J. I _ __,__, ,
"';"-I~~I ,-- 1-'T-'--'- I !!I g!!l '13 JI I
d- ,!!II !if !!I 13 @ J',J'
~ - ~ 13 5,5' "5' ";C 55" c=- I
""" 5"" ",3',3::4' 3'-5" 5.,5' ~ I -'1 i -' .JI= l
' J -'L I JFc5 == =IL ~J ~ ~
9l. -{ell "'" ~ ~ _ :
~ 0
~ ~ ~
t--.r
o t- r
~
- I"
l
..,
I
- r----1f1 ~
t
O~r-r~
JJ r--" ~
lr-~
k~ I~
C@ ~I
- Ii;
~
r-- .1\ 1 ~
~lVzr
r/ ~ ~======
I; t - ========1 "r=====-t)W(1========\, /=)
! - ~- """"~ ,'/ Ii \/ ,\'..J, ~ \ ~",,,,,,,,,,
r ~ I - ~ ~"""" ,1/ t IIjJ V~ ~~"'~
I' '" ===.'~. ./ \/\L~
[- :" Y\lJJ \N\( ~
:: I U ~ II\/'iI \Y\/~ ;
~I 'lI: //A ^/ / V~V~
I, : l. ! ~, ~ fiti! 0 \:!\~======== _ _
l~ :!U~.==="==-- ~- -- G~~~ · Il(ji~
:' 1. 8 IlfI
,- : ! ~ ~==============v\h IX!
:: \/\I'1LYI
i: ~ j\ 'D 1/
__n_~~~~~~~~~j ]~ -
r-W ~::/!
~l
t=$~
~~
t-----" M
, ~ Ii=;, EI EI
D D~D
L I -""!r-' ~!!I 1
' ~ I
l l '. 5',6j' r ",," r I 5'.6j" ".~
1'1-1" 6'-0" 4.11
~
}!, 12'.ID"
F~'--'--'
i !
I I
I i I~
-'- _U?-'l "), r
I 1 L/ "-J
'i
i 0
I
~
o
:::>
C-
o
..;
'lI:
-.0
::; ~
~ -.t I
I
I II
I ~'c'
: \ ~
~_I
I;; I
[;; I Jill
r~ I J
J:. ..L
T~ i J
h i _~O
R~ !;
~t- ""'.E1 EI D
~i--~ :=-1n ~ ,1,;11L-
:1 I I W1f1'1
I L.-" L I "I,~ , " I" '. " "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
-==~
&
"
o
::>
C-
o
'lI:
...,
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:::> - I
c:: I
=r~ l
~
~
~
gg :
~l;j
~~ """
~9'
-;
"
~ :0;
~
~ ~.
~ ~.
~.
o ~
'".
o
::>
C-
o
'lI:
'-"
o
::>
C-
o
31
!,. g:
...... 0;
~~
I:;
I
'lI:
.....
-~
"
~
o
:::>
C-
o
~
Dl~_'i
31 I ~
WJ_ f;
f;
,-
o t;
'-j;;
"--(I--
r------1 ~
U ~
F-
11~3
"..l?I.J ",," J :
I
'lI:
ex>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_,_J
--,--,--,-
I
1
I
r=. 1
II ~
I
~~
~ ~. _0; I
-. c:. CD
c-_"",-
~. g. ~
o ::> C)
- -<
---o~>
'-"""'-r-
~C)_
""'-<>-(;")
..., ~ Vl
~-..:!!
~- 0 "'CD
=-. ~><
~~ ~ .. =-
<: -+ :::r B ~
CD S?o
3 - [1=--"
c- O C' r-.;)
CD =:T"
-=-'0 ::::::J ""~
......, -.
25CJ::2 c...
c...>o :::::!':'
c.. ~ .......
:;.-0 ~
CD ..-.,: ~
V\ ......
::::::J CD
-+ CD
-. -
CD c:.c:l ~
CD
-+ ~ 0
V\ .....
0 3 ::s:
......
V\ 0
=:T" >< ~
0 CD CD
::::J CD
c.. c... <:
0 c:: g..
0
-. ~ :::::J
CD
CJ::2 CD
0
::::J c...
CD
<::
CD
-
0
-0
3
CD
::::::J
-P
18
\~
::2
IS
~
i~
~
~
~;-
~
1~
I~
g
~
I~
19.
!~
~
i
I
i
i
I
I
i
i
i
I
i
I
I
i
i
1
I
I
i
1
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
j
i
I
I
I
1
.,
I
i
i
I
1 ~
I~ ~
: C ~
! ~ ~.
i
1 I
I ~__ !
.0
~~
~~
lro
""
!~
~.
i~
i!
I~
i::;:-:-
I~. I~
~ i:;';
1~ i;
!~ ~
!~ Ir
i-I, ~
]~ !~ u
iOi~ 19 H-
l ~ 1
..~ ~ I : i
j!~
i~ ~EJ~1- II
II ~
il
II / -j[ T
II -III
j I I I'
II
i i /,." 1-1111
II / fJ liLICc
II Vt~; : I
1 r Y I
!1t1JEfI I
II
:i .,y: rl I 1-1
i~~lr
Alii 11'1 i
: II 0 I l
l~~u
;,1 1l~~. Ii
J~I-j~
-g r.l.,.:-: I:"
II : I
}'---1 - - ii .
1"1'.y __n ,_
i:o
I~
~
\Wr
.""
~
i~
~
:~
~.
I-
i
i
I
_L
I
-'-
I 111I
I ""
, ,
I~ffi
I
,,-'-
,
:;~-_. I
r;TTl1
:~LJ I.
.!r;T'
. .1
OJ
!I ~I~ i Ekfr.'. ~
-.-. : h:~l p .>: ;. i
--.
I
I II , I I !
m, .- ]
JI:tL". J:t:ti
IIH-+-l ~1:I::!::i J
-.~r~~l
-"j I". -1 ! I,:
. " . ,r ~
'~l:i~!:~~.; ! Ip .~ L.. :
!~ t!...... '.1
II: .;~~W !
. .!. .::::~:.: "Il
.1
.tt8
>. ./.~
~
~ I
it
h
ni
,.- !---
! ..,
~' '. ."I1l1
1
is
I~
.0
==1 I[
I -
- 1-
:~
I~
>--- i..::
j~
I@ 0
:3
Ie: ~
1---1 I :~ 0
- !~ [
- ..
- III
c ':"
j-
:~ ~
!~ ~
~
- is ~
I
..~
~
I I I
~ 0
~ to
~ C.
<:
~ ,"'",; CD
;g ;;:lil;';~, tI ::::J
o
~ ^
I __
~ en
E =.
rn CD
~ -,
I~.II
ILJ'll
o
,
o
WJ
i ~
'rl
-lJ-{ J-LJ-.O-C
V
-
I~~
[Om
DJOJ
OJ rn 11
\
i3
!~
!~
\~'
.ro
I~
.;::
!.g
i~
i~
:w
1~
1;;-
\~
~
.~
I~ 1 III
Ii
III J Ilf I W 1 "\\I!IIEffiBIOJ i-I
J~~1Cl ==
~,... n~-
=.~
~
lJ
1
r 10 I
lJ
I~ 1~F1 II~IBI 1f83::j1lj
1 Iii T 1 Iii
1 Iii rill
IIri=I=jJcl
I III I J ili I 1 III
I 1111 J Ilr T 1 Iii
I !I
I
I
DJ
I 11 rg
I ~11i++++1I1Cl
jilllR+m DJ
:::; [j]
llFl 'lillffil[) I
~1frl"'R+l1Cl11-~
jillH=R=R Ii:lI EE
~rrmlCl ==
~llZllnJ.~m
c ~~
V'\ .. =-
:::r- ~ ~
_11-+
C ~ "->
::::J -.:..,.
s::::::l... h.::>
~
......
!a.
!a.
......
CD
CD
......
=-
CD
C
--
=-.
i5~
.c: ......
~$?O
g-~
:"0
r....:>...."
g(C
c...>o
s:::::l... V'\
::;. -c
CD ~
V'\ -.
=t::::J
CD c.c
~V'\
V'\
o 3
V'\
~
o
:::s
s:::::l...
-
CD
-. ro
>< <
CD 9-
s::::::l... ~r
o c:::
...." V'\
JgCD
o
:::s s::::::l...
CD
<:
CD
-
o
-c
3
CD
::::J
-+
~1
T-!~
~\
1-EEl-
'j
"
l_.----.u--. ,_,__
-'-- -- . -.FJ
.
I I~:;,
:
"
'-- ,--
~.. ii,;. 1! . '''; :,11
c=~ . _u_ !]~Pl.//.-. . ~
~
. Ul'/' II
,....11' ..
I, ...., , .
I
/1111";.':;II""'}'III':1'.;11
. I, I
. , .
. I. !
'-,
/
---_:....::::....:.. -~
o
:::r
g-
"?
C
3
-0
~r-
_, "C
<g.. a
;. ~
~ -g
'" :::J
~ ~
:::J
C
3
'"
~---I=-1- B
--/
0-
'"
~
:::r
--
"C
o
:::J
~
I ~
\ --
,-- l I
,
,
~ 0
o to
~ c..
~ CD
~ " ::3
o
~ ~
I _.
~ tn
~ ....
o ,...
[;l '""':; CD
~ 3"j", ..,
"}>
I
"C
C
N
!! 3
Ie! c.:.
;<- j -c
5' I 0
t:c;~ ~ 3:
~ - ~ s.
mR[~:
~
I~I
~
itt ' " ..
. i :".. : . ,,:,:; :: . -' " .'
"..- :. ': : ,.
. .: I ;- . ....
~ -
~
~
l\~; dl"'~:"''::!~
'~ ! . .
..:\1....:.....:-.:,,:: ']
1:1' . ..:
il . !.
.j: . /
. ~. .
, ...
1--....--.
"
~II
~
-
-
--
; ,':., ..'
;.: .
:"n
- I
-1
-
- I
I
;:\ ~I I. _;: .:,,__!.
. ~I ~.:-~'~ i
- . )--, i r-l "-, '-~-c; i m ; ," -- ,...... -"'l!~ - ,- r ....:I
::.~/_' '.. '-";:,!:r.:-.~----:'~~r"l I i "...:.\: !c--lj-. ::1
~ U. --=-=--~ ;,j. '~,-]
~I~ i I
I
,
,
I
I ~
, ~
,
b!
~~
b 5'
Rco
-
~ t I
~ ~ ~
'" CD ~ ,
~ ~ <>
c::
3 po "" ~!
c co ~
.0 ~
c:: <3 ~,
'" :::J
'" ;:; ~ ~'I
CD :::J
~ 0 Ci) ,
"C ~
o' ~ <>
:::J 3 b; :::J
=-
c:: ~ 0
"C -'" ~ Ci)
"C c:: <
3- '" ~ ~
'"
~
1 I I I
,Ii --:"." : ...'"
I~ i. : .,=.-,~.: . .-.---
II ! ..:; ,
I~.J ~-~..
I __ll
II~
mm
I~llm
ml
~
roa%~]-
~::aQro
cg~g..-
3cug-~S?.
CD"'C>< c:
~ o:E ,;:;' 3
o ::I __::::r ~
.., -..... -
~~g. ~
g g-~ g ~
_>Co@:
:E ~
::;'
~ 3"
~
-;:;;
CD
3
:E
--
5'
:::
c
CD
=-
co
~
::;"
ce
o
r-I ! ~!"
i I :. -, .-- I
L i ,__!..
-t .:. H'
11""-'.' ! r---l
._' t. i
I
I
-
---\
1 '
~ I
0- :
: I
COO I
~ '
-g I
::l
~:
~I
0'
0-
;g.\
'" ,
,
I
,
,
1
CD
'"
~
c
C
3
:;'
c::
3
co
c::
~
:;-
~
"C ""
~ [ [
i_ ~ ]
'" =-
lit
-< ~ ~
"? ~
3
:E
--
a"
c::
s
'"
=-
co
e-
N
::;'
co
<>
L.~
>.0 _
,...... '"
p-<
~;::;
I
~
L'
. ; J
"
.. :I
~ u
CD
'"
~
c
C
~,
:::J
c::
3
3-
'"
=-
g,
o'
::l_
~
:::J
C
3
'"
=-
c
~
3-
'"
=-
0'
:E
g,
-0
C
:::J
~
\
,
,
I
,
,
I
I
.
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
.
I
,
I
,
~
~
0'
=>
'"
~
~
~.
'"
3
c
?"
0-
~
r!
~ '"
~:;E
~f
_ "Cl)
- ~><
V\ .. =-
~~~
_11-'
C ~ I'..)
:::] - ~
c... c....:.
~~
C>~
<:l._
g-S(lO
-~ ::r-
~c
=~
CAOCC
C
c.... V\
::;o-c
CD .....:
V\
=t :::]
CD c:.c
~V\
V\
::r
~
<0
0
C-
5'
m
~ 10 13 I~
0 18
~ i~ I;
~ 'C- 'C
'm :0
< 1- !~
0 , m I~
Q I~ :0 ~
co >c I;;
I~ in; ',..... 2&'.9'
< 15' I
~ :,.....
~' , ' "" ~
~ i::c; I~
i~ ,v.
,..... '<.0.> '-0 III 1
5' Ie, Iv.
,0 ,.... lr
-- Ig- :<=2 i~ !
::r I .i'1~1
0 :-- /~ill'
~ I~ f8 :---
:0 l I::=:
m 1= ::::1 ~ , 1,=,
~ ' ' \g- i ]
i::c; ~ i
'.... I~
~ '.... :,..... l
-0 10 i5' E ~~I I
<.0.> :0
.... i-=: e. i J I
0 , ::r I II ! "I Ii
<::? '0
::r In; I i I
0 ~
n; I I TT Il-JrTT
= :0-
e: I~ 1 I i I -I HI ~ I
~ '"
I~ I I I
,,.....
""- c "'CD \
..0 -. ~><
o~ "" ..:::r-
~ -+ ::r~~
g-S?O _11-+
-~ :::r C ~~
::50 ::::::J I
=..... ........
c...>(C c.... ~
0
c.... "" c
::;. -c CD
CO .......: "'<
V'l -- CD
-+ ::::::J CD
..... -<
CO c.c S-
CO
-+ "" 0.
V'l ::;:,
0 3
V'l
:::r ><
0 CD
::::l
c.... c....
0 c:
..... ""
CO
(C CD
0
::::l c....
CD
<::
CD
-
0
-c
3
CD
::::::J
-+
8
~
o
'"
~
<:
'"
,.
-v
-v
'"
o
,.
(")
:I:
I
:I:
o
:z
'"
en
-<
o
'"
en
(5 :"'"c'
Z "
18
.::::>
I~
:::2
Is.
~
.m
I~
~
ig-
<C
I:r-
'0
ii[
:",
I::'
:.<
I
i~
i~
.e::>
f=;:
'0
iIf:
"0
I~
~
:0
1;<-
:5
<c
r-
o
(C
0-
m
'::S
"
-.
(I)
r+
...-
m
..,
)>
o
~
t:f~
I
I
I .
I I
I
o I
l-H-
I I
1..1.' II II ~
I I I I I
I 0 0 EE
I
I-
I i
./ I I 9
i
I'" I I II II I
I II I
0 I 0 II
~.~ ~:~~ ~'~~1 ~ ~I , I : . ! . t~
i . i
I I ! I
.ml I
10;
:8
!g-
i~
.",
~
.0
i~
~
.0
ia
. 0-
i~
.'"
i[
i..:....
: ..0
Ii::
:b
Ie::>
g
: CD'
~
Ig;
rg
i~
~
: I
! I
II
! I
! i
Ii
Ii
II
I:
: I
II
! i
! I
Ii
[I
! i
II
I:~
: I~
I i~
if!
j '0
, i~
( F
:3
Ie.: i~
~ :~
15, 16
i~ :0
.~ ~
i~' i~
i~ :0
'-0 rg
i~ i~
,0,::J
Ie::> ~
'I
I
c:::=t=3
c:::=t=3
'IT, -11
I ,,7J':"T 1--17'FJ,.
,/ :1 H~
=
I \
I I I
11 :01,;1 11\\ HI 1.1 I 1\\
FlI> il 11'/ FII I I I ,'1
i \ i
I
FWTF Hrl"F
li..iL:L HULL
I I
I
I
!
I
i
II
I
i
.!
I
I~
'0
I::::>
.0-
'0
I-
.'"
I~
E~
28',3"
~
o
::::>
0-
o
m
<
~
""
I..:....
!~
i~
~
..0
......
0-
U,
e::>
-ill
/
I
F
I
I
I
i3
.0
j?<
: 0-
I~
.~
i~
:",
I~
'en
10
.-0
.en
I'
. ..0
1..0
.w
I~
I~
:0
ij:.
o
-.
CD
CO
o
:::s
><
CD
c...
c:::
V'\
CD
c...
CD
<
CD
-
o
""C
3
CD
:::s
--+
8
~
o
~
<'
'"
~
"
:0
~
("")
:I:
I
::c
o
z
~
o
'"
'"
Ci
z
"
-.
(I)
....
,.....
CD
..,
18
i~
:~
i~
:0
f.<
:ro-
I~
~
IS-
""
I::?
i&
"CD
I~
Q
I.:....
I~
Ib
'C:>
is::
'0
i~
~
, S!:
~.
'0
I~
',5'
!e-
!
I
I
I
I
I
18
':::1
i g-
I~
~
13
'0
I:'
i~
i~'
'CD
I;]
:CD
I~
'CD
I,
i::g
:c...:>
I~
1;:;-
'0
I~
i~
i~
'CD
i~
'CD
~
:0
i~
::::1
re...
,0
I~
:~
!$-
l~
!~
!~
i~
---
, ::r
:0
i~
""
,,=
's!:
I;:;'
""
:~
I~
::::1
~
i~
3 :1;;1_
:0.:
hb ,~
i~. i~
; ~
I;:;' :~
'::;: I~
: ("P ~ =s
'. ""
:- I,
1..0 '--"
:~ i~
10 :..,.
:c:> 16
1 :c:>
I";:;"-
l .0
':::1
. Ig-
Irg
II~
i~
'"
0-
..,.
Ln
c:>
'"
.....,
0-
Ln
c:>
i
I,
1
i
!
!
i
I
I
I
1
I
i
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
i
i
. I
Ii
1
1
I
i
I
I
i
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
1
i
I
n\~Hn
...:
!2...
iD
-=
= ::!':' 0 "'CD
--.: ~><
:::s V'l ~ ":::r
0 - :::r ~ ~
-<
CD S?O
3 _11-+
c- O ~t-..:)
CD =-
-~ c :::::J I
"" --.: :-0
gee s::::l-
c..vc ::E
c.... ~
::i' ""C c
CD ~ VI
V'l -- CD
- :::J 0-
--.: o.
CD CO ;::,
CD VI
- ~
V'l
c 3
V'l
=- ><
c CD
:::J
c.... s::::l-
0 c::
--.: ~
CD
ee CD
0
:::J ""C
~
0
--
CD
'"""
-
::::!':'
-,:
V\
-
V\
-
-,:
C'D
C'D
-
::E
c
-
-
V\
C'D
'"'"
::::::!".
0
:::J
-
-
::r
-,:
c:
-
C'D
-,:
-,:
c
'"'"
C'D
V\
-
~ 0
~ UJ
;0
~ c.
~ (1)
;g j'.<iil,'" ~ ~~ ::s
o
~ ^
I _.
~ en
G r+
c ,....
~ f,",ot (1)
g;i "-\', ...,
" ')>
~
5"
=
@ cp
-c
3 -<"
'" 0
=:. '" 2-
~ -c '"
m ~ ~ 3
~ 0 '"
~ C- 3
0 ~ 3 s;-
3 0 5" 0
'" g: ;;; c: :::J
~ m m 3 '"
~ ~ ~ '" < 0
~ '" 3- ---
--- 0
~ 0 0 0 ~ '" .c"
~ C- a..
0 3 3 ~. ~ 0.:.
=:. '" 5" 0" er-
~ ~ ~ 8 ~ c: !3. :::J, 0
5" 5" 3 3
a.. 0 a.. !3. ~ 0" ~
~ 0 :::J 0 5" 0 =r :::J ~.
'" ~ '" ~ :::J
= :::J c;;" ~ 0 c:
~ -;:; ~ ~ 0 '" c::: ;:: 3 e
--- ~ '"
0 m ~ m 5; ~. ~ '" ~ =:. ~ 0"
5" 3 CD 3 '" '" ~ 0 :::J
'" -c 0 ~ '" =:. ~ =1: '"
a.. ~ --- ~ -c 0 ~ ~ 0 ---
~ [ --- :::J 0 -c C- o :::J 8
I! 0 ~ ~. -c 8 ~. a.. :::J 0 3 ~ -c =r '"
~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ :::s ~ '" ~ ~
~ a.. 5" a.. ~
c: c: ~ '" ~ ~ ;;;
-c 0 ~ 0 ~ !!:. 0 ~ @ c: m ~ 0
0 :::J '" 0 m 0 3 :::J m
'" C- m ~ '" m ~ --- ~ ~ ~ '"
N a.. :::J a.. ~ = = :::s -'" ~
0 ~ 3 = '" !;!... 0 0 c: c: ~ 0 ~ ~ '" 0
-c -c :::J ~ = 0 c- ~ ~ :::s c- 2-
0 0 ~ 0 -c '" -c ~ '"
0 :::J 8 -c 3 '" -c a..
< N 0 N ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 -<
5" ~ < 5" ~. :::s 0 5" 5' a.. :::J :::J :::J ~. '" ~
= ~ ~ :::J
= ~ ~ = '" ~ c- = = '" ~ =r ~ ~ '" a.. ""
I
!
I!
I~I~'
@ ~
1~lf
~
-:-:I;;) 8
I~
1~li
It :--1ff~B
I
,
I I~ c-
=:"
, ~ ,'" e;
~ '"
0 , '" ''''''' :::J
b :::s b :::s 10=
a.. a.. = '"
0 0 , :::J
0- co '-J co i:="'~
..". < "" < '0 -
~ ~ ~ ~ t.fJ
,...,
0
, ~
..-- ~
j[ co
<
~
"c ::;:;-c
'0
Ig: "",,0
..".~
g~
e. -=
I
'- )
I~ -c
0 ( ~"
,~ N i--
-c 0 ,~ -
I~ co I a.. I~
~ < , -0 '"
~ b 0 !!:.
-c ::;:; ~-g a -c ::;:;-c
10 ~~ ,,:,
I~ ..". V. 2- ~ v.O
..". '" """ ..,.~
5" " ""
0 ~ 0 = -"
e. '=2 ~ ,~ m ~~
~
'"
~
C
5"
'"
c...
~
'"
~
0
3
'" ~
~ m
~
!E.. 0
0 3
=:. '"
~ ~
5" 5"
c... a..
0 '"
~ ~
~
5"
=
cp
-c
-<"
0
2-
3
'"
3
s;-
o
:::J
'"
~
.c"
0.:.
er-
0
3
~.
c:
~ e
~ 0"
:::J
~ '"
c ---
:::J ~
'" 0
~ ~
'"
~. m
-'" 0
c- 2-
'"
-< c...
'" ~
:::J
c... ""
::::!':'
-,:
V\
-
V\
-
-,:
C'D
C'D
-
3
en ~ ~
~ ct) CD
-c 3 3
-~~]- ~ ~
~"o 0 V> ~ ~. s_ ~.
~~. c:: c:"'C
"'CCDco2.. s!::::. e: g
~t::r'"3c: (t) g CD Co.
cC'D~3 C-co c...._
"C 9-(-g ~-----..~_~._-~__ to ~
~ ?rl ~ 8 ~. ~ ~--~.:g
5' -. ..., < ::::J -. ::l:J
- ~~ f3i\ ~l+~/~= @ ______///=~v----"~{
/ ~,-_/~-)
: '\ (I '---"> ~ - - - Fa
,~H B .,.----- - -~"'--~- ~ 0
-c -c
~ ~ ~
~ ~ -c ~ ~ 0
~ 0 0 0 ~ :::s
!;!... :::J ~ '"
:::s ~ :::J
-c '" '" -c ~
0 c- o ~.
:::s 3" 3" :::s
~ ~ ~ '"
I
, i
J"
i,"
I.
I
!
::E
c
V\
C'D
'"'"
::::::!".
o
:::J
'"I'
"
I
,,'
, 11
)
Ii -I l~j 1-
,
,
~- I
~_I:;~B ,
,
!- I
,
. ,
I I I I
, , , ,
, ,
I I I I~ c-
=:"
'" c:
, I ~ I",
I ~ I '" ''''''' :::J
0
b :::s b :::J 10=
c... c... = '"
0 0 - :::s
0- ~ '-J co I-:=;"' <
" '"
..". "" < '0 -
~ ~ ~ ~ ri:..fJ
,...,
-
-
::r
-,:
c:
-
C'D
-,:
-,:
c
'"'"
C'D
V\
-
~
. ;c-_~~~h
1~li
.
j[ -c
0- ff
, ~ ,~ '" 3 '- ~
..-- ~ n::o ,~
l~ I~ '" ?=- I~ ~
en ~ <
< ~ -c '"
~ ~-c b 0 !!:.
"c ~-c -c ~' -c "'-c
'0 '0 '" '" 0 '0
( "'0 ~ ..,. --- ~ v. !3.. I~ ",0
"""~ ..,. ~ "" p.> 15- ..,.~
..,. "" '" 5" o~
(::) 5' 0 ~ =
'=2= '=2 ~ R m e. R=
~- 0 "'CD
=-, ~><
:::J ..... """ "=-
o V\
-< - ::::;- s;; ~
CD S('O
3 _11-'
c- O ;;;"-=>
CD =:T"
-~ C :::s . ,
"'" ..... -.0
:5tO c.... i-,,;)
c...>c ::E
C- """
::;'-0 c
eo --.: '"
V\ -- CD
- :::s !:l.
..... 0'
eo a:::::2 ;:]
eo '"
- """
V\
c 3
V\
=:T" ><
C CD
:::I
C- c....
0 c::
..... """
eo
to CD
0
:::I ""C
--.:
0
--
CD
~
......
8
~
o
::0
~
<:
'"
?t;
."
"
o
,..
n
:I:
I
:I:
o
Z
'"
~
o
'"
en
15
z
o
UJ
C.
CD
'i~
"
--
(I)
---
,.,..
CD
..,
V\
eo
t""l
:::::!".
o
:::J
-
:::J"'"
~
c:
t""l
o
:::J
C-
O
eo
:::J
-
~
"'<
t""l
C
:::J
o
""C
"'<
~I~
"
,
I..
"
,
1
I
II
, I.:
J~
':.J." "
,
,
j----
0-
, :E
.-- ~
1* en
<
~
"c :::;;-0
'0
~ c....>0
..,.~
(:, ::;'
~=
I'
"t
;.>
r
,
~~f
III
.. ~;f
~
,::;
:2,
-cC
""C
eo
C-
eo
V\
-
::::::!.
T
I;
'.
,
",
I:
n4
~ I
Ii
'. ..,......:
'j
[tJ,
. :....
. !
,
,
C
:::J
C
~
t""l
C
C-
eo
::e
c
[l
LJ
V\
eo
t""l
:::::!".
o
:::J
u-------;= ,
ro-
'"
___ ~--. ~ c ~-g
( '--~ ~----1t-------s:-~:::;;.~'
I c- CD "Q- -. a... Cti'--
C ~ C ~ i1 c...1
Ig 3~ 3 c: ~_>-
. . -0::;' c: "'C 5' C /' ~ - -~- ~ \
\ :::::r c c ...----3---0___c;: _....-::: _ _ \
=::J ~ ~ ::;' iil 3" -, ~ ::r, 3 0
-- Q. -..... c:: - "" c 3 ~
~ -g I c: I ~ =:- 3 ~ =-_ ~----o ~..g )
== 5' ~ ~ <.c ~~ (C ~,---~ :::3''''S "'<
~ [. ~ "'C ~ ~ '--f5- g ~ '- 8~' 7" ra:--- ~
@ ~ -g ~~-~~__~-<D~8 c -3-.-3:-~~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ =- ~ ~ =- n @. ~ ~
:;)8
-0
0
:::l:
'" -0
::; 0
'" ::;'
0...
~ ro-
~ 0...
~ =t
'" ro-
~ 0... ~
0 =
:::J ~ ~
~ '" :l:
~ ~ ~ =;
~ 0 ~
0 ~. :::J
0 ~
:::J _CD -0
CD ""<
0- ~ en
~ '" ""< --
""< ~=
~. 0 '" 0
:::J 3 ro-
'" 0...
d-
~~
1~li
l~[i
0-
1--0 =:.
'...0 -
1-.0 :::-
c....> :::J
6=
,= '"
[''': ~
~ 0-
-0
, '"
"
,
,
I[
--
"'0
I~
I
)'
( ~,
0...
"'"
L ~,
...0 -
~s..
0"'"
Reo
o
:::J
0...
o
en
<
~
""
1
,
I
,
, 0
bg.
0-. en
..,. <
~~
-0
o
N
o
en
~ ~
-' ~"'C
...0 CD 0
~~~
~~~
'-- -
,~
I~ ~
'"
~
"c :::;;-0
'0
~ ...,,0
..,.~
, '"
= -,
=:::J
-=
i
i
"
,~
.m.
:~
It - - ,-
L-/['~)
~-=- -t:; c 8 -
"
- 1
-
'-'~ -
Igjt - , ~
- I"
I - . "---, U-
I
- !
I ----<
1- ~~I
~. =
----, " '---,
f i I
I
.JL-" -
A,
~
<<5
['
.
\
c:. '
.
"
"'0
- ~
c ~ ~ ::::r
~ .~. ~ g
~S:~
::.' c
"-: .l.)
I'D c...
c... ~)
~ ~
i.
i
14
!
..,.. ...... =:
;:; c= (~)
!::...~L::
::;-"r;>e.=-
CtQC
$ ~~
~ ;;~-
~ :5 ~~
_0 (...
g~2
- "C
':,!, 5
o !2..
;:; ~
,=- ~.....
~. ~
e -
g ~~::..
e c
K~
~ c.e....
~ ~
P_ :=i'
........ ~ tel
.-~~i I I
I~, i i II
b~c8~~o
~~~q~..,..~
g,-~~ *~~!
~~~a-~~~
g. g 8. :;" g " ::r
::;. ~ ~ ~. ~ : ~
g-~~~~~~
ro ~ :::I ~
- c en c
:E :E ~.
5' ::;. :::I
(C~ ca
~~ "'0
(:.~ 0-
~~
~: ~
~ 8
:=, c
~ rt; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .e..
;:;- a s; r0- m 0 ro- ~ ~ ~ ::;'
c::. -0 3 '" '" '" :::J ~ 8 =
'" '" " " 0 '" ~ ~ ~ en
~. ~ :::J :::J 0 0 0 " ~ c 0 0 0 ~ -c
0... - :::J C C ~. :::J :::J :::J
c;; '" -0 '" 3 3 ~ '" '" '" '" -<:'
;::::;- ~ c...9 0 ro-
~. ::;' ::;' rt; ~ ~ ~ <3
ro ~ ~. c: c: e :E <3 ~
= ~ 3 3 0 =:;' :::J ~, g"
0 'rii 0 0. -- 0... n- n. 3
~ -0 = :::J ~ '" '" _'" 0...
~ =r 0 0 '"
-, 0 0 ro' c: 0 ~ :E 0- :l: 3
3 :::J 0 -- '" '"
::;' :E ~ c:: c... ~ m '::; ""< g-
.~~ -- 0 0
~ = 0 @ ~ ~ '" ro- ro- :::J :::J
~ ~ 3 c- '"
0- .g"
0 ~ ~
n' 0- -0 0 ~
8 '" 0 ~ 0 ~. cO'
e 0... :::J c.:.
= ~ '" 0- c:
::;' '" 0 r0- O 0'
= -- :E r0- O
0 = g, 0... 3
-- c: =
0 -0 if ~.
~ 0
:::J ::;' a
~ ~ =
0'
:::J
~
-,
o
"'
~
~
::C:'
~~
~ t5'
~ ~
,~..
~
~