HomeMy WebLinkAboutBemis Attachments (new)
i..dQb!lJ!l~a~.gb!i!l:."PJ~C!~~.E~_<:.Qn~id~r 1b~J:~~[Ii.~J:r9j~gt""'M.'''''=''m<'''M,^'
Pa.ge 1 ~
From: . "John Lawrence" <jalawrjr@cox.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: 1/13/045:27PM
Subject: Please Reconsider the Bemis Project
January 13, 2004
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
We have recently been informed via e-mail of the Bemis project scheduled to be built in the parking lot
behind the Ashland Springs Hotel. As new members of the Ashland community, our opinions may carry
little, if any, weight, butwe feel we must let our objections to this project be known.
First let me briefly give you a little history on us. We stumbled onto Ashland in the 1980's when we and
our two little daughters were passing through (we thought) in a motorhome on our way to Canada. We
stopped briefly for a hamburger and I asked if there was some place where the kids could cool off and'
play. We were told about Lithia Park - we went there, found all sorts of other activities we could (and did)
do as a family; and we didn't leave - we didn't continue to Canada. We spent more than a week in
Ashland and fell in love with the entire area.
Since then we have come back to Ashland every year since (with the exception of one) usually spending a
week or so in Ashland. We have been enamored with the small city charm, the beauty of the area, and
the fact that there seems to be more culture per square inch than any other place we have lived or visited
in the. United States. By the late 1980's we vowed that we would make Ashland our retirement city.
We began looking in earnest in the mid 1990's and almost purchased a house near Lithia Park in 1997.
But when my mother took seriously ill, we had to defer such financial decisions. She passed away in 1998
and in 1999 we resumed our search. But by that time, house prices had skyrockted so much that we felt
we may have missed our opportunity to purchase a home within walking distance of the downtown area.
We did not simply want to live in the Ashland area, but near the appealing downtown area with all the
charm and extras it had to offer. In the years 2000 and 2001 we did not find any suitable properties in our
price range.
In 2002 we contacted a real estate agent and asked her to keep an eye out for a Ravenwood Townhome.
Although these were not the craftsman or Victorian homes we had originally sought, they are quite nice
and the location is excellent - beautiful views and walking distance to everything in downtown, meeting our
criterion! For your reference, the Ravenwood T ownhomes are located about a block and a half behind the
proposed project.
A...f
'I n 'II:
: II
a I,
.",,,,.',, ,^.E:?"9~,,?J
[JEQ~~ry1.2!~u-9~u.n~~~i~~~~J~~~S<?D~jiE}rJbi~~~i~E!:2l~sC,~r-,=_"^._.,~=. ,_.=_. ~ , ',.~. _"_~,,,~
Finally, this year one became available. We jumped at it - paying a record price and we probably set the
bar for future sales in the project. We did not even negotiate over price. We paid the full asking price.
The property became available on a Thursday - on Friday morning I flew to Ashland to look at the
property; I got there a little after noon and I said we would take it on the spot; Friday night my wife flew to
Ashland and so that on early Saturday morning we could (and did) sign the papers.
However, not one word was ever mentioned to us about such a massive project just a block from the
house. Here, in California, such major projects must be disclosed to potential buyers before purchases
are made. I am not sure what our decision would have been had we known of this project.
This project is destined to change the whole tone of the downtown area that we have come to know and
love and which led us to purchase a home in Ashland. There will be major traffic and noise problems,
increased parking problems, not to mention that the sheer size of the project is completely out of character
with charm of the town. As I understand it this will be the largest structure in downtown - three times the
size of the Elks Building and almost twice the size of the maximum allowable size for future projects the
Council now has voted on,
For what? Do you really wish to construct this monstrosity in the middle of the fabled downtown? ,Is this
really what you want? Is this really what the local residents want? Is this really what anyone in the entire
region wants? If so, we have completely misjudged the area and the perceptions of virtually everyone we
have met in 'our years coming here.
Of course a city should not stand still and cannot live in the past. We have witnessed numerous changes
in the area in the time since we have been coming to Ashland. But the charm - yes the charm - of the
downtown area, one of the things that keeps people coming back year after year, has remained in tact!
New projects have been put into place, buildingslhouses/businesses have been renovated, new houses
have been built, but downtown Ashland has always retained its charm. Approval of this one ill-advised
project, the enormity of which is completely out of character with anything else in the downtown area, will
change all that forever! Do you really want to do this?
We beg you to reconsider.
JOHN & SHARI LAWRENCE
307 Ravenwood
cc:
<bhunter@mailtribune.com>
A-~
t~glll]_'lg;'@=l!gtilln.:,,~~i~!:'['Qj~fL,"
..,- -,-?~g~JJ
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Pat and Ken Marlin" <marlinkp@charter.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/13/04 2:27PM
Bern is Project
On January 5, we e-mailed our objections to the Bemis project in error to the City Council members. We
have been told the comments should be directed to you instead of the council.
As of this date WE ARE WITHDRAWING OUR OBJECTIONS to this project as it appears a lot of
misinformation is being circulated regarding the size, scope, etc.,etc.
Kenneth and Patricia Marlin
85 Union Street
Ashland
A-3
'I n 'II I
lEI. a II
---,--._----"---.'----
L~~.tm,r:n~Ii',~~,~!,i~ ~...~L~9t_~~.~Js" Pr<:?J~~t, ,_.,____.._, ,.
....___..,'___,.._,',..._,.,.~.,,_....., '" ........., '....n'... '... . ^..... ...,..,..",.._....~a~I~.~.;
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<AIBodin@aol.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/12/049:15PM
Reject Bemis Project
To Planning Department:
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 the plan
was conveniently proposed for approval in an incomplete state just several
days before the Big Box Ordinance went into effect. 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 reasons:
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 presents an additional burden in
navagatihg 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 evidence
to support such a project in our downtown area has not been established and
needs to be re-examined in the light of its highly detrimental impact on our
community.
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 a review of the former decision be reconsidered and
reversed before a devastatingly unwise decision takes effect.
Sincerely,
Anne and AI Bodin
119 Cypress Circle
Ashland
A-'{
k}Q.bD~!1}91a~h!!!'l..:~]i!rn..gQ~!!,!b~J~sM!S PR94Eg!,.,,, ._,_,,, .__~,
,-,,",-,,,,=~,~,,,,,,",,",-,,-.-,,,".,,,, '.,-'-;<>>>' .-".~.,--,--~' "","","""",.,,,."
, E~g,~ 1. :j
From: "William Holmes" <holmes@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: 1/12/042:32PM
Subject: Turn down the BEMIS PROJECT
Dear Sirs:
Please reject the gross proposal called the "Bemis Project"
My wife and I, along with all of our friends, are strongly opposed to this gross proposal and we are
counting on you as our representatives to maintain a sense of proportion and common sense concerning
this proposal. Such a huge building is out of proportion with our town values and ignores parking and
traffic safety problems as well.
Even though the proposal was submitted just before the council voted to limit downtown building size to
just over half the size of this proposal, that is not sufficient excuse to allow such an outlandish addition in
the center of town.
Sincerely yours,
Mr. & Mrs. Willaim Holmes
A~5'
11 n 'III
lEI.
HI
~'.' ~'_'~M>"E~g~JJ
L~~bJi'!lcl~~ghlil1 :~~[!li~Prs>l.~~L
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
sugar plumb <sugarplumb65@yahoo.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/12/04 1 :OOPM
Bemis Project
1/12/04,12:55 p.m.-
HAS everyone in this city had an opportunity to see/hear the nature and content of this
proposal/process? i, for one, was not informed about ANY OF IT and am surprised to see it proposed at
all, let alone seriously considered. is this process 'clean'/Iegal?
J.G. Maltsberger
a.k.a Frank N. N. Natural
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hot jobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
A-b
~~5)bD_,Dl~!~l!gJ}!LQ:~.f9D2.~r!l~~~Qut Bem ~J~rQj~t::,~o.2.ndoggl~.?
..'.."0..._ E~g~..jj
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Dan Altman" <danalt@windows.microsoft.com>
<grimaldg@ashland.or.us>
1/12/04 12:49PM
Concerned about Bemis project - boondoggle?
Dear Gino Grimaldi,
I am concerned that the Bemis project for an 80,000 square foot building
was hastily approved days before a new regulation for a maximum size of
45,000 sq ft went into affect. This smacks unfair political influence.
I am concerned about how this project will affect the quality of life in
Ashland, the ambience of the downtown, traffic and parking.
I will be unable to attend the meeting on Jan 20th, but urge you to
oppose this project.
Overall you are doing a great job and I appreciate it! Thanks much for
your time and attention,
-Dan
;f-7
II n 'III
I EI, a II
rJQhn~~I~gll!in:-R^~JEcl'TH(BE~f~ ,PBQ~~9t~~_,~^ .
.E~9~J
From: Larry Kellogg <Iarrykellogg@charter.net>
To: Don Laws <donlaWs@mind.net>, Cate Hartzell <cate@mind.net>, John Morrison
<jmorrison@rvcog.org>, Alex Amarotico <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>, Kate Jackson
<katejackson@opendoor.com>, Gino Grimaldi <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>
Date: 1/12/04 11 :29AM
Subject: REJECT THE BEMIS PROJECT
A number of other citizens of Ashland have filed an appeal of Planning
Action #2003-127, known as the Bemis Project. I support this appeal and
urge your rejection of the subject project. My basic concerns are the
following:
1. This building would be the largest building ever constructed in the
downtown area. It's more than twice the size of the Ashland Spring Hotel;
even much larger than the Safeway.
2. The plans were incomplete when first submitted just to beat the deadline
of the "big box" ordinance, which was approved four days later.
3. No details were submitted regarding the impact on trafic or pedestrian
safety. We all know of the recent pedestrian fatality on 1 st Street near
this site.
4. Parking is already inadequate on Hargadine & 1 st Street. This project
makes it impossible.
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
A-8
t~g,b!:Lrr!~laugb.![l_:J3~j~~L~~ll}i"~.. Ef2j~~L_.
... ...p,..'pp_.m_ __.,_,=E~g~tij
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Dot Fisher-Smith <dot@ashlandhome.net>
<jmorrison@rvcog.org>
1/10/04 11 :09AM
Reject Bemis Project
Dear City Councilors,
The Bemis Project is totally inappropriate for downtown Ashland, and
flies in the face of the city council's recent vote to limit the
building size downtown to 45,000 gross sq. ft. The intent of the
ordinance is clearly to prevent exactly this kind of project from
destroying the charming small-town quality that makes Ashland such a
unique tourist destination.
I trust the council will be congruent with the new standards and not
allow this project to go forward.
Sincerely,
Dot Fisher-Smith
********* DISSENT IS FREEDOM'S DRIVING FORCE .....................-
).-7'
II n 'III
III. a II
.. ~.~. ~.~ ,:~ ~~~~=~..-~ _M~_.= "'-N-' !:~g~j.l
l}gh6'nj.c~~~ghlj~.~f{g;[g9t..~.E~I~.pkQ}g9T sfi(...#_ ~_...
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Gail Orell <GEOrell@webtv.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/9/046:52PM
REJECT BEMIS PROJECT SIZE
Please review the Bemis Project to insure all the historical, landscape
and planning commission regulations have not only been examined closely
but also met. I am a property owner in that short block of first
street. Because of the traffic and the daily use by large commercial
vehicles I find the street too narrow. I've noticed that the limited
parking and surprisingly heavy truck traffic frequently results in
double parking. I am also concerned about the impact that the project
will have on parking; the proposed project has potential for addling
employees and shoppers, resulting in additional demands for parking as
well as increased congestion.
Gail E. Grell
22 South First Street
Gail E. Orell
cc:
<alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
A--IO
Q2E!i.~~u9bliQ,::.p~,~~"~_i~j~~L!b~.~,QIQQQi~~!ii9ot'.Bef!ll~",.E!~,==:~.-
,.._.,...~p~~g~=n
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<Nlmorgan@aol.com>
<Awdb@aol.com>
1/9/046:07PM
Please reject the 80,000 square foot Bemis Project
Dear Ashland City Official:
Please reject the 80,000 square foot Bemis Project for reasons including, but
not limited to:
1. Aesthetically, the idea of an 80,000 Big Box erected in location
affording walkers and
neighbors one of the loveliest views of the Cascade foothills is reason
enough to reject all
but the most sublime structures in that location.
2. Traffic is already extremely congested, and at times poses a real danger
to pedestrians,
in the three blocks south of the OSF theaters.
3. Parking is always going to be a problem in Ashland, particularly for
those residents and
guests of residents in the Hargadine Street area.
Thank you.
Nancy L. Morgan, Ph.D.
cc: <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>
A-if
II n 'III
Iml,
HI
> .~>::,_-~~"E~g~J]
~,~ohn~m~!~~~bl~ :'~~~iieLOj~9-(_~~.,._. "
From: "sean gordon" <seanwgordon@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>, <aJex@standingstonebrewing.com>
Date: 1/9/044:47PM
Subject: Bemis Project
A-(2
J,()hnr:n_cla~ghltl},-< Concern(;!~t about. Bem is projE:l2L
, F>age1.,
From: Torsten Heycke <torsten@mind.net>
To: <awdb@aol.com>, <cate@mind.net>, < onlaws@mind.net>, <jmorrison@rvcog.org>,
<cehearn@aol.com>, <katejackson@opendoor.com>, <g 'maldg@ashland.or.us>,
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <alex@standingstonebrewing.co >
Date: 1/9/04 2:44PM
Subject: Concerned about Bemis Project
1. Too big: The size seems inconsistent with surrounding rea (with the
exception of the Ashland Springs Hotel)
2. Streets in the area seem too small to handle additional affic.
3. Timing smacks of "big box" avoidance.
T orsten Heycke
A- .. /3.
II n '111
Iml. ~ II
~(~.
L.'C:) (\'.(:/':3 ~ '. \\ * c
1\CLc(or
\\~C
S:05.cVA-
Dear Friend,
iW~~]ftr~':
t "" _ .... f,'
i' !""'< (1:~.(
ll\,~~~ '.> . .
\ ~ - it :
lJDcs'0C5\:ru-CSC)
;/6"',..t;J>II'''I...,.,..........-
-.-~.........~..""........
January 6, 2004
Subject: The Bemis Project
We we~ ~)Ut of town on Novemberl7th when the Ashland CitY Planning Commission approved a plan for
constructipn of a large commercial/condominium building at Hargadine and First streets. When we learned
that such a large complex had been approved we were very upset:' From what we read in the paper we are
not the only ones.
We understand there is a citizen's group organized to file a formal appeal of the Planning Commissions
decision. We wish to be on record as opposing the Planning Commissions decision also. This huge
project will detract from the charm of our downtown area. Here are a few, of many possible, reasons for
this project not being approved by the City Council. (1) There are many business buildings around town
just sitting empty now. (2) The plans were incomplete when first submitted. It would appear it was done
with no thought regarding the impact on traffic, parking, obstruction of views of the mountains, or
pedestrian safety. (3) This was submitted a few days before the "big box" ordinance went into affect. Does
anyone really want a building downtown twice the size of the hotel? (4) It would change the feel and look
of our historical downtown area for the benefit of a very few people.
We volunteer at the Information Booth in the Plaza. Our downtown area is charming and admired by the
many visitors we talk to. Ashland is a unique historical town and we feel so fortunate to live here
surrounded by the beauty of the mountains. This building project will detract dramatically from the small.
town atmosphere that we all moved to Ashland to enjoy.
Please reject this project.
~~cerely,
(!)~~ ~7% ~
Betty & Clayton Gordon
436 Helman St
~h1and
. ;'.1;
I.;,: .
d,:: .
.' '
fi. '
;! -' ~ f L \" ~, j' ,: i i '.
. ;'. . i " c_ . j .' l: '.': d' '" I '! i :....f -1 :~. ".: i.';:;' . ~.. .: i'" , ;-
.;'. .-1". !"~,' :'l'>!~ '.; ~i::JI(fl, I; ;;', ;.;" !:"'~;_ ',I, t! '.: 'f ,'......i.~, ~..._. !......":i.t;
';!(".<:~'~ t...~.~j:~ J. ~'I.\i ~, ;._:;!~I,;'i,;~ :". ,i~j..{1 '.!- :". I "., .... "\ :'J! :~~.;(': I ..: ;: ;-'i.!!;i;'! :.;....1.,.. i:" ,'r; "; l-;..~;.
~.t..':;...<U:i,. .--:;..")', .~ .I)!; : ",.. :"1:-)'.~I!:"',-:'~,. i'". :;:'1:'" ~/'.i(.;'~ _'.'- .:-';.. ~)';~.- ':"i~l' .f"..... ,:' ~..' '~.,:.1 :;I'~,! .t;.....
J' Iii I '...... '; J./ .~-'i.'
. r " 'j 'i:'::" Ii ;-" .' ,I ;'t".,i I
. ":'-. '. ':....
. '>1' A":~r "/' 'u.""':' '/ . '}' ',: It:', .':11':,'.,";.
~ __ "(I I '. ~l',.. "
. ' ',. ",,. .
From:
To:
Date:
Howard Miller <hmiller@jeffnet.org>
Planning Dept <mac@ashland.or.us>
1/15/047:29AM
Re: Bemis project (2003-127)
We urge the Council to listen carefully to the objections raised by
citizens who are very upset that a more than 82,000 square foot
structure might be built in the middle of downtown! I have been
active in land use issues for 15 years; one of the biggest concerns
expressed during that time has been the possible construction of huge
buildings that do not fit their surroundings, whose scale, bulk and
density are totally out of proportion to the surrounding edifices. So
far, most of these monster buildings have thankfully not passed the
planning stage.
This proposal was submitted before the final plans were drawn; the
various commissions that were to review the application and note its
impact on their particular area of interest were not able to see
completed drawings; could t~ey make an informed decision? More
importantly, the application violates the intent and will of the
populace: no structures over 45,000 square feet in the city.
The impact to downtown, first to Hargadine, First and East Main
Streets must be explored. Then, the conformity to the Downtown Plan,
which stresses 2-3 story buildings (rather than the proposed 5-story)
should be discussed. Finally, the compatibility with future plans
for this area and its relation to the city at large must be
addressed; if this is built, it will not soon go away.
We believe that the Bemis project would be detrimental to the
character of Ashland's downtown and to the city as a whole. Let us
all live by the standards and size restrictions we have decided will
insure the continuance of small-town atmosphere treasured by most of
the residents.
,4~(S
II n
'III
"
IEI. a 1.1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"david" <dyoung@jeffnet.org>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/14/046:21PM
No on the Bemis Project
----- Original Message -----
From: david
To: Council@ashland.or.us
Sent: Wednesday, January 14,20041 :47 AM
Subject: Please vote No on the Bemis Project
Dear Council Members, via Planning Dept.:
I am writing to urge you all to carefully consider the impact of the Bemis proposal on the character and
scale of our town, and to oppose it vigorously. Realizing that such a decision would run counter to
recommendations by the Planning Commission and Dept. (?), I nevertheless urge you to vote NO and
stop this unwieldy project before it gains momentum.
It does strike me as odd that their proposal was submitted a few days before the new Big Box Ordinance
was to take effect and, therefore, smacks of an attempt to circumvent the rules in a fashion. As such,
please represent me and other constituents by preventing any and all attempts to push this project
through.
Thank you,
, Sincerely,
David Young
747 Oak St.
Ashland, OR
488-4188
A ~ {c.
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"robbins" <robbins@mind.net>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/14/043:26PM
Bemis Big Box + growth
Dear City Council members,
Residents of Ashland consistently list adverse effects of growth as one of their major concerns in
city-sponsored polling. The Bemis Big Box project is the kind of growth that Ashlanders are concerned
about. Please do your part now and reject the Bemis proposal for downtown Ashland.
Speaking from experience as a former practicing attorney who is interested in land use issues (Bonnie),
Ashland needs an attorney who devotes his/her time to writing and implementing ordinances which
promote and protect the quality of life in this community. Ashland is not protected from adverse growth,
environmental degradation, riparian degradation and sprawl because of inadequate ordinances. We need
a city attorney who is knowledgeable and interested in land use law and who will work with the Council to
make sure the legal apparatus is in place to protect Ashland. Please be a pro-active Council and make
this a topic for Council discussion as soon as possible.
We appreciate your time-commitment to our community.
Very truly yours,
Bonnie Brodersen
Eugene K. Robbins
A-I?
II n :111
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
suzia <souixzan@mind.net>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/14/046:33AM
No Bemis Big Box
Dear Councillors:
No Bemis big Box. Haven't we already done this? I am frustrated because we
spend so much time re-visiting "quality of life". It should be a no-brainer
that we need clean water and clean air; good schools for our children and
healthcare for all.
Ashland is a tourist town and I have lived here more than 25 years. Tourism
is down this year. Will building Ashland to look like every other city with
all of its city-type big box problems really be a big draw? Or are we
finally thinking of changing our economic base away from tourism?
thank you so much
suzia aufderheide
(541) 482-0102
cc:
<sd 194@webtv.net>, <jfhardesty@charter.net>, <Ietters@dailytidings.com>
A-(8
Iml. ~ II
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Reama Dagasan <iamthereama@yahoo.com>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/14/045:30PM
I oppose the Bemis Big box
Dear Council members,
I was raised here in Ashland, and have seen it undergo
many changes in that time. Perhaps the most alarming
change is the amount of space consumed by oppulent and
large single family homes here in town. Anyone who
lives in Ashland and has tried to find affordable
housing knows that there is a serious shortage of
units available.
Additionally, as we try to preserve Ashland's
character and keep development within our current
boundaries, allowing big box houses to be built goes
against the letter and spirit of this ideal.
Therefore, I ask you to vote against the Bemis big
box.
Sincerely,
Reama Dagasan
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hot jobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes,yahoo.com/signingbonus
A~lq
II n '111
Iml: a 1.1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Anna Beauchamp" <beauchamp@whoishere.com>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/14/045:36PM
Bemis Project: reject this plan
To the Ashland City Council and Mayor:
I'm alarmed at the speedy approval process for the Bemis Project. Please
reconsider and make them submit plans in keeping with our guidelines for
appropriate downtown structures.
It is clearly NOT in keeping with the current letter or the spirit of the
law. Why make an exception for an incomplete plan for a mega-size structure
that will have a drastic impact on the feel of downtown? There are already
a number of downtown retail spaces that cannot find renters (ie, the former
jeweler across the street from Geppetto's).
This huge structure will become the most visible building on our skyline,
and I think it's appalling that council has allowed this to go forward when
the developers submitted an incomplete proposal at the 11th hour before our
legitimately deliberated ordinance against such monstrosities was on the
, books. The role of council is to use judgment to make sure the best
interests of the city are put first, ahead of commercial interests that are
working for their own financial benefit. If you truly think this project is
appropriate for Ashland, then you should actively work to repeal the law
banning such outsized structures. Otherwise, please do the right thing for
Ashland and reject the Bemis Project.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Anna Beauchamp
580 Morton
Ashland OR 97520
beauchamp@whoishere.com
resident since 1984
A-t?o
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Jack Hardesty" <jfhardesty@charter.net>
"city council" <Council@ashland.or.us>
1/14/046:01PM
Fw: Block the Bemis Big Box
For the record. What follows is our response to an editorial about the Bemis
Big Box
> > which appeared in the MEDFORD MAIL TRIBUNE of Jan. 9th:
>>>
> > > The Citizens for a Responsible Government welcomed your balanced story
> > > (Friday, Jan. 2nd) on our appeal of the proposed Bemis Big Box in
> Ashland.
> > > The Council's decision will represent a decisive moment in Ashland's
> > future
> > > as a small, yet vibrant city. We disagree, however, with the
conclusion
> of
> > > your subsequent editorial (Friday, Jan. 9th) as well as some of the
> > > statements including the one charging that those of us working for
> > > reasonable growth are attempting to turn back the clock.
>>>
> > > Citizens for Responsible Govenment is not attempting to turn back the
> > clock.
> > > Simply, what we are asking the City Council to do is to take a hard
look
> > at
> > > what is a questionable project with a questionable background. Last
> > > September, after years of public meetings and planning sessions, the
> > Council
> > > passed a new Big Box ordinance specifically limiting the size of
future
> > > downtown buildings to 45,000 gross sq. ft. Four days before the
Council
> > > action the developers came forward with their proposal for an 82,000
sq.
>>ft.
> > > condo/shopping /garage project, exactly the sort of Big Box the
Council
> > and
> > > many Ashland citizens were seeking to stop.
>>>
> > > We are not, as your editorial claimed, "irked." That's too mild, We
are
> > > troubled and dismayed because the City's Planning Department does not
> seem
> > > to have been serving the public interest in this instance. First, this
> > > project was allowed to slip through a "window of opportunity" in the
> > > regulations which the Department had been inordinately slow in
> attempting
> > to
> > > close. Secondly, the Department encouraged the developer to submit
> > > incomplete plans to the Tree, Historic, and Planning Commissions just
> > before
> > > the new ordinance became effective. Finally, there is the question of
> > > whether the Department met its obligation to the Mayor and the Council
A-~l
II n ill I
I ml, a 1.1
> to
> > > inform them that a Big Box project was in the works. We think not. Had
> the
> > > Council known, it could have acted sooner to close the "window of
> > > opportunity" and this whole brouhaha avoided.
>>>
> > > We also disagree with the editorial about how the proposed building
will
> > be
> > > perceived from a human scale. Viewed from Main Street, only a half
> block
> > > away, the roof of the proposed Big Box will appear to be seven stories
> > high,
> > > a large, hulking structure that would be the largest ever built in
> > Ashland.
> > > As to adding to the area's parking, we question whether only five
public
> > > parking places to provided will offset the increased street parking by
> the
> > > tenants and guests of the 16 exclusive condos or the customers of the
> new
> > > retail outlets.
>>>
> > > Far from trying to bring back an Ashland that used to exist, the
> citizens
> > > who support the Council's decision to limit building size downtown
just
> > want
> > > to maintain the quality of life values that make our small city what
it
> > > currently is. Our appeal is not based on nostalgia or idealism, but
> rather
> > > on questions about the specific conditions of the approval process
which
>>we
> > > believe were not met.
>>>
> > > A close look at the timeline of the Bemis project reveals that many
> > unusual
> > > events and inconsistencies have occured over the course of the last
two
> > > years. We believe that there are serious legal issues involved. This
is
> > why
> > > we are asking the City Council to support our appeal and require the
> > > applicant to re-apply. By doing so, the citizens of Ashland could then
> be
> > > asssured that nothing questionable or illegal occured as this
> application
> > > made its way through the Ashland planning process.
>>>
> > > Jack Hardesty, Citizens for Responsible Government
>>>
>>>
>>
>
A,.;22.
Mail Tribune Online Edition - Opinion - January 9,2004
http://www.mailtribune.com!cgi-bin/p/psafe/psafe.pl
January 9, 2004
We can't turn back the cloc'k
Fighting a reasonable building won't restore
Ashland's small-town feel
Oh, to turn back the clock in Ashland: To make housing affordable. To
preserve history. To recapture the town's once laid-back charm.
We sympathize completely with a group calling itself Citizens for
Responsible Government that wants Ashland to be a small town again.
And yet we don't support its effort to kill a mixed-use, multistory
development proposed at the back of the Ashland Springs Hotel.
The group last month appealed the plan, saying it will help take Ashland
in a big-city direction few want it to go. The City Council will consider
the proposal Jan. 20.
Ashland's leaders face a complex tangle of issues as they try to steer the
city in a direction that will preserve livability. As it has grown over the
past couple of decades, Ashland has become expensive and
exclusionary. It has lost much of what drew residents years ago. No
wonder some are clamoring for a return to the old days.
And yet there's no reason to believe rejecting buildings like the one
proposed near the hotel is part of the answer.
The structure proposed by Ed and Tanya Bemis between the hotel and
Hargadine Street is a commercial building in a commercial district. At
three stories above the ground, it will be dwarfed in height by the
nine-story hotel, which will largely hide it from view.
It will add to the area's parking, and it will incorporate housing. That will
increase Ashland's density, a plus according to Oregon land-use goals.
Part of what irks Citizens for a Responsible Government is that the
proposal was filed just days before a city ordinance was to take effect
limiting building sizes to 45,000 square feet. The new building, partly
underground, would be 82,000 square feet in all.
10f2
A-~3
1/15/049:37 AM
II n 11m I
Mail Tribune Online Edition - Opinion - January 9,2004
Iml, ~ 1.1
http://www.mailtribune.com!cgi-bin/p/psafe/psafe.pl
The mistake here is the belief that the project's size spells trouble for
Ashland.
This is a case of a big building that fits: It is in an appropriate place, at a
reasonable size, and it will complement the area around it rather than
harming it.
The council ought to let the project through.
Pay now or later
If Ballot Measure 30 passes on Feb. 3, private pay patients in nursing
homes will continue to pay an additional fee of about $8 a month.
But patients and their families shouldn't complain, because the payment
will actually save them money. Here's why:
The federal government provides matching funds to states for Medicaid
beds in nursing homes, but because of budget cuts, Oregon did not have
enough state funds to qualify for the federal match. The $8 monthly fee
will bring in an estimated $12.5 million over two years and be matched
with $58 million in federal funds.
Why will this save money for those paying the fee? Because if the
federal funding is lost, nursing homes across the state will lose a lot of
revenue - about 75 percent of all nursing homes beds in Oregon are
Medicaid beds. Because they will still need to keep those beds, nursing
home operators estimated, they would need to raise rates by $20 a
month for private pay patients to offset the lost funding.
The plan still must get a waiver from the federal government and there's
no guarantee that will happen. But if it does and Measure 30 passes,
those paying the bills in nursing homes would come out far ahead.
You can find this story online at:
http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2004/010g/edit/edit.htm
,-
Copyright @ Mail Tribune. All rights reserved.
20f2
A '"9. Lf
1/15/049:37 AM
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Tim Criswell" <akbar77@mind.net>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/13/04 11 :12AM
Opposed to Bemis Project
To: Ashland City Government
Re: Bemis Project Appeal
Dear Council Members, Mayor, and City Manager,
I am very concerned and dismayed about the proposed Bemis Project in downtown Ashland. I have
attended previous Planning meetings and have had a chance to review the plans, hear comments and
concerns from both sides, and formulate my own position. I firmly believe that growth and development in
Ashland must be rigorously examined and planned so that it meets a clear need (ie housing, commercial
space, community resource) and does not diminish the very attributes which make our town so inviting to
visitors and liveable to residents.
While I would support development of the existing parking lot behind the Ashland Springs Hotel, I feel the
size of the proposed Bemis Project is way out of scale for the site and neighborhood. The fact that this
project was submitted incomplete just days before the big box ordinance took effect is also troubling. At
the very least, one would think the precious historical districts of our town would deserve some kind of
protection. Yet the Council has now approved two projects (Bemis and Deboer expansion) that in my
mind, clearly indicate how out of touch the local government is with the wishes of our citizenry and the
values which make Ashland appear again and again on "top ten places to live" lists, Enough is enough.
What is it that the Council doesn't understand about our citizens' desire to keep the small town feel of
Ashland intact? As I watch the Planning commission and City Council in action, it is clear that a bias
exists towards promoting unrestrained and unwarranted development.
I urge you all to listen to what the concerned citizens of Ashland are telling you. Do the right thing and
reject the behemoth Bemis project.
Respectfully,
Tim Criswell
A~ ;t5
II n 1111
I .I~ ~ 1.1
From: <KMooney929@aol.com>
To: <katejackson@opendoor.com>, <jmorrison@rvcog.org>, <donlaws@mind.net>,
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <grimaldi@ashland.or.us>, <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>,
<Cehearn@aol.com>, <cate@mind.net>, <Awdb@aol.com>
Date: 1/15/04 1 0:37AM
Subject: "Reject, Turn Down, Stop, etc....the Bemis Project."
This proposed building has no place in our downtown!
Sincerely,
Kathy Mooney
M. W. Mooney & Co., Inc.
A -02(;
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Beth Geismar" <bethg@mind.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/15/0411:21AM
STOP the Bemis project
Dear Mr. McLaughlin
Surely you can see through the rushed nature of the application for the
Bemis project, and appreciate what a deleterious effect this project
would have on downtown Ashland. Parking is so ludicrous already, I have
nearly given up on trying to go to the library! Let's not accept a
poorly planned behemoth which brings nothing to the people of Ashland
who asked you in a recent study to revisit the effects of untrammeled
growth: 87% of those who responded to the city's recent survey asked
that the issue of too much growth be addressed, and I don't think
approval a building of this scope, downtown, was what we had in mind,
You know the facts:
* The Planning Department, clearly aware that four days hence the
City Council would consider a vote to limit building size downtown,
encouraged the developer to submit incomplete plans for this project to
the Tree, Historic, and Planning Commissions.
* The project, as submitted, will be the largest structure ever
built here:
twice the size of the Ashland Springs Hotel
twice the size of Albertsons
almost three times larger than the Elks Building
* When viewed from Main Street, the roof of this enormous
structure will appear to reach the seventh story of the Ashland Springs
Hotel.
* With only 5 public parking spaces planned for this project,
parking in and around the proposed building, already barely available,
will be inadequate to handle the demand which will be created by tenants
and guests of the 16 new condominiums and customers of the 3 retail
stores.
* In fact, no details have been submitted on how traffic flow in
the area will be affected when the Cabaret, OSF and summer visitors are
all vying for driving and parking space, a scenario that will further
endanger pedestrian safety.
In the rush to get the Bemis project approved, it appears that the
developer failed to meet requirements of four separate City Land Use
Ordinance/Site Design Standards which led the Planning, Historic and
Tree commissions to declare the plans incomplete.
Based on that failure, we are asking you to support a citizen-based
Appeal, and require the applicant to re-apply with complete plans that
comply with the current City ordinances. In so doing, we would be
assured that the project would make its way cleanly through the Ashland
planning process.
;4 -9. 7
II n 1111
I mil HI
Best regards,
Beth Geismar
A- -~g
l John mclaughlin - Minority Opinion (Swales) PA# 2003-127
Page 11
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net>
"Gino Grimaldi" <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>
1/15/0412:12PM
Minority Opinion (Swales) PA# 2003-127
Gino,
(cc John Fields)
RE: Appeal to Council PA# 2003~127
Back at our Planning Commissioner retreat earlier in the year Mac handed out an article from issue #40 of
the Planning Commissioner's Journal. In an article entitled Making Your Opinion Known by C .Gregory
Dale, AICP, our Staff emphasized "When a commissioner in the minority feels strongly, the appropriate
place to make note of this would be in a minority or dissenting statement attached to the commission's
decision or included in the minutes."
As you may be aware I have been closely involved with the Big Box issue for over 4 years, both as a
citizen and Planning Commissioner.
I feel that my dissenting vote as a Planning Commissioner (John Fields also voted NO) and my
subsequent NO vote on the Findings for the Bemis application (2003-127) need some further clarification
in order to prevent any misconceptions.
While the following does not deal directly with the details of Bemis' application per se, I am writing to throw
some additional light on the underlying substantive approval criteria as I perceive them and therefore why I
made my decision as I did.
Gino, I am sending this to you as required under our appeals procedure. Please could you forward this to
Council for their "packet" and also all appeal Parties in a timely manner.
Thanks
Colin
Mayor and Council,
At no time whatsoever during the Pubic Hearing or Council discussion for PA#200-074 (OSF
Theatre/Parking Structure) was the matter of difference between footprint and gross floor area ever
mentioned or discussed. It was simply not germane to that project.
The so~called "interpretation" as 45,000 maximum footprint was merely later inserted into the OSF's
"Findings of Fact" (pages 36/37 of an 84-page document) by persons unknown.
I was present at the Council meeting (11/7/00) where those Findings were adopted and the Record shows
that only Councilor Fine addressed the precise contents of those Findings (He was the lone NO vote).
In his testimony, Mr. Fine (the only lawyer on the Council) stated, "He understood that the Findings were
written by the applicant's professional representative, and were edited by the city's Planning and Legal
departments. "
I question whether at that time, City Staff (Planning or Legal), were aware that this unprecedented idea of
footprint had now been introduced into the Record? Even as a LUBA appellant, I certainly was not.
Those same Findings also offer an alternative interpretation for gross square footage when it
subsequently states "Even if the limitation were to be interpreted to mean "gross floor area" the parking
structure does not exceed the maximum allowed."
A-YJ.r
II n 1III
I mil ~ II
(Also, those Findings go on to unambiguously state, "The City Council construes contiguous to mean
touching," )
It must be remembered that the main contentious issue in this matter was whether the new theatre and
parking structure were actually joined and thus on aggregate in excess 45,000 SF floor area. (Even the
architect had stated the parking structure by itself was in excess of 46,000 SF floor area)
Submitted plans showed they were in fact joined, and therefore in excess of the 45,000 floor area limit,
and so Council imposed an additional condition of approval that they be moved apart so as to be no longer
touching each other.
Le, (condition 3) "ensure the buildings are noncontiguous......Findings are to be brought back for
approval at the next Council meeting." )
After the majority of the Council approved those Findings (11/7/00) the discussion soon turned to directing
Staff to clarify the "big box" provisions of the ALUO in order to make conforming the existing historic
downtown that had buildings that were all touching and therefore non-conforming with regard to the
subsequent 1992 ordinance. - Again, the concept of footprint was never ever mentioned.
(The official minutes pr cis that debate and bear out my recollection, but there is an audiotape of that
meeting that is more detailed)
Now during the long public process that ensued to amend the Big Box ordinance, Planning Staff
constantly asserted that it had been given direction by council to codify this "footprint" concept with regard
to the 45,000 SF limit. As the Council minutes show (11/7/00) , they were never given any such direction.
Again, the only concern was the problem of the existing historic development pattern - causing large
tracts of Downtown to be de-facto a "contiguous group of buildings" in excess of the 45,000 gross square
footage limit.
Indeed, although the Planning Commission on 8/14/01 went along with Staffs idea ....."McLaughlin is
recommending approval of the redefinition of 45,000 square feet (Le. footprint) and that it not apply in the
Downtown zone.", these amendments were never endorsed by Council who directed the matter be
opened for further Pubic input and discussion.
I feel that the Planning Commission on Feb 14. 2002 under the authority vested in them under ALUO
18.108.160 and ORS 227 correctly interpreted the 45,000 SF limit of the "big Box" ordinance as meaning
"gross floor area" and this was subsequently codified into an ordinance amendment by Council .
So Members of the Council, These are my questions.
1) Who inserted the novel ''footprint interpretation" into the OSF Findings in the first place and why was it
felt necessary to do so?
2) How did Planning/Legal Staff get the idea that it had ever been given direction by Council to push this
"footprint" notion and introduce it into a suggested change to our ALUO? - A move that was subsequently
rejected.
thanks
Colin Swales
461 Allison Street
cc:
"Fran berteau" <Fran@ashland.or.us>, "John Fields" <golden-fields@charter.net>
A~30
-
Eric Navickas
Appeal Comments
Ashland Springs Mixed Use Development
As one who supports mixed use development in the downtown, the specifics of
this project have forced me to sign on as an appellant to bring this before the City
Council.
ALua part 18.72.050.C
The project bas exploited a short window in the deh'berations surrounding the
interpretation and reinterpretation ''Big Box" Ordinance to allow a violation of the clear
and concise 45,000 gross square foot limit. Regardless of whether the application was
received before or after the Council reinterpreted the reinterpreted ordinance, we must
defer to the original ordinance for clarity. The interpretation of the term "gross" to mean
"footprint" is "clearly against the language of the ordinance", therefore, no deference is
given on the part of tile court to local government reinterpretation as established under
Clark v. Jackson County. The City therefore bas the power to apply the clear intent of the
original ordinance to this project.
The 45,000 square foot limit allows many opportunities for this site. By exceeding
the limit the developers have proposed a bulky, crude building with a central light shaft
reminiscent of New York City "barbell" type tenements. Limiting square footage would
demand an appropriately proportioned courtyard for a building of this size. The desire to
maximize square footage has destroyed many opportunities the site offers for a variety of
massing and internal courtyards that are important to housing in urban places. .
Site Design and Use Standards Section VI-C-2
2) Lots g.reater tha.n 80' in width shall respect the traditional width of buildings in the downtown
area by Incorporating a rhythmic division of the facade in the building's design (Illustration:
Recommend 5 & 10; Avoid 3).
When the original ordinance was reinterpreted this Design Use Standard was used
__ as an argument to allow larger buildings. It was argued that this Standard would protect
the City from facades that would take up entire city blocks. The overall symmetry of the
Hargadine Street Facade does not conform to the scale of our downtown especially at the
edge of a residential neighborhood. Even the Lithia Hotel, now Ashland Springs, is not
designed in such an arrogant manner as to take up an entire block with one overall
symmetrical facade.
Few sites in our city offer as many opportunities for interesting solutions to a
variety of edges. The Hargadine fucade shows a complete Jack of respect for the character
of that street and the overall scale of our downtown.
'B-1
II n 1III
~
Conclusion
This project was designed quickly to gain an exemption to the Big Box ordinance.
This is a very prominent site in our city that should be designed with the highest level of
scrutiny.
Enforcing the original language of the Big Box ordinance and the intent of the
Design Standards will only result in a better project overall. Our City ordinances were
written to prevent over-scaled development that doesn't conform to the scale of our
historic city.
This project is an opportunity to set the precedent that the Council is not
interested in gutting land use ordinances that protect the historic character of our city.
WIth various aggressive development proposals for our downtown it is critical that the
Council take a stand now to promote better development in scale with our city.
13-~
I1II ~ 1.1
Date: January 15, 2004
Re: PA2003-127 - 212 E. Main Street
I received the following documents from Bill Street on January 15,2004 at 11:15
a.m. These documents will be entered into the record.
Minutes of various meetings - 37 pages
Bemis Project Timeline - 5 pages
Letter from Bill Molnar, Senior Planner, City of Ashland pre-app comments for YMCA -
3 pages
Pre-app comments dated 8-13-03 re: 212 E. Main - 9 pages
E-mail from Alan DeBoer to Colin Swales dated 3-19-03 - 1 page
E-mail from Gino Grimaldi to Bill Street dated 9-16-03 - 1 page
E-mail from Bill Street to Alan DeBoer dated 10-13-03 - 2 pages
E-mail from Alan DeBoer to Bill Street dated 10-13-03 - 1 page
E-mail from John McLaughlin to Bill Street dated 12-22-03 - 2 pages
Total- 61 pages
Received By
/J--G--<-:7 ~-?-/ ( -?Z:
Susan Ya ' , Executive Secretary .
13-3
II n 1III
IIII a 1.1
10/17/2000
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
October 17, 2000, 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing on Appeal of Planning Action 2000-074, a request for a site review
for the construction of a new theater and a conditional use permit to allow the fly
tower to exceed 40 feet in height. Project is located on Hargadine Street and east of
South Pioneer Street and includes the construction of a parking structure.
(Appellant: Swales/Lang, Applicant: Oregon Shakespeare Festival)
Shaw read the gUidelines for Land Use Hearing procedures.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:18 p.m.
EXPARTE CONTACT
Reid noted that she is an owner of a Bed & Breakfast in Ashland, and several of her
guests attend OSF plays. She is not a member of OSF, but she has walked through
the area many times. She has also read many newspapers articles about the issue.
Hanson stated that he had engaged in a conversation with members of the Historical
Commission about the issue. Fine stated that in addition to the contacts he noted at
the previous meeting, he has also returned a photocopy of a Corporate Rules
Judgement to the applicant's attorney by mail, but did not enclose any
correspondence.
STAFF REPORT
Community Development Director John McLaughlin stated that this action was heard
at the initial public hearing in July by the Planning Commission. A lot of testimony
was received and discussed by the Commission, and a request was made to leave
the record open for seven days for additional written testimony, which was agreed
upon. The Planning Commission made a decision to approve the Planning Action at
the August 8 meeting, by an 8 to 1 vote. McLaughlin explained that the conditions
attached to the approval, are included in the council packets.
Senior Planner Bill Molnar explained that the Oregon Shakespeare Festival has
proposed to construct a new theater and parking structure. The theater will be
approximately 33,000 sq. ft, seating 344 people. It is subject to site review approval
and the applicable criteria are found in Chapter 18.72 of the Land-Use Ordinance.
Molnar explained that the fly tower is proposed to be just over 45 feet in height,
requiring a conditional use permit. The proposed building will be located behind
Carpenter Hall, utilizing a portion of the current Hargadine Street parking lot. The
theater will consume approximately fifty-percent of the parking area, with a roughly
13,000 sq. ft footprint. The main orientation of the theater building is toward South
Pioneer Street. East of the proposed building is a new multilevel parking structure,
with 140 parking spaces. Molnar stated that due to the location, the project is
subject to 150 separate design standards and that the applicant had requested, and
was approved by the Planning Commission, exceptions to six design standards. The
Planning Commission concluded that the project was consistent with a great majority
of the standards recommended and approved the application with thirteen
conditions. Staff recommends upholding the Planning Commission's decision and
approval with the conditions.
13 - ,(
~JAN 1 5 2004
McLaughlin stated that in the appellant's 65-page presentation, many of the issues
raised, had been heard previously and addressed. He also noted the following new
issues that had not previously raised:
1) A proposal for bricks in the sidewalk, and sidewalk standards for poured concrete.
McLaughlin noted that staff had added a condition requiring that the sidewalk work
be done under the permit and approval of Public Works.
2) Building size requirements. McLaughlin explained that the numbers
quoted were based on the architect's building plan, which is measured from
the outside of the building. He further explained that, as is written in city
ordinance, the measurements are made from the inside of the walls, and the
44,000 sq. ft building is within the 45,000 sq. ft limit.
3) Building separation, and firewalls. McLaughlin stated that one solution is to attach
the theater to the parking structure, which would alleviate a few building code
issues, but would also exceed the square footage requirement. An alternative
solution, would be to create a firewall, which was also considered by the architects in
the building department. Staff recommended adding a condition ensuring that the
buildings are noncontiguous.
McLaughlin explained that pages 1 through 25 is information that the appellant
provided as was requested by council. He stated that staff had not made a
determination as to whether this information had met the requirements and that
there was no new information presented by the appellants. He felt that the issue was
mainly that the appellants did not agree with the Planning Commission decision.
APPLICANT
Craig Stone, Consulting Urban Planner representing OSF, requested that the full
Planning Commission record be included into the record of this proceeding. He stated
that in the proposal before the Planning Commission, there was envisioned a 3-_ ft
separation between the theater building and the parking structure, which was
sufficient to make neither structure exceed the size regulations of the code. After
approval by the Planning Commission, discussion ensued in the more detailed
architectural design and building code processes that raised the desire to connect the
buildings. Stone explained that to do so would violate Ashland building codes and in
order to comply with both the land-use and building codes, the applicant is willing to
build a firewall. He stated that the applicant will also comply with the City's
conditional requirement regarding sidewalk construction.
Thomas Hacker, architect representing OSF, voiced the desire to build a theater that
is the best in the world, attracting actors, directors, and playwrights from around the
world, whereby stimulating the economy. He explained that it is the Festival's desire
to create a building of strength and character and noted the number of dedicated
people who have worked for two years, and eighteen public meetings during the
design of this project. He explained that by creating a parking structure, parking is
provided without impeding on Carpenter Hall. Hacker described the design elements,
including the aesthetic advantages. He explained that a firewall is constructed of
either concrete, concrete block, or brick masonry, which vary in thickness, and is
rated by the number of hours it would take for a fire to burn through the wall. He
indicated on the model where the firewall would be constructed, explaining that the
firewall would protect the building from burning situations from outside.
Hacker explained for the council that the trees already existing on the site are
planted directly into the earth, not just in planters. Project Manager Pam Brown
13--5
JAN 1 5 2004
11 n 1111
I1II ~ 1.1
explained for the council that vines will be planted around the perimeter, and trees
along the southeast and southwest corners. She stated that any vegetation on the
top deck would need to be irrigated, which will be provided. Hacker explained that
planting of 20-foot tree wells would significantly alter the design structure, which
would increase costs, and as a result is not planned at this time. He clarified that
drainage systems are not being included for residential use, but could be added later
at no risk to the structure and that drainage does exist for rainfall.
City Administrator Greg Scoles explained for the council that at the time of the lease,
there would be no preclusion for the building of restrooms, and added that there was
no preclusion for building another story either. Laws stated the council did not
require restrooms, and as a result they were not included in the design. Hacker
explained that restrooms have not been precluded, and could be installed after the
construction. Scoles stated that if the council wanted to make this a condition, it
could be added. In conclusion, Stone stated they have attempted to address all of
the criteria, including issues brought forth by the opponents.
STAFF RESPONSE
Council preferred hearing staff response after applicant rebuttal.
APPLICANT REBUTTAL
Craig Stone clarified that the conditional use permit will not produce a greater
material adverse effect upon certain qualities in comparison to the target use. A
commercial zoning district (shopping centers, department stores, etc.) has a floor
area ratio of 1.0, and with a loose interpretation of what that means, it would be
over 100,000 sq. ft. The second issue regarding the size of the two buildings,
because they are two separate structures, there is no violation of the 45,000 sq. ft
standards. He stated that the design plans were as detailed a set of plans as the City
has ever seen, but that there are details that remain to be worked out. He explained
that these details will be worked out in a way that does not violate the City's land
use ordinance or its building codes. Regarding the entrance architecture, experts and
non experts alike disagree on what constitutes good architecture. The Planning
Commission elected to keep the architecture, but added vegetation to the top level
of the parking structure. Storm drainage has been examined and can be dealt with.
Stone clarified for the council that OOOT does not reqUire a traffic study, and no
study was done.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:28 p.m.
STAFF RESPONSE
Reid noted that it was never decided that the downtown area was not ever going to
have contiguous buildings. McLaughlin clarified, noting when the ordinance was
written, that all buildings constructed prior to 1992 were exempt. Reid stated that
when the committee made the ordinance, it was not the intention to destroy the
ambience of the downtown area, which is filled with contiguous buildings. McLaughlin
clarified that as the ordinance is written, if buildings are touching, they are
contiguous. If the buildings are not contiguous, they must be separated by a
distance of 60-ft or a distance equal to the height of the building. McLaughlin
clarified that, target use of a zone, means similar uses in the downtown district with
a floor area ratio 1: 1, meaning for every sq. ft of building for every sq. foot of lot
area. The residential area across the street has a different target zone. He also
responded to the council's questions regarding landscaping requirements in that a
tree is required for every 800 sq. ft of plaza area. Trees are planned throughout the
16-~
JAN 1 5 2004
site, and not just in the new brick area. In addition, the open-air public space was
proposed by the applicants as part of the equation, but there was no square footage
requirement.
McLaughlin addressed concern regarding traffic from the parking structure, and
explained that the Traffic Safety Committee could consider making the alley one-way
at any time.
Nolte explained that the building code would dictate whether the buildings can
encroach onto the adjacent property, and that this is more of a building code issue
than a planning issue. McLaughlin explained that the applicants have stipulated that
they will do a boundary line adjustment as necessary. He continued by clarifying that
the city ordinance defines a height of a building, not from the peak of the roof, but is
based on the average height of the peak and the eave. He explained that code
issues, involving the building of the structure, would be resolved through the building
permit process.
McLaughlin corrected his earlier statement regarding plaza space, and clarified that
there is a minimum requirement of one square foot of plaza space for every ten
square feet of gross floor area, which the applicants have met with 95,000 sq. ft of
plaza space.
COUNCIL DELIBERATION
Reid stated that she prefers contemporary rather than duplicative architecture, and
that in the future, people would be able to appreciate the style set for today, not a
duplicate of the past. Although she might want to make a few changes, she feels it is
not her place to redesign the building, and felt that the council should deny the
appeal.
Laws stated that there are a variety of things he does not like about the building, but
he also feels that the criteria have been met. He felt that the council has an
obligation to base their decision on the criteria and that the requirements for the
conditional use permit and the site review are adequately satisfied.
Fine agreed that the aesthetics were not in accordance with his own tastes, but that
this was not the issue. He felt that there is sufficient compatibility with the
architecture on the impact area. Regarding the ordinance limitation of 45,000
sq. ft, he feels that within the interpretation of the ordinance, this project is
not a contiauous group of buildings of over 45,000 sq. ft. Fine requested
that staff consider redefining the ordinance and felt that had the ordinance
previously and consistently been interpreted to include adjacency. this
project would be more than 45,000 sq. ft in a contiguous group of buildings.
He stated that the applicant had met each of the land-use approval criteria.
Wheeldon requested that the lot line adjustment be addressed and noted her
concern regarding the traffic in the alley, and that the alley is not an exit for the
parking area.
Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice vote:
all AYES. Motion passed.
Nolte suggested requiring that the applicant do a lot line adjustment, if necessary
under the code, for those two buildings. The applicant could also be required to
16-7
JAN 1 5 2004
II n 1III
IIII a II
present the traffic issue to the Traffic Safety Committee for them to determine
appropriate egress. Reid stated that she does not agree with Wheeldon's concern, as
traffic patterns are not clear. She is reluctant to add that requirement to the motion
without knowing what the professional design came up with regarding ingress and
egress. Laws stated that traffic issues would be better viewed after the building is
constructed, as there is no way of knowing how traffic will be affected at this point.
McLaughlin stated a traffic flow study could be performed at any time. Wheeldon
noted her concern regarding the lack of shade for the parking structure.
Councilors Laws/Hauck m/s to approve the application with the following
conditions: 1) conditions set by the Planning Commission; 2) that the work
is done under the permit process and approved by Pubic Works; 3) ensure
that the buildings are noncontiguous; and 4) that if it is found necessary to
comply with Building Code requirements, a lot line adjustment process is
required. Findings are to be brought back for approval at the next council
meeting. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Fine, Wheeldon, and Hanson all
YES. Motion approved.
11/07/2000
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
November 7,2000,7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Council Meeting Look Ahead. Information only.
2. Adoption of findings supporting the decision of the City Council in the
approval of the new Oregon Shakespeare Theater application.
Fine stated that although he joined with the council in voting in favor of the planning
action, he does not feel that the Findings adequately reflect the sense of the council.
He understood that the Findings were written by the applicant's professional
representative, and were edited by the city's Planning and Legal departments.
Traditionally, the city's adoption of the Findings allows the applicant success with
LUBA, and he does not think a project of this significance is appropriate to follow in
this tradition. Fine commented that he did not find the building to be aesthetically
pleasing and it is only minimally architecturally compatible with neighboring
structures. In addition, the city's interpretation of the word "contiguous"
does not meet with the dictionary's definition. He felt that this project is a
group of contiguous buildings, and therefore exceeds the 45,000 sq. ft
requirements. Fine stated that the Findings claim, that the project meets with the
council's approval standards, but that they do not adequately reflect the quandary
that the council felt. For these reasons, Fine requested that the Findings be referred
back to staff for further editing.
1)-8
JAN 1 5 2004-
Hauck and Laws voiced their disagreement with Fine's thoughts and Wheeldon felt
that the staff would need specific direction within the Findings in order to make any
changes.
Fine made a motion to refer the Findings back to staff for further editing to reflect
the council's concern that, although the project met with minimal standards there
was still concern with the architectural compatibility of neighboring structures, and
whether this is a contiguous group or pair of buildings. Motion died due to lack of
second.
Councilors Hauck/Wheeldon m/s to approve adoption of Findings. Roll Call
Vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck and Wheeldon, YES; Fine, NO. Motion passed 4-1.
3. Consideration of a motion to initiate land use ordinance changes
regarding the City's appeal procedures (AMC 18.108), clarification of large
scale development standards (AMC 18.72), and implementation of a "public
facilities" zoning classification.
Colin Swales/461 Allison/Voiced his concerns regarding the appeal to the council,
which appears to have a two-tier system: one for citizens and another for the
council. He felt that the presentation of appeals for de novo hearing would be
changed to disallow the testimony of new individuals and/or new evidence, which
would limit citizen appeals. He explained that this new document does not make it
easier for citizens to file appeals, but makes it more difficult and excludes the council
from the same recommendations. He felt that the rules should not be bent in order
to allow projects, and then be changed after the fact.
Nolte clarified that the motion is to send this issue back to the Planning Commission
for further review.
Eric Navickas/711 Faith/Gave example by using the City of Eugene, of poor
planning and development. He felt that by weakening City ordinances to limit square
footage, we would risk turning Ashland into a city similar to Eugene.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison/Offered his support for sending the ordinances back
to the Planning Commission for consideration and discussion.
Philip Lang/758 B Street/Spoke about the process of democracy and how citizens
are heard. He agreed with Mr. Swales' testimony.
Debbie Miller/160 Normal/Stated that it is important for the council to hear all
points of view, and urged the council to adopt, for the Planning Commission, a
broader set of criteria or continue using the range of evidence, and preferably both.
Laws stated that the amendment to the ordinance is to clarify the placement of
buildings in regard to the 45,000 sq. ft rules. Reid noted that the historic downtown
district is based on a series of common-wall or adjacent buildings, and that it was
human error that the downtown district was not exempted from the ordinance. Reid
felt that the changes to the ordinance were for clarification and that the ordinance is
fair in regards to de novo hearing. Hauck supported Laws and Reid's comments,
adding that he is not in favor of sending the de novo hearing issue back to the
Planning Commission.
JAN 1 5 2004
13-7
II n 1III
IIII a 1.1
Shaw stated her concerns and agreed with Reid and Hauck, but for different reasons.
She explained that when citizens come to the council meetings, they are driven by
emotions, and that they need to be allowed the opportunity to speak within the limits
of the situation.
Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to refer the discussion of large-scale
development standards (AMC 18.72) and implementation of a "public
facilities" zoning to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the
council. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Wheeldon, and Fine, YES. Motion
passed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JUNE 12. 2001
....PUBLIC FORUM
COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, requested two items be discussed by the
Planning Commission. He would like the Planning Commission to interpret 18.72.050
C (Site Design and Use Standards)-the "big box" ordinance. The City Attorney has
ruled that the building size of 45,000 square feet is not floor area, but rather size of
the footprint. This means one could possibly build a building 180,000 square feet or
more or even 225,000. Swales believes when this ordinance was drafted it was not
the intent to be able to build buildings of this size. He believes the ordinance was
intended to address floor area, not building footprint. Doug Neuman has shown a
desire to develop the back area of the Lithia Springs Hotel and it is only fair
that he has an interpretation of the ordinance.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 10, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Mike Gardiner called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners
present were Kerry KenCairn, Russ Chapman, John Fields, Chris Hearn, Alex Amarotico,
Mike Morris, and Marilyn Briggs. Ray Kistler was absent. Staff present were John
McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Maria Harris and Sue Yates.
tB-/O
JAN 1 5 2004
II n 1III
IIII ~ 1.1
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNNIG ACTION 2001-058
REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
APPROXIMATELY 17,300 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING
ASHLAND FAMILY YMCA 540 YMCA WAY
APPLICANT: ASHLAND FAMILY YMCA
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - KenCaim had a site visit and did volunteer design
work for the project. She has not had financial involvement in the project. She stated she
could review the criteria in an objective manner. Hearn, Fields and Chapman also had a
site visits and made volunteer efforts for the project. They can review the criteria and
application in an objective manner in making a land use decision. The remaining
Commissioners had site visits.
ST AFF REPORT
McLaughlin reported the Site Review criteria (18.72) were mailed with the notice to
affected property owners in the surrounding area. January of 1989 was the first approval
on this project. This is Phase 4 of a master plan facility and will provide additional space
for Y programs. It gives the building a footprint just under 44,000 square feet. This
is in the Detailed Site Review Zone and affected by the "big box" ordinance. The
Council has interpreted in their approval of the Shakespeare plans, that the 45,000
square feet noted in the ordinance applies to the footprint. Next month an ordinance
amendment will be coming forward to clarify that issue. Therefore, this application is in
compliance with the "big pox" ordinance.
Staff believes this project complies with the standards. There is a parking analysis
provided by the applicant. There are 195 spaces available for Y use. This is a
combination of the Y lot and the adjoining parking lot for the soccer fields. There is
adequate parking to meet needs. The parking analysis indicates that even on peak days,
at least 15 percent of the parking spaces available are vacant.
McLaughlin stated there are adequate public facilities and it is appropriate to continue
with this project.
Staff believes the frontage of the building along Tolman Creek Road needs some relief
through the use of vertical landscaping features (Condition 6) to give that wall some
relief. They would also like to increase the sidewalk width and include a five foot strip of
landscaping between the building and the sidewalk. This might require modification of
Conditions 6 and 7.
Overall, Staff believes this application is appropriate and is recommending approval with
the attached Conditions.
15-1/
JAN 1 5 2004
Briggs asked which plans were the correct plans. The plans on the wall are different
than the plans in her packet. McLaughlin recommended Briggs ask the applicant.
PUBLIC HEARING
KEN OGDEN, YMCA Board Member and Project Architect, 2950 E. Barnett Road,
Medford, OR, introduced MICHAEL DONOVAN, 110 Westwood Street.
Ogden said the renderings and the model were done some time ago and are here tonight
just to represent a conceptual massing. The packet contains what is being requested in
terms of the overall definitive aesthetics.
Ogden explained that they are trying to bring the front of the building down to a more
human scale. The expansion will achieve an increased lobby and administration control
point on the upper level and expansion of the fitness area and some isolated areas for
some private fitness activities. On the lower level they are accommodating some multi-
purpose rooms and conference room space. The purpose is not to increase membership
but to help facilitate the programs and membership they already have. Since adding the
natatorium, the membership has more than doubled. They were not expecting the
overcrowded situation this soon.
They are incorporating materials that replicate of the natatorium expansion. They have
allowed for various articulations of form and breaking up of forms with some space in
between the building areas. The intent of this design is to help mitigate just having one
large building. He has tried to design it in such a way to bring it back down to human
scale. There is a color definition introduced to help break up the vertical planes.
Ogden said with reference to the landscape requirements along Tolman Creek Road, he
would like to introduce some tree wells rather than have a narrow sidewalk and then a
narrow planting strip. If they work with a wider sidewalk and tree wells, this might allow
an opportunity to introduce seating areas and enhance the public space and still get the
relief of the landscape forms along the vertical surface. KenCairn liked the idea of larger
tree wells and not the narrow planting strip.
Briggs asked if the horizontal window configuration was a slider. Ogden said they are
fixed windows. If they are not fixed, it can wreak havoc with the mechanical system.
Briggs said it looks very residential on the drawings in the packet, but the color
renderings on the wall look more like the windows belong in a commercial zone. Why
did they leave the concept? Ogden said it was due to a tight budget.
McLaughlin suggested re-wording the first sentence of Condition 6. That a ten foot wide
sidewalk with four square foot tree wells be located on the east wall of the addition and
that change be indicated on the revised site plan before issuance of a building permit.
The second sentence of Condition 7 would read: The plan shall incorporate appropriate
trees in the tree wells within the sidewalk on the east side of the building, intended to
13- (2
JAN 1 5 2004
II n 1III
lilt ~ 1.1
break up the east wall building mass.
KenCaim asked if there is still an adequate sidewalk if the wells are five feet instead of
four. Ogden thought that would work. McLaughlin changed the tree well size to "five
square feet".
Fields wondered about the use of tree grates and noted for the scale of the building there
is no real plaza. McLaughlin said they tried to improve what is there and use this as an
opportunity for transit amenities and better outdoor spaces with larger tree wells and a
wider sidewalk. McLaughlin does not visualize this area as a place for "hanging out".
Tree grates would be functional because of the number of people walking this area. The
grates make a better walking surface.
Fields asked about an outdoor employee break area. Ogden said there is an adjacent
neighborhood park that has covered eating areas, concessions and restrooms available for
employees. They looked at the remaining site available and there are some areas between
the lower Y parking lot and the city park parking lot but felt it would be better to leave
these areas landscaped. There is a small playground area by the main entrance but it is
not really a public space. Ogden said they have introduced a pedestrian path from the
sidewalk to the building facility. This area has the potential for seating areas that could
be more isolated for the few employees that would be taking a break and would be more
immediate to the front doors.
McLaughlin added to Condition 6: That there be an approximately ten foot wide
sidewalk with five foot tree wells with grates.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Hearn moved to approve PA2001-058 with the attached Conditions and modified
Conditions 6 and 7. KenCaim seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
AUGUST 14,2001
PLANNING ACTION 2001-069
REQUEST FOR AN ORDINACNE AMENDMENT - CLARIFICATION OF 45,000
SQUARE FOOT MAXIUMUM BUILDING FOOTPRINT IN THE DETAIL SITE
REVIEW ZONE.
JAN 1 5 2004
13 -/3
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
McLaughlin said in 1992, the Commercial Development Standards were adopted that
included a limitation on building size in the Detailed Site Review (DSR) zone of 45,000
square feet. That includes downtown Ashland. In the past year, the Shakespeare Theater
application came under that requirement. The Council, in making their decision, made
an interpretation that said the 45,000 square feet is the footprint of the building.
They also said this ordinance should not apply in the downtown. There are contiguous
buildings in the downtown and the way the ordinance is written, it would make most of
downtown non-conforming. We want the downtown to continue to be an intense
development zone. Council directed Staff to clarify the ordinance.
They proposed a modification to the ordinance that states: "No new buildings or
contiguous groups of buildings in the DSR zone shall exceed a building footprint area of
45,000 square feet as measured inside the exterior walls..." "The footprint area does not
include any areas with walls but no roof."
McLaughlin said they came up with examples of areas that are walled but really don't
have an area to them such as enclosed courtyards that are walled. It is not a gross interior
floor area in the building, but the footprint.
The information gathered when this ordinance was amended in 1992, included a list of
existing buildings (see Exhibit S-1). It referred to the ground floor so it appeared to be
the intent to look at the footprint of the building in trying to establish the 45,000 square
foot maximum. That is the maximum mass they want to have.
McLaughlin said they have added language that these provisions shall not apply in the
Downtown Design Standards. In reviewing the record, there are a couple of staff
versions of the ordinance that said there was a 45,000 square foot limit except in the C-1-
D zone. As the community discussed it, an option came up that there may be instances
where we want larger buildings so we should have a Conditional Use Permit process to
allow buildings in excess of 45,000 square foot (Exhibit S-3). When it went through the
hearing process, the Council removed the Conditional Use Permit process saying they
wanted to set a flat limit. McLaughlin's guess is that when editing was done to remove
the CUP portion, the remainder of the sentence was also excluded. McLaughlin has
added a sentence: These provisions do not apply in the Downtown Design Standards zone
(map showing that area).
McLaughlin is recommending approval of the redefinition of 45,000 square feet and that
it not apply in the Downtown zone.
Briggs has trouble counting the interior as the measurements instead of the exterior. She
wants the document showing it has always been done that way. She thinks it is
confusing.
McLaughlin said for the purposes of establishing parking demand and for accessory
13 -/ '1
JAN 1 5 2004
11 n 1111
IIII a 1.1
units, it has been the interior floor space that has been calculated. The impact is going to
be minimal.
Fields added that it depends on the massing of the building and might make a difference
of only one to two percent, but you might be losing exterior detail.
Fields is not sure what "contiguous" means. Mountain View Retirement exceeded the
massing and they resolved it by rezoning it. With Shakespeare, because there is no
parking requirement, you can say this is parking for downtown, not for Shakespeare.
McLaughlin said in terms of contiguous, they are considered one building and the 45,000
square foot rule applies. If they are not contiguous, they have to be separated by at least
60 feet or some relationship to the height of the building. Once you get to buildings of
that size and scale, they tend to take on the scale of a city block. Then you would want to
separate the buildings by a right-of-way width to get the rhythm that starts happening in
city blocks. He believed a variance was granted for Shakespeare in the downtown.
McLaughlin said the Detailed Site Review zones are the more commercial corridors such
as downtown, Ashland Street commercial area, and A Street and the recently redone
railroad property.
Fields said we create this finely worded ordinance but the motivating factor is developing
real estate and making money on it. We wordsmith these rules when we see what has
happened before and what we don't want to have happen and then a web of permitted
uses is created. People are so creative, they can adapt around these rules. The reaction
that grew out of the "big box" ordinance was Ashland losing its small town scale. That is
the nature of change. Or, it will get so difficult to do anything and too costly. He doesn't
see the pressure right now to build anything this big. He doesn't see what the net result
will be in 40 years. He believes this is a way of cleaning up this ordinance. He would
support the adjusted wording.
McLaughlin said they could see this used in redevelopment changes.
Kistler sees this rule as a lost opportunity for some great things such as a community
building.
Fields moved to approve Planning Action 2001-069. KenCaim seconded the motion and
it carried unanimously.
~-IS
JAN 1 5 2004
09/04/2001
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
September 4, 2001
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. A Public Hearing on an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland
Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, amending the detail site review zone
standards for large buildings, and amending Section II-C-3a(2) of the Site Design
and Use Standards.
Community Development Director, John McLaughlin, gave an explanation of the
relevant portions of the ordinance, the process involved in it's drafting, and the proposed
changes. He clarified the Planning Board's findings that the 45,000-sq. ft. limit applies to
the footprint of the building and not the total square footage of the building, and that
these standards do not apply in the downtown area. He also addressed various questions
concerning the application of the ordinance and how it relates to maintaining the scale
and design standards of the downtown area.
Reid noted that she was part of the committee that worked on the current ordinance and
gave an example of how solid block design standards are important to maintaining the
downtown area's rich historic past.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:37 p.m.
Eric Navickas1711 Faith/Spoke concerning his perception on how the ordinance change
would allow inappropriate building within the downtown area.
John Freedom/442 Holly Street/Stated his agreement with ordinance and complimented
the Planning Department in the visioning and planning process that went into both the
creation of the ordinance, and in maintaining the character of the town. He suggested that
before changing what isn't broken, look at how we can embrace the process of creating a
vision of where we want to be in 25 to 50 years. And once that is in place, and written
into our comprehensive plan, then begin the process of taking a look at our ordinances
and how those ordinances fit in with the accomplishment of our vision.
Debbie Miller/160 Normal Avenue/Commented on her perception of how this
ordinance might adversely affect the character of the city. She urged consideration of the
ramifications of allowing big buildings, what the future holds, and what kind of city we
want to be.
Colin Swales/461 Allison/Noted that the footprint was never actually mentioned in the
findings and wondered why it is now a part of the argument. Stated a concern about laws
being rewritten by persons seeking loopholes in existing land use ordinances. Contends
there are several mistakes in the staff reports and that the amount of information provided
to the community was inadequate.
13-1'
JAN 1 5 2004
II n 1III
IIII ~ 1.1
Bill Street/letter read into the recordNoiced concerns about misinformation published
in the public notice, as well as lack of detail and an adequate time frame for public
response. States the proposed changes dismantle the original ordinance as it applies to the
downtown area. He urges public education and involvement.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:57 p.m.
McLaughlin clarified that the proposed ordinance change should be Chapter 18.72, not
Chapter 18.62. He also noted how the total square footage of a block is calculated and
how that calculation serves to maintain the scale of the building in the downtown area.
Notes the YMCA building exceeds 45,000 square feet in total floor area.
Reid noted that the downtown plan promotes the look of multi-storefronts even if they are
not separate and that this gives flexibility in growth and maintenance of the area. Also
that consistency and the ability to address problems as they arise are needed
Laws notes that the original ordinance clearly did not apply to the downtown area. Notes
that the council's interpretation of the 45,000 square foot issue was done with the input of
legal counsel. He supports the downtown area being a mixture of old and new, big and
bulky, and claims the current downtown design standards are adequate to protect the
balance. Stated openness to the airing of various opinions on the subject.
The council discussed the need for additional time to consider the impact and intent
of the proposed ordinance changes and to allow more public input on the matter.
Councilors Hanson/Hartzell m/s to delay first reading of ordinance until the first
council meeting in October to allow public input. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
02/19/2002
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
February 19, 2002 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
Council discussed the time frame for the "Big Box" issue. Hartzell suggested that
rather than having an afternoon study session and a pre-council meeting session on
the "Big Box" ordinance, the issue is moved to the Planning Commission for a study
session discussion. Hanson noted his disinclination to revisit the process since he did
not find the present ordinance lacking. Mayor expressed concern that shifting the
issue to the Planning Department would disrupt their scheduled move into the new
13 -17
JAN 1 5 2004
city building. Morrison noted that while sensitive to the Planning staff's
workload, he believes the council owes it to the community to thoroughly
examine the issue. Hearn agreed, and emphasized that presently there is no
work in the pipeline that would be disrupted and that the community would
appreciate having more input.
Councilors Hartzell/Hearn m/s that staff conduct a planning commission
study session within 4 to 8 months on the concept of the "Big Box"
ordinance, including identified issues related to the "Big Box" ordinance.
DISCUSSION: Mayor again expressed concern over the time frame running into the
planning department's move. Hartzell noted that departments are not put on hold in
regards to the move and that leniency would be granted in regards to this goal.
Planning Directory John McLaughlin clarified that taking the issue up again for public
input would be a large and long process, and that other projects might be shifted in
order to accommodate it. Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Morrison, Hearn - Yes;
Hanson - No. Motion Passed 3 to 1.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9: 15 p.m.
04/16/2002
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
April 16, 2002 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
Council discussed the update on the "Big Box" ordinance process, particularly if the
time-line would be adequate to protect the needs of the city. Staff clarified that
while the process might trigger someone to try and beat the adoption of the
ordinance that at this time they have no knowledge of actions that would be
a problem.
Council discussed the approval of the easement off Sylvia Street. Staff clarified that
the City has a one foot strip of land called a "Street Plug" which acts as a safeguard
and gives the council control over allowing access and development of adjoining
property .
Councilors Reid/Hearn m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #S and #6.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
JAN 1 5 2004
'8-/8
II ~ IIII
I1II a 1..1
02/11/2003
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 11, 2003
MINUTES
TYPE III PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 2002-134
REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDNIG CHAPTER 18.72 OF THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE (LAND USE ORDINANCE) AND THE CITY OF ASHLAND
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS RELATING TO MAXIMUM BUILDING
FOOTPRINT, MAXIMUM GROSS FLOOR AREA AND BUILDING ORIENTATION
AND SCALE REQUIREMENTS.
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
STAFF REPORT
McLaughlin said this ordinance (big box ordinance) was originally developed in 1992.
It began with citizens' concerns that new developments could occur in Ashland that
would not be in scale with the community. Specifically, Wal-Mart and factory outlet
stores were looking at expanding into the Rogue Valley. Prior to 1992, there were no
maximum building size limits. The Mayor appointed a committee that did an
extensive amount of work and came up with a balanced approach allowing for larger
buildings but not excessively large buildings in the community.
The ordinance has worked well since 1992. However, the City Council directed Staff
to prepare amendments to the ordinance after their decision on the new
Shakespeare theater. The Council asked Staff to clarify how to measure 45,000
square feet and clear up any ambiguity. Secondly, clarify the meaning of contiguous
buildings, and thirdly, clarify how the ordinance would apply in the downtown.
The Council's current interpretation for the maximum area is to apply it to the
footprint of the building, not the total floor area. The language does not say interior
floor space. In the case of the Shakespeare space, the 45,000 square foot limit only
applied to the footprint. With that interpretation, someone could build a 45,000
square foot building on the first floor and also build a second story.
Contained within the Site Design and Use Standards are Large Scale Development
Standards. Large scale development is anything with a gross floor area in excess of
10,000 square feet, building frontage in excess of 100 feet in length and developed
within the Detailed Site Review Zone. McLaughlin showed several slides showing
examples of various building sizes. He noted, for example, that the Plaza block
13-/~
JAN 1 5 2004
consists of contiguous groups of buildings, each structurally separate. The ground
floor area of the Plaza block is 37,000 square feet and the total floor area is 70,000
square feet. Do we want to separate buildings in the downtown when the historic
pattern is a connected type of look? The new Shakespeare theater is over 12,000
square feet on the ground floor and the parking structure next door is 15,000 square
feet separated by a walkway. The Council found these are two separate buildings.
The proposed amendments addressing contiguous buildings outside the downtown
would read: Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching, at or above
grade, shall be considered as one building. With regard to size limits, the language
would read that the footprint won't exceed 45,000 square feet. All interior floor
space and outdoor retail and storage areas that are linked to the use of the building
shall not exceed 45,000 square feet. Non-ground level residential does not count so
apartments above would be allowed. Auto parking, either rooftop or underneath the
footprint of the building would not count toward total square footage.
Staff is trying to look at innovative ways that may address affordable housing and a
provision has been made in the proposed amendment. Another 30,000 square feet
could be added, but for each 1500 square feet beyond the base 45,000 square feet,
an affordable housing unit would have to be provided on-site. The maximum
footprint size still applies. If someone wanted to build a 75,000 square foot building,
they would have to provide 20 affordable housing units on-site.
An additional amendment concerns orientation of the entrance on a corner lot. The
entrance would be toward the higher order street or to the corner. Entrances shall be
located close to the street. Buildings shall orient close to both streets (frame the
street with the structure). Multiple building sites shall have the majority of the
building frontage up on the street.
McLaughlin said the Commission can recommend approval of the
amendments, modify the amendments, recommend denial of the
amendments, or modify the process to allow a wider scope.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
MORT SMITH, 129 Fifth Street, wondered if a the Commission has figured out how to
keep affordable housing affordable. He believes the affordable housing should be
kept separate from large scale development. What advantage is it to Ashland to have
45,000 square foot buildings? He is concerned the larger buildings would change the
character of the community. He is concerned about "contiguous" buildings. It sounds
like you could have a very large building and as long as there is a walkway between
it, there could end up being a 90,000 square foot building.
McLaughlin clarified that outside the downtown, buildings have to be separated
based on the height of the structure.
FRED CARUSO, 102 Garfield, #15, believes quality is more important than quantity.
He does not see a need for a 45,000 square foot building, however, in a particular
situation if it is necessary and important for the health of the community, perhaps it
13-~o
JAN 1 5 2004
II ~ IIII
IIII ~ 1.1
is something we should have. He favors affordable housing. However, would the
proposed housing option mean that we are going to start putting housing in between
taverns? He believes each neighborhood should be looked at individually.
SUSAN MARSDEN, 1617 Parker Street, said there is another Ashland--out Ashland
Street with the mall, the cinema and Albertson's. To shift this so buildings as big as
75,000 square feet can be built out there, we are creating "the burbs". The buildings
now are built in the context of neighborhood housing and buildings of smaller scale.
She doesn't want to ruin the balance. She believes that 45,000 square feet should be
the limit. She appreciates that creative ways being looked at for affordable housing,
but sees this as a separate issue. It is dangerous to use affordable housing as a
wedge issue to create buildings as large as 75,000 square feet.
BRYAN HOllEY, 324 Liberty Street, said he recommended thinking outside the box
and taking this to a wider group through outreach and education.
MARY-KAY MICHELSEN, 2810 Diane Street, believes 45,000 square feet is excessive
and out of scale with the community. She likes the clarification of Section I B. She is
assuming Section I C 2 is consistent with the rest of the City. In Section I C 3, the
75,000 square feet is much too large for a small town. low cost housing is unrelated
to this ordinance. She said removing Section I C 3 would negate the necessity for
Section I C 4.
ERIC NAVICKAS, 711 Faith Avenue, asked how far Staff is taking this away from the
initial request from the Council. If Shakespeare were to go forward with another
project, it could still be appealed under this ordinance. The proposed amendment is
not addressing the issues that began these changes. This exemption makes the
ordinance completely ambiguous. It states under the first exemption that gross floor
area associated with on-ground level residential uses do not count toward the total
gross floor area. We are already saying a building can be 75,000 square but
residential above the ground floor doesn't count towards that anyway so that could
be extended indefinitely with no limit. The second exemption relating to automobile
parking means a parking garage could become indefinitely large. The affordable
housing exemption seems to be an after-thought. The changes are completely
unnecessary. The ordinance originally was perfectly clear, strictly limiting a gross
square footage of 45,000 square feet. He believes the 45,000 square foot limit
should be reduced in the downtown. If anything, we need to send the Council a
decision that the original ordinance is well-written.
Chapman noted that outside the downtown there are parking requirements and
height requirements.
Swales said the only areas we are discussing are the areas of high visibility.
Mclaughlin said there are some areas that are excluded.
Chapman read a letter from Stan Druben, 125 Brooks lane.
BILL STREET, 180 Mead Street, said the Council made the interpretation that would
allow a 45,000 square foot footprint plus a second floor of 45,000 square feet, plus a
third floor of 45,000 square feet in the downtown. That would be a total of 135,000
?>-;'{I
JAN 1 5 2004
square feet in the downtown. Everyone here tonight agrees that is too big. Street
said it confuses the matter when the Plaza is talked about as one building. People are
not drawn to that area thinking it is one building. They see lots of little buildings with
very short fronts. That is much different than the 300 foot limit.
Street referred to the Addendum I Staff Report, page 1, stating 300 feet is the
length limit. That is 100 yards. How could that be a limit? It sounds more like an
invitation to a builder. He asked the Commissioners to reconsider that limit. With
reference to page 3, #4 (no building should exceed 75,000 square feet), most people
feel that is too big. Outside the downtown, you can have a 75,000 square foot
building consisting of commercial space and then you could add up to four stories
with a 45,000 square foot footprint with residential units. This would be 180,000
square feet.
Street believes we need to modify this process and open it up wider. The numbers
are incredibly large for this town. There is some urgency. By the Council's
interpretation, we are allowing 135,000 square feet. What does the Commission
want this town to look liked in 20 to 40 years? He proposed 150 foot length for
downtown and a total maximum gross floor area of 30,000 square feet and a 10,000
square foot footprint. The Elks building has a 7,000 square foot footprint.
Chapman read an e-mail from WENDY EPPINGER
CHUCK LAURENSON, 607 Forest Street, thought we needed to spend more time
talking about the way we think about our community values. A key value he hears
people talking about is aesthetic value.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Swales said following closely on the heels of this proposed amendment is the
proposed changes to the floor-area-ratio (FAR). The floor area of the building cannot
be more than half the square footage it sits on. The proposal would be to eliminate
that. He feels the FAR ratio should be part of the discussion, not separate. Swales is
also concerned that the public was involved in two charrettes, the downtown design
charrette and the railroad property charrette. We've had the draft plans but they
have never been discussed. Both of these plans included large pieces of property
that could potentially be developed. It seems all of these issues need to be brought
in when discussing the "big box".
Fields said he was involved in the original push to get the first ordinance passed. It
took many hours of committee meetings with the committee taking a lot of input and
a lot discussion and then ending up with 45,000 square feet. He sees how this is a
much larger scale than there is today. He sees the parking structure and the theater
as two separate structures. The actual size of the tax lot and its coverage determines
the pattern. He noted that at one time, the block from First to Second Streets was all
interconnected. It used to be a mall. We try to create an ordinance that captures all
our concerns and the community may want something that won't fit and it has to be
denied because the ordinance won't allow it or a loophole is found and something is
built that no one likes. Fields said the thought is that maybe we can use commercial
and large scale development to leverage us into affordability. It is an urban
affordability. He has been to places with a very dynamic commercial area and there
are open space and parks within multiple buildings. He would like to try and craft this
tfS-~:<
UAN 1 5 2004
II n IIII
IIII a 1.1
ordinance in a bigger way. He doesn't see it as fixing a mistake we made before. It
was a reasonable interpretation and the political will was there regarding
Shakespeare.
KenCairn said there is a discontinuity in the draft Railroad Plan and the FAR. Under
the current planning ordinances, buildings can't be built in the Railroad District that
were conceptualized. There aren't any lots in the downtown that would allow for
45,000 square feet ground floor. Can we come up with a different number for the
downtown? With regard to affordable housing, it seems like 45,000 limit on the
ground floor and commercial should be set and if anything is over 45,000, it needs to
be residential with a certain percentage affordable.
Kistler agrees that he does not want to see "big box" stores coming into Ashland.
However, he is not as fearful of what might happen as he is of what we might lose.
He uses the YMCA a few times a week. It seems the community uses the larger
projects the most. He sees his neighbors and friends at Bi-Mart and Shop 'N Kart.
What is the harm to the community with these projects?
Morris probably disagrees with the affordable housing piece. He would like to see
affordable housing, but doubts from an economic standpoint that it would be built.
With regard to square footage, 75,000 seems excessive. Forty-five thousand does
not sound like that much. Three hundred feet is a long distance, but he believes the
Design Standards would require breaking up of that length.
Hanson did not see any reason to change the ordinance in the first place. He
said "footprint" was thrown in to the get the project approved. Seventy-five
thousand square feet of building is atrocious. He believes the proposed
ordinance is a waste of time. He does not see anything in the range of
45,000 square feet happening in the downtown. There are places on
Ashland Street and in that area where larger buildings can be placed. He
doesn't see having to regulate a 45,000 square foot footprint downtown or
in anyplace in the Site Review Zone. He believes it should be what the
original ordinance said--45,000 square feet gross.
Briggs liked what Swales said about tying it into the FAR. She never agreed that
gross square footage meant footprint. She is willing to stay with that. As much as
she wants affordable housing, she would not want to see anything get any bigger
than 45,000 square feet. She can see where parking doesn't necessarily have to
count if it is underground. If it is on the roof there would have to be parapet walls,
etc. and that could change it a lot.
Hanson asked McLaughlin why we are put in the position of having to
change the ordinance. Is it because those on the Council (Hanson included)
made that definition of square footage? McLaughlin said the only reason it is
before the Commission is because the Council has said they want the
ordinance clarified explicitly so there wouldn't just be an interpretation.
Fields said there are times when we want buildings more than 45,000 square feet.
How do you create a conditional use permit based on who you like and what you
need? You can't hold the YMCA or Shakespeare to a different standard than Wal-
Mart. There may be a time when 30,000 square feet of affordable housing would
work. Hanson agreed there is a place for it.
~-~3
JAN 1 5 2004
KenCairn believes that in some cases the larger buildings with affordable housing are
appropriate in the Detailed Site Review Zone. You want that density of housing to be
among those uses. Allowing it to be outside does set up the suburbia issue.
Chapman said he does not believe there is an emergency to this issue. Our
ordinance has done a good job of protecting us from the danger to locally owned
businesses. He would like to get the opinion of those in commercial/retail businesses.
He is leaning towards going to the Council and say we need to focus this discussion
on what we want to do with the downtown and what we want to do with the Detailed
Site Review Zone. Form a focus group for each area, meet again with the Council
and Planning Commission, and have more discussion before making a decision.
Swales suggested making a motion for Council to interpret the ordinance to
say that gross square footage means gross floor area, not footprint. At least
that gives us a placeholder until we can hash out the details.
McLaughlin said he would check with the City Attorney and he will forward the
recom mendation.
Swales moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the Council
interpret the existing "big box" ordinance with the 45,000 square foot gross
square footage to mean gross floor area of all spaces. KenCairn seconded
the motion. (Motion was passed unanimously,though minutes fail to show this. See
videotape of meeting on City website.)
05/07/2003
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Wednesday, May 7, 2003 at 12:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 12: 10 p.m.
ATTENDANCE
City Council: Mayor DeBoer and Councilor Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and
Hearn.
Staff: City Administrator Gino Grimaldi, Community Development Director John
McLaughlin and City Planner Mark Knox.
1. Discussion regarding Big Box Ordinance Changes.
McLaughlin gave brief a synopsis on the history of the adopted Commercial
Development Standards, which included specific limitations on the size of buildings in
the Detail Site Review Zone. He commented on the approved application by the
Oregon Shakespeare Festival which 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.
JAN 1 5 2004
1S-~lf
II ~ IIII
IIII ~ 1.1
He explained that the Council had directed staff to clarify how to measure the 45,000
sq. ft. limit referenced by the ordinance, how to clarify the definition of a contiguous
building and how the ordinance amendments would be applied and impact the
downtown commercial area. Staff is looking for direction from the Council on how to
address these issues.
McLaughlin stated the goal is to keep things in a size and scale that is appropriate for
our community. He shared the discussion by the Planning Commission who
recommended that no amendments to the ordinance be adopted and that the Council
changes their interpretation regarding the 45,OOO-sq. ft. limit from applying to
footprint. The Commission recommended that the Council re-interpret the
ordinance where the 45,OOO-sq. ft. applies to gross floor area of the entire
structure.
Council discussed the variable building sizes in the downtown area and that
there was no intent to allow the 45,OOO-sq. ft. in the downtown area.
Discussion and comments followed regarding ceiling heights, mixed use, parking
facility, affordable downtown housing, fear of unintended consequences, required
parking for large structures, availability of modern shopping, environmental and
transit issues, and referring to adopted ordinances by other cities in order to avoid
any unintended consequences.
McLaughlin explained that the number of parking space requirements, are based on
maximum size, as to not limit the parking area. If the parking area were within the
footprint of the building, it would not be counted as part of the total gross floor area.
Comments were made regarding the need for downtown residential housing and how
it would benefit the downtown area.
Ron Demele/165 Crocker/Spoke regarding the benefit of affordable housing in the
downtown area. He urged the council to create a process that would be pro-active in
encouraging affordable housing in the downtown area. He commented on a project
that would allow a large-scale tax credit in the downtown area.
Bryan Holley/324 Liberty St/Voiced concern regarding citizen participation when
scheduling a meeting for this discussion at a noon time which he felt is inconvenient
for many. He commented that he did not feel there should be requirements involving
affordable housing in this proposal and was glad to see this removed from the
language. He encouraged the Council to visit currently built large-scale buildings in
order to get a "feeling" of just how large these buildings are. He requested that the
Council consider a smaller number than 45,OOO-sq. ft. footprint and questioned
where, in our community, additional 45,OOO-sq. ft. buildings would be built.
Doug Neuman/953 Emigrant Creek Road/Commented that the design, etc.
of the building is more important than the size of the building and that
flexibility needs to be allowed, especially in the downtown area. Suggested
that current building owners who could be affected by this ordinance get
together with Planning staff to discuss these changes.
Bill Street/180 Mead/Spoke regarding the historical pattern for building footprints
and how to preserve these historical patterns. Requested that the Council considers
the need to persuade and educated the community on the vision of our community
13-~5
JAN 1 5 2004
to preserve rather than develop the downtown area. Questioned how citizen
participation was going to be encouraged. Suggested looking at various building
heights, considering how citizens outside the downtown area want to look, affordable
housing and the proposed footprint size. Urged the council to be careful when
defining residential uses and how to prevent unsightly parking garages.
Zach Brombacher/640 Tolman Creek Rd/Commented on how the community has
changed since 1967. He felt that there is a slim chance that a large business such as
Walmart would come into our area, but that there is a need to bring new businesses
to our community. He felt that the probability of any new businesses coming into our
area would be smaller in footprint than what is being proposed. He shared how this
proposed amendment would affect his property ownership. Requested that the
Council be considerate of needs that property owners and business owners may have
in the future.
Colin Swales/461 Allison Street/Commented that economic viability for our
community is based on tourism and that people will not come to our community if
the downtown area becoflles "ugly." Raised the need to keep buildings contiguous in
the downtown area and suggested a more useful definition for "contiguous." He
encouraged continued historic pattern for'the downtown area.
Larry Medinger/Voiced concern that using strict square footage criteria would not
allow flexibility when needed. Noted that there are Design Standards that can be
relied upon and to not rely on one specific criteria. Commented that the RailRoad
District area, which is in an E1 Zone, could be an area that would accommodate a
45,OOO-ft. sq. building. Supported residential housing in the downtown area.
Clarification on how this proposed amendment would affect E1 zones and the need to
diversify our economic needs for our community. It was commented that the Design
Standards are not going to be regulated, but that size and scale could be.
McLaughlin stated that staff is currently working on a recommendation regarding the
FAR (Floor Area Ratio) as directed by the Planning Commission. He explained that
FAR is a design standard and is different.
Comments regarding exceptions for affordable residential uses and the comfort level
by the community on the 45,OOO-sq. ft. or above buildings. It was noted that
conditional uses should be allowed in order to allow flexibility for the Planning
Commission.
Council voiced support of the Planning Commission recommendation of a
45,OOO-sq. ft. footprint and exceptions for affordable housing in the
downtown area. Commented on appropriateness of building height limits and
parking in the building footprint. Further discussion was requested on the issues
regarding contiguity.
Staff was directed to bring this back to the Council for a public hearing.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Barbara Christensen
~~,
JAN 1 5 2004
IH IIII
IIII ~ 1.1
City Recorder
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
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. First reading by title only of "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."
Eric Navickas/711 Faith Avel Wants the council to strictly limit the downtown
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 1575 Dogwood Way 1 Does not support the new ordinance,
and asks the council to adopt an interim resolution that would limit the
gross square footage.
Bryan Holleyj324 Liberty Stj 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 Streetj180 Mead Stj 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 1 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):
'B -f). 7
!JAN 1 5 2004
. 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..."
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.
09/16/2003
These Minutes are preliminary pending approval by Council at the October 7,2003 City Council Meeting.
DRAFT MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
September 16, 2003 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Second reading of "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."
Director of Community Development John McLaughlin presented changes
that the Council had requested at their prior meeting and requested
approval of this second reading. Some highlights of the changes include:
. adding interior courtyards as part of the footprint
. adding rooftop parking to count towards to overall square footage
. automobile Darkina in a basement must be both within the footDrint of the
buildina and in the basement, for it not to counts towards to the overall
sauare footaae.
JAN 1 5 2004
13-~8
II ~ IIII
IIII ~ 1.1
McLaughlin showed examples of current structures in the downtown area that have
underground parking for the Council's clarification. He stated that if exposure above
grade is less than 6 feet and is for more than 50% of the perimeter, this constitutes
a basement. McLaughlin clarified that parking on any other floors would count toward
to the square footage. Some of the examples shown include:
. Best Western Bard's Inn - parking would count as first floor and be included in the
45,000 sq.ft. limit.
Mayor Deboer asked where the grade would be measured from. McLaughlin clarified
that regulations state that if it's within 5 feet of the sidewalk, the sidewalk grade is
used. If it's over 5 ft., the grade is measured from the bottom of the structure.
. Plaza Suites Hotel - Around back, the wall face is fully exposed and greater than 6
feet, therefore parking would count as first floor and be included in the 45,000 sq.ft.
limit.
. Hargadine Parking Lot - McLaughlin stated that on the Hargadine side it is virtually
zero. The rooftop parking would count as well as the 2nd floor, however is was hard
to determine whether the lower floor would be included as well.
. Stratford Inn - McLaughlin stated this would count as a first floor even though it is
not visible from Siskiyou Blvd.
Councilor Hartzell asked if there are other other towns that have looked at this
particular issue, and if they can take into consideration which street has the open
view. (Especially in the downtown area where N. Main Street is on the downward
slope) Hartzell also asked if someone used their interior courtyard for parking, would
that count towards the total square footage. McLaughlin clarified that yes, it would.
Councilor Laws stated that what they are wanting is to maintain the
appearance of bulk and scale, as well as keep away corporations who will send
their profits outside of the City, and that this ordinance as revised serves those
purposes.
Councilor Hartzell voiced that Council needs to keep in mind that these regulations
are only for the downtown area, and that businesses have more freedom in other
areas of town.
Mayor DeBoer stated his concern was that we need parking downtown, and don't
know why we discourage parking under a building. He cited the examples shown
were much more pleasing than having a large lot next door for parking.
Councilor Morrison stated he was in favor of taking public input at this time, since it
seems that there is a significant amount of added sections.
Russ Dale/5S5 Allison/ Stated he was a developer, but likes to think of himself as
a community builder. He explained that he travels all over, and seeks out
communities that are similar to Ashland that face some of the same problems. He
feels that parking is still a major issue, and is afraid there will be unintended
consequences.
B-~(
JAN 1 5 2004
Evan Archerd/120 N. Second St/ Agrees with a number of things that have been
said at this council meeting, but thinks that there are a number of unintended
consequences from the changes that were recently applied. He believes they make
the development of a mixed-use building very difficult, unnecessarily restricts
parking, forbids variances, and may restrict economic development and affordable
housing. Feels the solution is to hold a public charette, and urges the Council to
delay approval of this ordinance until a charette process is completed.
Eric Navickas/711 Faith/ Feels that developers want to combine tax lots in the
downtown area in order to create one large lot, and feels this is a classic example of
why we need this ordinance passed. He feels the character of our historic downtown
is very important, explaining it is related to tourism. He wants for the Council to
remove the parking exemption and strictly limit size to 45,000 square feet. He also
stated developers have not been apart of this debate until recently and noted their
interest is based on their acquisition of the Copeland Lumber site.
Colin Swales/461 Allison Streett Spoke on the procedures for this process, and
mentioned that there have been a couple of charettes in the past. He stated a lot of
public input went in to the previous charettes, yet they still languished. He expressed
his frustration that this item was pulled from the last agenda, stating a number of
individuals have worked on this for some time and it appeared that one developer
could come in and re-write the agenda. Swales urged the Council to pass the
ordinance as is.
Bryan Holley/ 324 Liberty St/ Expressed his worries about the Speaker Request
Form, and respectfully requests that the Staff re-work the form. He stated a lot of
people who attend the Council Meetings are not regulars and are unfamiliar with this
process, and their voices deserves to be heard. Holley mentioned Bill Street's memo
and noted there were several good ideas, and asked when suggestions like this have
their time to be seriously reviewed. Holley also mentioned undoinfluence and asked
when will the citizens have the opportunity to have a one-on-one with the Staff as
the developers do.
Bill Street/180 Mead St/ Thanked Mayor DeBoer for allowing his input, and stated
that sometimes it is necessary to repeat yourself. Street focused on the footprint
issue, and asked why they would want a building in the downtown that was the size
of Albertson's. He stated only the Mark Anthony has that size, and the City has
already agreed that they will not repeat that pattern. He urged the Council to bring
down the footprint size, and asked that they apply the same vision they have for the
Historic District to the downtown area.
Tanya Beneis/ 398 Dead Indian Memorial Road/ Stated a goal of Ashland
should be to efficiently use the small area of downtown we have. She stated
allowing businesses to have parking underneath their structures would be a
more efficient use of space than having a separate lot adjacent, and does
not understand why the council would penalize the builder for that. She also
expressed that she had heard the possibility to add affordable housing to
the City's parking structure, and stated this ordinance does not seem to be
furthering that cause.
Councilor Hartzell acknowledged the request to update the Speaker Request Form,
and spoke on the idea of having a public charette. Hartzell stated that if the charette
13-30
JAN 1 5 2004
II ~ IIII
IIII a 1.1
request was granted, it could give an implicit acknowledgement that the charette
process would replace what has already been accomplished, and does not want to
hold off on passing this ordinance to hold a different public process.
Councilor Laws stated that at some point you have to quit taking input and make a
decision. He expressed that he has received numerous emails and takes each one
into consideration, but feels the Council has reached the decision-making point.
Laws sited examples of changes that were made to the ordinance as a result
of public input, and feels they have made a lot of progress. He expressed his
uncertainty with the option of holding a charette, but stated it might be a good
option later. Laws stated that he is ready to act upon this ordinance.
Councilor Jackson expressed the need to pass a limit of the total square footage. She
mentioned the downtown area being a good place for affordable housing, and
questioned whether we really needed more parking. Jackson stated she is not
satisfied with the ordinance as it stands right now, but does want to set the
45,000 sq. ft. limit tonight.
Councilor Hearn noted the two extremes on this topic, and stated it is up to the
Council to find the middle ground and make these decisions. He stated he is
concerned with unintended consequences, and stated it bothers him that the
ordinance does not provide the opportunity for variance.
Councilor Hartzell asked if someone would be allowed to build aggregate lots
downtown over the 300 ft. limit. Director McLaughlin explained that it could be
possible, although there is no present space in the downtown area to do so, and that
this clause was left out of the ordinance because there already exists contiguous
buildings in the downtown area. He clarified that design standards would mandate
that the exterior frontage of a building this size give the appearance of several
buildings, but that there may be one large store behind the face.
Councilor Morrison acknowledged to option to hold a charette and stated it should
look at what they can do and what they want downtown to be, and does not believe
this process would be dominated by developers. He stated he does not believe this
ordinance is adequate, stating the footprint maximum should be less, and the lack of
affordable housing, but will support this ordinance because it does reduce the
total size of the building.
Councilor Hearn stated he would approve this ordinance with the elimination of
section 1.E.
Councilor Amarotico requested the removal of the words "automobile parking" in
section 1.C, asking if that was really necessary since they are trying to preserve bulk
and scale.
Councilor Jackson m/s to approve the ordinance as presented, with the
exception of Section 1.C and each time it's repeated to read: "Parking areas
located within the building footprint shall not count toward the total gross
floor area." No Second, Motion Fails.
13 - 3)
JAN 1 5 2004
Councilor Hearn m/s to approve the ordinance as presented, with the
exception of Section 1.E being removed. No Second, Motion Fails.
Councilor Hartzell 1 Laws m/s approval of ordinance as presented. Roll Call
Vote: Laws, Morrison, Hartzell, Yes. Jackson, Amarotico, Hearn, No. Mayor
DeBoer, No. Motion Fails.
Council discussed what compromises can be made in order to pass the ordinance
tonight.
Councilor Hearn 1 Laws m/s to approve ordinance, with the exceptions that
Sections 1.E and 2.E are removed. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Hartzell, Morrison,
Hearn, Yes. Amarotico, Jackson, No. Motion Passed.
Councilor Jackson discussed the Housing Commissions' recommendation of passing
the ordinance as is, with the possibility of adopting amendments at a later date.
Councilor Jackson 1 Hartzell m/s to direct Staff to create amendments that
deal with affordable housing downtown, within the next 3-6 months.
Discussion: Councilor Laws stated that this motion is not necessary, explaining that
the Housing Commission is always free to address the City Council with proposed
changes, as are all of the Boards and Commissions. Jackson clarified that this would
be directing Staff to develop the possibilities, and believes that continuing to work on
housing action plan is a priority. Voice Vote: Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and
Hearn, YES; Laws and Amarotico, NO. Motion Passes, 4-2.
10/08/2003
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Minutes
October 8, 2003
Planning Action 2003-127
Land Partition, Site Review, Variance, and Administrative Variance and
Exception
212 East Main Street
Ed and Tanya Bemis
Knox reported this application is a big project for Ashland due to the grade,
complexities of the project, oddity of spaces, multiple levels, floor plan requirement
and various mixed uses (parking, commercial/retail and residential). It consists of a
partition to divide the property between the existing Ashland Springs Hotel and the
parking lot in the rear, which will accommodate the new development. The new
development will consist of four and one-half levels. Enclosed parking will inhabit the
lower two and one-half levels. Commercial and residential units will be located on top
of that. The entry to the parking structure will be on the First Street side and alley
side. The project also consists of a plaza area facing the Ashland Springs Hotel and
tB-3;(
JAN 1 5 2004
II ~ IIII
IIII ~ 1.1
will link with the New Theatre at the other end of the block on Pioneer Street.
Overall, Staff believes the applicants have done a great job so far; however, not
enough detail has been submitted. Therefore, Staff is recommending a continuance
in order to give the applicants time to turn in more information.
Knox further explained Variances and Exceptions to the Site Design and Use
Standards are being requested relating to the separation between buildings and to
allow balconies on the street facing elevations. In addition, a Variance to allow less
than 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor to be occupied by a
permitted or special permitted use. Staff does not feel the separation issue is a
problem in the downtown area because structures can be built up to the property
line. He noted that this condition would be for buildings on the same tax lot. He
stated balconies are rare downtown, however, considering they will be facing
Hargadine Street (which is residential on the south side) and the fact that they are
on a side street, they may be appropriate. He noted the City is encouraging living in
the downtown area. Nevertheless, he noted that additional detail is needed in
order to evaluate the significance of the Variance request.
Shostrom opened the public hearing.
Applicant Ed Bemis introduced himself and his wife, Tanya, to the Commission. He
stated that he has lived in Ashland a long time and he and his wife have finally found
the ideal place to live - in one of the residential units of the proposed development.
He stressed the necessity of keeping the project moving.
Architect Ken Ogden said he agrees with Knox this is a big project. He related those
involved with the development want to improve what is on the site now - a parking
surface with no landscaping. The design was kept low out of respect for the
Hargadine neighbors across the street. Maximum height is not an issue, as they are
well below the limit. He said he is perplexed about Staff wanting a continuance
because the design of the building is compatible with the Downtown core and it is
also conducive to living in the building. He related they took some of the elements
found in downtown buildings and introduced these features into the proposed
building. He also explained where the vehicle entrance points are located off First
Street. Concerning the building separation, Ogden said they are getting separation of
the mass by the vertical lines.
Ogden then turned the meeting over to his associate, David Wilkerson, who said this
building makes great strides in improving the downtown residential living. In order to
make the building work, it must replace the parking capacity that currently exists for
Ashland Springs Hotel plus provide parking for the uses in the building. Since the
proposed building is large and the elevations that were submitted are small,
Wilkerson used a 3-D computer modeling program show a portion of the structure.
He proceeded to demonstrate and explain the image on the screen. The arcade, or
plaza area, has an arch at each end and is an open canopy. Railings on the balconies
will be wrought iron. The projecting balconies are on the corner, which diminishes
the bulk of the building and creates a vertical orientation.
Giordano asked how much higher the new building will be than the existing parking
garage. Ogden responded it will be two levels higher. Wilkerson reminded the
Commission it is the City's desire to accommodate residential living in the Downtown
area. Krach inquired about the height of the Cabaret Theater and Wilkerson said he
13-33
/JAN 1 5 2004
didn't know the exact height but that the new building will be lower. He also
maintained the vertical lines break up the mass.
Bemis said the architects were careful not to copy the architecture of the hotel, but
the architecture of buildings in the downtown area was utilized in the design of the
new building.
Saladoff asked about the materials and Wilkerson replied stucco pilasters, brick and
granite will be used, which will balance the amount of glazing that was scaled back to
comply with the Standards. Giordano commented the portion of the building on the
computer helps and he feels the project is heading in the right direction. Knox
agreed the applicants have taken great strides to comply with the ordinances.
Ogden and Wilkerson stated they could use the computer to show more detail when
more information is entered. Bemis added he would like to work to NOT continue the
hearing. For the Planning Commission meeting, they will have a more powerful
computer for the program and can print large 3-D drawings. At this point, not all the
information has been entered into the computer, thus only a portion of the building
can be seen. Ogden then stated the basic materials have been identified. Knox asked
what type of block, finish, and window style and transparency will be used. He said it
is necessary to know how the material will be used together. Cross sections of
specific areas would help in the evaluation.
Saladoff stated the project can be examined at several different levels, but it is
difficult to grasp the whole project. He agreed this is a great beginning. He would like
to know what design elements were taken from the neighborhood. If approval is
granted, he said it would be necessary to see more detail as they go along.
Giordano added that he feels the applicants should get support on the Variances and
that they are proceeding in the right direction. However, he also feels that more
detailing is necessary. A portion of the building should be blown up to show the
details. Photos of buildings used in the design would help. He also said he thinks a
project of this proportion takes time to evaluate and shouldn't be rushed. He would
like to see more and have more information.
Leighton stated the project needs to be looked at as a concept using the entire block
and more detail is needed. She also noted the colored drawing has a different
roofline than the computer rendering. Ogden explained the colored drawing takes
precedence. Wilkerson stated he will take the articulation of the colored drawing and
relate it to the 3-D computer program. Leighton questioned the large mass in the
middle of the building and Ogden said it was the elevator shaft. He also said that
where the railings are drawn, the balconies are located. Knox said there is nothing to
indicate the depth or projection of the balconies. Wilkerson stated the structure will
be pre-cast concrete with a stone veneer on the base.
Bemis again stated he would like to move ahead with this project and that
with all due respect, the plans had been submitted a month prior and they
just found out Staff is asking for a continuance. Knox countered this is a
huge project for the City and Staff does not want to rush this through
without knowing or understanding the design components. Also, this is the
first time all of the members of the Historic Commission had seen the design
of the building. Wilkerson interjected there is only a small window for construction
here. Tanya Bemis added the parking portion of the building needs to be completed
13-3Y
'JAN 1 5 2004
II ~ IIII
I Ell ~ 1.1
by next June for the hotel. Furthermore, Wilkerson said they have been
workina on this oroted for the oast six months and they are just now getting to
the point to where they could bring it to the Historic Commission. They have been
taking a little at a time and fine tuning the many components.
Krippaehne said she personally feels she is getting a lot of information and that she
thinks it is premature to ask people to come in with cross sections at this time. She
sees the concept with what was submitted. Knox exolained the ordinance does
not say anythina about conceotual aooroval. With the drawings that were
submitted, it is difficult to pick up what is recessing or projecting, where the
entrances are, and overall, if the design meets the required standards. Krippaehne
argued that to expect a cross section from top to bottom and details at this point is
premature. Saladoff stated that even if the Commission were to say the applicants
are going in the right direction, it seems to be counter to the Planning Commission
because there is not enough detail. Knox agreed and said this project is of such
magnitude given the size and variances being requested, that if Staff doesn't have a
good feel or understanding that the proposal meets the criteria, then what about the
Planning Commission?
Ogden argued that details are never defined at this stage no matter what size the
project. Also, many details won't be known until the structural details are worked
out. Knox asked where the doors would be located, noting he can't see how the
project meets the design standard for "sense of entry". Ogden stated they would like
to get approval and keep the Historic Commission involved at each stage because
the design has to evolve through a sense of discovery.
Skibby declared approval would be premature at this point because more details
are needed in order to make a decision. Wilkerson said that no where in the
Standards does it call for such details. The plans will be about 200 sheets of
drawings anyway. It is premature to provide such details that might change. Knox
related that every project that comes in almost always ends up having some
changes, especially with those of this magnitude. For those minor design changes,
the process is to come back to the Historic Commission. The question is what
percentage of change should be allowed? Bemis maintained they need to be able to
go to the next stage. He would like conceptual approval, but would come back for
final approval. Ogden agreed that they would come back with each stage.
Saladoff explained that the Commission has been deceived in the past
because the design that gets approval is not what is built. Ogden said they
would like to get Historic Commission endorsements before they go on to each stage.
Wilkerson added their goal is to win several design awards so they would be willing
to agree to whatever it takes, and it behooves everyone to get approval before they
go on.
Ogden stated that when the Bemises first came to his office, they conveyed their
respect of the downtown and their desire to live on this site in a first rate quality
building. They are totally willing to come back several times. They now have the
opportunity take a derelict parking lot and turn it into a jewel. This is a win/win
situation. He assured the Commission they would get its approval before they go on
and they will work until everyone is on board with this.
JAN 1 5 2004
rg-3S'
Knox stated that to be fair to the Historic Commission and the public, there are
design issues that need to be addressed prior to granting approval. Shostrom added
that other major projects have come to the full Commission very early in the process
to get direction, including the applicant and the architect. Construction of this
magnitude is a long process and there is plenty of work to do in the meantime if
there is a continuance. He said that typically, architects would have come
before the full Historic Commission prior to this point.
Wilkerson said he would like the Commission to separate the Variances with the
design issues. He again stressed the necessity of breaking ground in November to be
finished by April.
Knox stated that with a Type II planning action, the Planning Commission makes a
decision one month, the Findings of Approval document is adopted the following
month and then there is a 15-day appeal period. This process typically takes 45
days. He stated the Planning Department could possibly work with the applicants in
adopting the Findings at a study session meeting to knock a couple weeks off the
time period if the continuance is agreed upon.
Saladoff repeated the applicants and architects need to give more
information to the Commission prior to a recommendation for approval.
Bemis asked the Commission to seriously look at the project and give enough input
so they could still go before the Planning Commission next week and then get final
approval later.
Ogden talked about the massing of the building, stating they wanted to create a
strong base. Because the gradient is so steep, the base is brought into two levels
and will be made with a stone veneer. Color tones for the base will be deeper than
the rest of the building. More glazing was integrated to meet the Standards for
commercial buildings. The floor entrances will be located where the sidewalks meet
the grade, and will be more typical of materials found in commercial buildings.
Materials will be more residential for the upper levels, using exterior pilasters and
various depths. There are no details for the railings yet. Because the upper levels will
be residential, lighter materials such as wood or metal will be used. The base is
heavier. Steel windows with divided light will be used because they are more
powerful than wood. Ogden offered to bring in samples to have the Historic
Commission look at before going ahead with their usage. Light fixtures are unknown
at this time, but would get input as details are discovered.
Ogden then said similar details in the headers and cornice moldings were repeated
(not directly copied) of the historic building across the street (Citizen's Banking &
Trust) and Ashland Springs Hotel in the design of the new building. He pointed out
the actual details were not mimicked or replicated. Since the proposed building will
begin in 2003, it needs a little venue of its own but it will be done in such a way to
respect the flavor of the Downtown area.
Shostrom stated he generally likes the proposed design. He questions the amount of
glazing, however on the First Street side. Also, floor plans would help to see how
deep the balconies are. If more details of the building were submitted, it would help
in making a decision. It is also difficult to tell what the exposed stairway on the
Hargadine Street side of the building will look like.
JAN 1 5 2004
~- 3-'
II ~ IIII
IIII a 1..1
Ogden explained the stairway will create more of a defined level and the stairs will
be an architectural feature that is repeated in the canopies. It will be a sense of
entry to the residential units. Shostrom said it would be nice to have a drawing of
how it will tie in to with the building.
Ogden and Wilkerson also explained the canopy from the new building to the hotel
and marquees, which will be over the entrances, including the vehicle entrances and
the elevator. Wilkerson also clarified the grillage in the parking structure will only be
seen from the alleyway and existing parking garage.
Shostrom asked if there would be retail units on the Hargadine Street side. Knox
answered there will be commercial and residential condominiums. Wilkerson said
they are not sure if the commercial units would be retail or office space at this time.
They will be designed with a flexibility that could change with time. Ogden added the
architects are not defining the usage. Knox said if the units turn into residential
condos, Planning would have to notice them as such because 65% of the ground
floor has to be in commercial usage. Wilkerson said that they are currently proposing
58% to be commercial, thus the Variance request.
Krippaehne asked about using access for parking from the alley between the existing
parking garage and the proposed building. Ogden responded they would like to keep
the pedestrian flow through that area so access will be off First Street and the alley
between the building and the existing parking garage. This should also reduce the
vehicular trips on Hargadine Street.
Saladoff noted the architects have talked a lot about the heavy base. He stated the
hotel has a base, middle and top. The proposed building has a base and middle but
does not seem to have a defined top. Ogden stated the tops along East Main Street
are treated with cornices. Wilkerson added they picked up lines from the surrounding
neighborhoods and tried to mix it up a bit by using cornices, sections, etc. Saladoff
said he would like to see the top finished in a nice way.
Ogden agreed with the Commission in that they want to do the building right. They
want to be proud of it and want the community to be proud of it also. They are not
proponents of the Historic Commission desires. They have clients who want to do the
right thing also.
Knox said there are traditional widths in the facades found in the Downtown and
asked if additional vertical elements creating the sense of traditional widths could be
incorporated.
Skibby stated that it sounds like the design could change quite a bit but
Wilkerson countered that no drastic changes would take place.
Shostrom commented the amount of glazing proposed for the new building makes it
feel a little transparent. Krach mentioned he had recently had the opportunity to visit
the UCLA campus and go through the new UCLA Medical Center, which is still under
construction. The building, which was designed by modernist architect I.M. Pei, backs
up against a corridor that leads to the historic core of the UCLA campus, which has
some very famous Romanesque buildings dating back to the early 1920s. The
transition between the historic buildings and the new building was defined by using
aspects of both. Krach asked about the dialogue of the original hotel with the
JAN 1 5 2004
~-- 37
proposed new building. He wanted to know how they are integrated. Ogden replied
with the replication of the base and color compatibility, the two buildings will not
scream opposition. Textures and colors will also speak with each other. The vertical
elements defined within the tower on the hotel are used along with the clear
baselines that stop at the street. They have also created a horizontal rhythm and
patterning. The clear base is a repetition of forms. It was not appropriate to replicate
the arches, but the reminiscence of the arches is used in creating the separations in
the new building. Krach expressed his wish that they will always keep in mind that
they must retain a connection between the two buildings.
Ogden said he prides himself in listening to his clients and also taking input from the
Historic Commission, which will be integrated in the design. Wilkerson added that
even though there will be separate ownership in the hotel and the new building, the
garage will be used by all. They wanted to develop something that would provide a
high caliber and feel for the hotel also because the building will also be used by the
hotel guests for parking.
Giordano stated the concept is going in the right direction. There is an opportunity in
the architecture to make a good transition between the two buildings. He said the
base is not a true base. There is a lot of glass, but to introduce less, would create
more mass.
Ogden assured the Commission he heard the concerns and will integrate them into
the design of the proposed building.
Leighton commented the Hargadine Street and plaza area sides both work as
articulation of space. The other sides repeat this. Having a heavier base than what is
shown on the plans will create a stronger block between the units. She wouldn't want
to see a checkerboard effect. Shostrom commented there is a lot of grill work.
Giordano left at this time due to illness (9: 15).
Shostrom closed the public hearing.
Shostrom asked if the Commission were willing to move this project forward with
what has been presented. He stated this is a high-end project so it seems contrary to
fast track it at this point. Since the Commission would normally see projects of
this size at least a couple times prior to this point and since this is the first
the full Commission had the opportunity to see the plans and talk with the
architect and owner, he feels the drawings are still in a conceptual stage
and not ready for approval. Skibby agreed. Krach also stated that is a very cogent
point, and although the architects and owners swear to come before the Commission
atvarious stages, he said he feels it would be forsaking the Historic Commission's
fiduciary to the public to do the very best in making decisions to recommend
approval at this point. He said there are strong points on both sides and the decision
will be tough.
Saladoff would like to figure out a way to say the applicants and architects are going
in the right direction with conditions following up this review with several reviews,
but he is concerned about the process. There seems to be a need to see the process
go through before winter and that any delay would cause the project to come to a
halt.
JAN 1 S 7004
13- 38
II ~ III1
IIII ~ II
Knox stated that legally, the Planning Commission may not be able to defer its
decision to another body nor defer to another body to make sure the Findings are
met. The Historic Commission needs to feel comfortable with the decision as to if the
design standards have been met - not will they be met. The Planning Commission
has to make the same findings. The decision the Planning Commission makes is
challengeable, which would mean even longer delays. It is important to process this
application as a whole. The Commission needs to be comfortable with the level
of details. The Commission has heard a lot of things tonight and there may be times
that the client won't agree with the Historic Commission.
Saladoff said the applicants are going in the right direction, but he wants to see
more detail. Obviously, the Commission is concerned. Skibby agreed and repeated
there really isn't enough detail to make a decision because no one knows what
the final design will look like. Everything seems too "iffy". In order to make a
decision, it is necessary to look at what has been presented.
Krippaehne disagreed and said she could personally make a judgement if the
applicants are meeting the intent of the Standards with concerns that have been
heard.
Shostrom said that when he thinks of other projects of this magnitude,
details are totally lacking with this. If the architects take all the input
received, the building would look totally different.
Krippaehne asked if buildings should be designed from the outside in or from
function. She feels the design should develop more organically.
Shostrom maintained this project should be looked at in comparison with other
projects. What has been submitted at this point to the Historic Commission
feels more like a pre-application.
Leighton stated the time element is not the fault of the Historic Commission and it
should not have to worry about when the applicant is ready to break ground. It is not
the responsibility of the Historic Commission to worry about the time schedule.
Whitford said that a couple months ago a completely different design was
presented for the pre-application conference. At that time, Historic Commission
concerns were noted and changes were made. He said he personally likes the
changes that were made, but he knows the Commission is not seeing what will
eventually get built. Before he makes a final decision, he said he needs to see
more of the final design.
Leighton questioned if two motions could be made regarding this application, one
denying it as submitted and one accepting the concept with a huge list of conditions.
Knox believed it would be fine.
Leighton moved to recommend denial of Planning Action 2003-127 as
presented. Skibby seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.
Leighton then moved and Whitford seconded to recommend conceptual
acceptance of Planning Action 2003-127, with the need for the applicants to
15-31'
VAN 1 t\ ?004
provide more specific details to the full Commission based on the input and
considerations expressed by the members tonight. The motion was
unanimously approved.
For clarification purposes, the Historic Commission would like to see plans
incorporating the following details next month:
. Elevations with a much larger scale
. Basic floor plans in order to see the size/depths of the balconies
. Cornice details
. Cross sections that show the relationship of the glass and the doorways
. Stairwell details
. Enlarged plans showing depth and shadowing
. Plans that depict the size of the proposed building in relation to the surrounding area.
lJAN 1 5 2004
"8- t-(O
II n III1
I mil ~ 1.1
Bemis Project Timeline
. October 17,2000 City Council approved OSF New Theater. Planning Director McLaughlin explained
that the parking structure was less than 45,000 gross square feet and therefore in compliance with the
1992 "Big Box" ordinance. Council did not discuss "footprint" interpretation. (See minutes.)
. November 7,2000 City Council approved Findings of OSF application. "Footprint" interpretation
appeared in OSF attorney drafted Findings; however, there is no public record that the Council was
aware of the interpretation at the time of their approval of the Findings; Council did not discuss
"footprint" interpretation. (See minutes.)
. December 13,2000 Pre-Application Conference with Ogden/Schmitz for Addition to Ashland YMCA;
Staff refers to "Big Box" ordinance, but does not suggest that Council has already approved "footprint"
interpretation. States that code revision will be necessary. (Direct excerpt from Comment Sheet):
Staff Comments: the proposed addition will bring the total gross floor area of the facility beyond the
45,000 square foot maximum. The Ashland Land Use Ordinance specifically prohibits the approval of a
variance to this standard.... Note: The City Council has directed the Planning Staff to re-evaluate the
code language for the existing 45,000 square foot standard...It is uncertain at this time the timeline for
such a code revision.
. June 12,2001 Doug Neuman's interest in developing Ashland Spring's hotel parking lot is referred to
in Public Forum at Planning Commission meeting. City Attorney Nolte's ruling on "footprint"
interpretation is referred to for the first time at a public meeting. Council has yet to discuss ruling or
interpretation in public. (See minutes.)
PUBLIC FORUM
COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, requested two items be discussed by the Planning
Commission. He would like the Planning Commission to interpret 18.72.050 C (Site Design and Use
Standards)-the "big box" ordinance. The City Attorney has ruled that the building size of 45,000
square feet is not floor area, but rather size of the footprint. This means one could possibly build a
building 180,000 square feet or more or even 225,000. Swales believes when this ordinance was
drafted it was not the intent to be able to build buildings of this size. He believes the ordinance was
intended to address floor area, not building footprint. Doug Neuman has shown a desire to
develop the back area of the Lithia Springs Hotel and it is only fair that he has an
interpretation of the ordinance.
. July 10, 2001 Planning Commission approved YMCA addition: McLaughlin used OSF "footprint"
interpretation for first time; announced amendment to ordinance will be on agenda at next PC
meeting. No discussion of interpretation. (See minutes.)
. August 14,2001 PC approved amendment to "Big Box" ordinance after brief discussion, forwarded to
Council. (See minutes)
Timeline submitted by Bill Street
1/1512004
'8,- L(I
JAN 1 5 2004
. September 4, 2001 City Council did not pass PC recommended amendment; delayed first reading of
new Big Box ordinance which would interpret 45,000 gross square feet as referring to "footprint".
Asked for more public input. (See minutes)
. February 19, 2002 City Council discussed timeline for Big Box discussion (See minutes):
Morrison noted that while sensitive to the Planning staff's workload, he believes the council owes it to
the community to thoroughly examine the issue. Hearn agreed, and emphasized that presently there is
no work in the pipeline that would be disrupted and that the community would appreciate having more
input.
. April 16, 2002 City Council discussed Big Box process (See minutes.):
Council discussed the update on the "Big Box" ordinance process, particularly if the time-line would be
adequate to protect the needs of the city. Staff clarified that while the process might trigger someone to .
try and beat the adoption of the ordinance that at this time they have no knowledge of actions that
would be a problem.
. February 11, 2003 Planning Commission, after full discussion, rejected Staff"footprint"
interpretation proposal and interpreted Big Box Ordinance to mean 45,000 gross square feet; requested
McLaughlin to report interpretation to Council. Commissioner Hanson's comments (See minutes):
Hanson did not see any reason to change the ordinance in the first place. He said "footprint" was
thrown in to the get the project approved. Seventy-five thousand square feet of building is atrocious. He
believes the proposed ordinance is a waste of time. He does not see anything in the range of 45,000
square feet happening in the downtown. There are places on Ashland Street and in that area where
larger buildings can be placed. He doesn't see having to regulate a 45,000 square foot footprint
downtown or in anyplace in the Site Review Zone. He believes it should be what the original ordinance
said--45,000 square feet gross.
. March 19,2003 Mayor responds to citizen's plea to Council (during Public Forum 3/18/03) for them
to move more promptly to endorse the PC's interpretation reached more than a month prior on Feb 11"
(See emails in packet.):
--- Original Message -----
From: Awdb@aol.com
To: colin@mind.net
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 200310:18 PM
Subject: Big Box
I visited with planning today and was assured that any project that would be 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. this would not have affected the new theater as I would still view it as two separate buildings.
We do not expect any projects of this size in the next few months. It would have affected the YMCA addition as they
are now slightly over the square footage. I might also suggest when you address Council that when you state you are
on the Planning commission that you clarify that you are speaking as a Citizen only and not representing the
Commission. Thanks!
Alan DeBoer
Timeline submitted by Bill Street
1/15/2004
JAN 1 5 2004
<J;> - If ~
II ~ 11m 1
I mil ~ II
. April,2003 Bemises began planning building project with Neumans (See Historic Commission
minutes 10/08/04)
. May 7, 2003 MacLaughlin made first report of PC recommendation at Council study session - 3
months after PC interpretation of February 11, 2003; (Excerpt from minutes.):
The Commission recommended that the Council re-interpret the ordinance where the 45, OOO-sq. ft.
applies to gross floor area of the entire structure. Council discussed the variable building sizes in the
downtown area and that there was no intent to allow the 45, OOO-sq. ft. in the downtown area.... Council
voiced support of the Planning Commission recommendation of a 45, OOO-sq. ft. footprint (footprint is
transcript error; see Commission recommendation above) and exceptions for affordable housing in the
downtown area.
Doug Neuman participates in public comment on proposed ordinance. (See minutes.)
. June, 2003 Two informal meetings: Bemises and McLaughlin; Bemises and Grimaldi (Bill Street
meeting with Grimaldi: 1112004)
. July 21,2003 Bemis Pre-application meeting booked for August 13.
. August 13, 2003 Pre-Application Meeting with Bemis; Comment Sheet (See packet) contains
references to size and location, interpretation of land use language, existing and proposed "Big
Box" ordinances; also states under existing "Big Box" ordinance: Separate buildings must be
separated by the height of the tallest building.
. August 19,2003 City Council first reading of new Big Box ordinance; direct excerpt from minutes
of meeting below - McLaughlin spoke directly after Street made his comments about "window of
opportunity" .
Bill Street/ISO 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.
. September12,2003 Bemis submitted application. Considered incomplete by staff (See October 3,2003
email quotation): there is no record of notification of Bemis of this fact in city files.
Timeline submitted by Bill Street
1/1512004
P>- '13
JAN 1 5 2004
. September 16, 2003 Council passed new Big Box ordinance after two week delay. (Reading originally
scheduled for 9/09/2003). McLaughlin and Nolte unable to complete draft of language in time. (See
Grimaldi emai19/16/2003 in packet.) Tanya Bemis participates in public comment on ordinance.
(See minutes.)
. October 3,2003 Bemis application "deemed complete" according to McLaughlin email of
12/22/2003; there is no record or notice of completion in city files. (See email in packet.)
Bill ,
Regarding the 120 days, while the application was submitted on September 12, 2003, it was
not deemed complete until October 3, 2003. The applicant also modified the request as it
was continued to the November meeting. At a minimum, the 120 days does not expire until
January 31, 2004. There is adequate time to hold a hearing on Jan. 20, 2004 in front of
the Council.
Hope this helps.
Mac
. October 8, 2003 Historic Commission reviewed application; several commissioners commented
that application is incomplete; Shostrom, chair, said it looked more like a pre-application; Knox
explained the ordinance does not say anything about conceptual approval.... Leighton then moved
and Whitford seconded to recommend conceptual acceptance of Planning Action 2003-127, with the
need for the applicants to provide more specific details to the full Commission.. ..The motion was
unanimously approved. Council Chair John Morrison becames aware of size of project for the first time.
(See minutes and emaiI10/13/2003)
. October 9,2003 Tree Commission reviewed proposed landscape plans; realized they were incomplete.
(See Review in packet.) Commission sent forward recommendations that:
1) landscape plan needs to be resubmitted with species and detail to meet minimum standards and 2)
irrigation plan needs to be submitted (none was) according to minimum standards.
. October 14, 2003 Planning Commission reviewed application; asked applicant for more details;
again, "looks like a pre-app" comments; McLaughlin informed PC that Council has authority to
reinterpret Big Box ordinance if application is appealed. PC voted 4-3 to continue to November
meeting.
. October 16,2003 New Big Box Ordinance became law
Timeline submitted by Bill Street
1/15/2004
'JAN 1 5 2004
13- "1'1
II ~ 11m 1
IIII ~ 1.1
. October 31, 2003 Wilkerson of Ogden Kistler submitted additional information necessary to
complete application; see also October 3, 2003. (See packet.)
All plans now include additional dimensions, square footage calculations, north arrows, and graphic
scales.... For your reference, we have included a Project data sheet that lists the pertinent statistics
about the building.
. November 12,2003 Ogden Kistler submitted new drawings at the beginning of meeting; PC members
declined to take time to review them. Senior planner Bill Molnar and Wilkerson (of Ogden Kistler) had
different impressions of size of project (8,000 square foot difference of opinion) . PC approved
application 4-2; Hanson absent.
. December 26, 2003 Citizens filed appeal
Timeline submitted by Bill Street
1/15/2004
'JAN 1 5 2004
13-55
City of Ashland
Department of Community Development
Bill Molnar
Senior Planner
(541 )552-2042
Fax (541)488-5311
Ken Ogden
Ogden Architects & Planners
2950 East Barnett Road
Medford, Oregon 97504
Re: Pre-application comments for an Addition to the Ashland YMCA
Ken:
Enclosed you'll find written comments from City of Ashland Staff concerning the proposed
addition to the Ashland YMCA. As I explained at the pre-ap lication conference the Cit of
Ashland Land Use Ordinance rohiblts mldings that exceed a floor area of 45,000 square feet
w en ocate within the "Detail Site Review" Zone). Consequently, the current proposa would
require a Zone Change, ultimately removing the YMCA property from the Detail Site Review
Zoning Overlay.
I have noted in my comments that the City Council has directed City Staff to evaluate the
existing size limitation standard. Specifically, the Council may consider amendin~ the standard
such that the 45,000 square foot limitation applies to the footprint ofthe structure, and not to
total floor area. At this time, the timeline is uncertain for entertainin~ such an amendment to the
ordinance. In addition, it was unclear if the building with the proposed addition would have a
footprint area of 45,000 or less. I will keep you posted with regards to the City's timeline for
pursuing such an amendment to the current code language.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call.
B-5'b
~AN 1 5 2004
12. (0/2-1 h
II ~ IIII
I III a 1.1
The comments of this pre-app are preliminary in nature and subject to change
based upon the submittal of additional or different information. The Planning
Commission or City Council are the final decision making authority of the City,
and are not bound by the comments made by the Staff as part of this pre-
application.
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE
COMMENT SHEET
Date: December 13, 2000
~
SITE: Ashland YMCA
APPLICANT: Ogden/Schmitz
REQUEST: Multi-Purpose Weight
Room Addition
ZONING: C-1; Commercial
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS: 15% -- site, size, and species specific landscaping
plan required at time of formal application. Include street trees, 1 per 30' of street
frontage. Also include trees in parking area - 1 tree per 7 parking spaces. Avoid using
lawn. Provide irrigation system.
PARKING, ACCESS, AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION: As per recognized professional
studies (i.e. ITE Parking Generation)
LOT COVERAGE: 85 percent
SETBACKS: Standard setbacks for the zone --
SIGNS: as per 18.96
STAFF COMMENTS:
1. 45,000 Square Foot Maximum (Gross Floor Area)
The proposed addition will bring the total gross floor area of the facility beyond
the 45,000 s uare foot maximum. The Ashland Land Use Ordinance specifically
pro Ibits thp. ~pprov::ll1 of a \lariar:lc~ to t~IS san ar. onsequen y, e app ant
is faced with the following options: -
13-$7
JAN 1 5 ZOO(
. Detach the addition, creating a separate structure from the existing facility;
or
. Apply for a Zone Change, requesting that the portion of the property
occupied by the facility be removed from the City's Detail Site Review
Zone (DSR).
A zone change may be approved when one of the following conditions
exists~ -
A. A public need, supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
B. The need to correct mistakes.
C. The need to adjust to new conditions.
D. Where compelling circumstances relating to the general public welfare
require such an action.
A public need. supported bv the Comprehensive Plan.
. Provision of Health & Fitness Opportunities for Low-Income Households
(Can't meet their needs without the facility)
. Provision of Health & Fitness Opportunities normally provided by the local
government (Le. City of Ashland) at rates lower than private providers
. Scholarship Data - Household income data
. Minority Data - Comprehensive Plan Goal
. Facility Size Comparison with like communities with similar population
fig u res
. Membership Rate Comparison - Other YMCA's in Oregon and local
private providers
. Parking Survey - Photo Documentation (Monday through Sunday)
. Diversity of Populations Served - Toddler through Senior
. Existing Community Partnerships - ex. With City, School District (Le. after
school programs), other.
NOTE: The City r.nllncjl h::t~ directed the Planninq Staff to re-evaluate the code
languaae fnr the QxistiAg 45,000 iq"::trA foot standard. They might entertain
modifying the standard such that it only applies to the footprint of the structure,
rather than total gross floor area. If this is done, the current proposal may comply
with a 45,000 square foot, footprint maximum.
It is uncertain at this time the time line for such a code revision.
2. Required Off-Street Parking
JAN 1 5 2004
13 - sg
IH 11m 1
I mil ~ II
The comments of this pre-app are preliminary in nature and subject to change based upon the
submittal of additional or different information. The Planning Commission or City Council are the
final decision making authority of the City, and are not bound by the comments made by the Staff
as part of this pre-application.
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE
COMMENT SHEET
Date: 8.13.03
SITE: 1 st & Main Street
APPLICANT: Ogden & Kistler/Bemis
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit and Site
Review for the expansion and modification of
an existing hotel use. Variance to 18.32.025:
Special Permitted Uses:
-
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.
ZONING: C-1-D
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS: Site, size, and species specific landscaping plan required at time of
formal application. Include street trees, 1 per 30' of street frontage. Also include trees in parking area - 1
tree per 7 parking spaces. Avoid using lawn. Provide irrigation system.
PARKING, ACCESS, AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION: as per the Off-Street Parking chapter 18.92
LOT COVERAGE: 100%
SETBACKS: Vision Clearance at intersections/comers and driveways.
SIGNS: as per 18.96
*************************************************************************************************************************
********************************************..******************************************************..*******************
BUILDING DEPT: See attached comments. Obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. Contact
Mike Broomfield of the Building Division for further information - 552-5073
JAN 1 5 2004
'B - ~f'
'--
CONSERVATION: See attached comments. Contact Dick Wanderscheid of the Conservation Division for
further information - 488-5306.
FIRE DEPARTMENT: See attached comments. Contact Dave Hard of the Fire Department for further
information - 552-2218.
STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION: Contact John Peterson of the Street Division for further information -
552-2345.
WATER AND SEWER SERVICE: Contact Mike Morrison of the Water Quality Division for further
information - 488-5353.
STORM WATER DRAINAGE: Provide drainage plan for all paved areas at time of building permits.
ELECTRIC SERVICE: See attached comments. Contact Scott Johnson of the Electric Department for
further information - 552-2307.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: The size and location of the Dropo~al, as well as use raises many
issues related to design and the interpretation of existing land use languaQe. Also, th~ timing of the
application could be impacted by proposed changes to Ashland's "Big Box" ordinangl.
Additional meetings will need to be held to determine the full nature and extent of the proposal, as well as
to evaluate the applicability and consistency wnh land use ordinance provisions. Staff would suggest the
project team include a land use planner well versed wnh the provision and purpose of local land use
provisions, as well as Oregon land use law and opinions.
Based on the information provided, Staff has identHied major areas wnhin the proposal that merit thorough
discussion. As noted above, additional meetings will be needed and are advised in order to flush out all
relevant issues and impacts associated with the proposal.
I. Process and Procedure
1. Proposed Use - ExpanslonIModification of an existing Hotel, with the addition of
Residential Use.
. CUP required for expansion/alteration of existing hotel use
. Variance required for the omission of 65% of the ground floor area in a
permitted or special-permitted use, other than residential.
. Interpretation of ground floor
. What are the unique or unusual circumstances, benefits versus potential
impacts from the variance, relationship to Comprehensive Plan policy
(Downtown Plan, etc.)
Staff recommends that the inclusion of retail or office space at sidewalk level should be
considered. At a minimum, the design and findings should support the future adaptation to a
13 - ~O
JAN 1 5 2004
II ~ 11m 1
I mil ~ 1.1
commercial use.
2. Compliance with existin9 "Big Bny" Ordinance
-I<
. Existing ordinance sets a maximum footprint of 45,000 square feet and a
maximum length of 3oo-feet. Separate buildings must be separated by the
height of the tallest building.
. Does the proposal present one or separate buildings
JY
3. Compliance with proposed "Big Box" Ordinance
. Proposed changes set a maximum floor area of 45,000
. No separation required for separate buildings within the downtown area
. Non-ground level residential use and non-ground level parking uses are exempt
from the proposed maximum gross floor area cap.
. Must interpret ground-level
4.
5.
II. Site and Building Design
1. Compliance with Site Design and Use Standards chapter 18.72
. Subject to Basic, DSR and Large Scale requirements
. Need off-street parking calculations for Hotel Use. All spaces required for hotel
use must be available for patrons.
. Additional parking for residents and their guests (while not required) should be
considered.
. Impact on on street (curbside parking). Specifically, impacts from Limousine
parking and drop-off areas.
. Extension of a direct mid-block (along 1 st Street) pedestrian corridor through
to the existing pedestrian corridor extending from Pioneer Street (adjacent 0
New Theater) is strongly advised.
. Public Sidewalks along the perimeter of the project (1st & Hargadine) must be
widened to correspond to standards for commercial areas and sidewalk width
found in the downtown.
. Design must comply with Vision clearance standards at intersections and
driveway entrances. Design must insure that vehicles existing 1 st Street parking
structure can see and stop for pedestrian on the sidewalk prior to encroaching
upon the sidewalk (Le. tapered entrance to allow for view of sidewalk).
. The application must evaluate Traffic Impacts compared to the "Target Use".
Traffic study to evaluate needed improvements (for vehicles and pedestrians).
13- 6 (
JAN 1 5 2004
· Public or Quasi Public Space requirements - one square foot shall be provided
for every 10 square feet of gross floor area.
2. Compliance with Downtown Design Standards
· Findings must address how the proposed design complies with all applicable
standards.
· Design exceptions may be needed for Atrium (introduction of incompatible roof
form?) or other design elements?
· Six to 10-foot blank walls section along 1st street appear inconsistent with
Downtown Design Standard VI-D) "Openings".
"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"
In addition, the Commission has had considerable discussion and concern with
the introduction of tall walls adjacent to the public sidewalk and impact on the
adjoining pedestrian environment.
.
III.
*************************************************************************************************************************
*************************************************************************************************************************
APPUCATlON PROCESS: Type 11- Public Hearing before Full Commission
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS:
(1) 2 copies of Plans as required in the Site Design and Use chapter 18.72:
18.72.060 Plans Reauired. The following submittals shall be required in order to determine the
project's compliance with this Chapter:
A site plan containing the following:
A.
B.
--)C.
-/D.
E.
Project name.
Vicinity map.
Scale (the scale shall be at least one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet or larger.)
North arrow.
Date.
~ - fo~
<JA~ 1 ~~884
II n 11m I
---YG.
H.
I.
J.
-7N.
-;i>.
.-7> a.
-----? .
~.
v.
--?W.
I mil ~ II
F.
Street names and locations of all existing and proposed streets within or on the boundary
of the proposed development.
Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines.
Zoning designations of the proposed development.
Zoning designations adjacent to the proposed development.
Location and use of all proposed and existing buildings, fences and structures within the
proposed development. Indicate which buildings are to remain and which are to be
removed.
Location and size of all public utilities in and adjacent to the proposed development with
the locations shown of:
1. Water lines and meter sizes.
2. Sewers, manholes and cleanouts.
3. Storm drainage and catch basins.
4. Opportunity-to-recycle site and solid waste receptacle, including proposed
screening.
The proposed location of:
1. Connection to the City water system.
2. Connection to the City sewer system.
3. Connection to the City electric utility system.
4. The proposed method of drainage of the site.
Location of drainage ways or public utility easements in and adjacent to the proposed
development.
Location, size and use of all contemplated and existing public areas within the proposed
development.
All fire hydrants proposed to be located near the site and all fire hydrants proposed to be
located within the site.
A topographic map of the site at a contour interval of at least five (5) feet.
Location of all parking areas and all parking spaces, ingress and egress on the site, and
on-site circulation.
Use designations for all areas not covered by building.
Locations of all existing natural features including, but not limited to, any existing trees of a
caliber greater than six inches diameter at breast height, except in forested areas, and any
natural drainage ways or creeks existing on the site, and any outcroppings of rocks,
boulders, etc. Indicate any contemplated modifications to a natural feature.
A landscape plan showing the location, type and variety, size and any other pertinent
features of the proposed landscaping and plantings. At time of installation, such plans
shall include a layout of irrigation facilities and ensure the plantings will continue to grow.
The elevations and locations of all proposed signs for the development.
Exterior elevations of all buildings to be proposed on the site. Such plans shall indicate
the material, color, texture, shape and other design features of the building, including all
mechanical devices. Elevations shall be submitted drawn to scale of one-inch equals ten
feet or greater.
A written summary showing the following:
1. For commercial and industrial developments:
-----A. The square footage contained in the area proposed to be developed.
K.
L.
M.
O.
R.
S.
JAN 1 5 2004
13-'3
b. The percentage of the lot covered by structures.
~. The percentage of the lot covered by other impervious surfaces.
~. The total number of parking spaces.
~. The total square footage of all landscaped areas.
3. For all developments, the following shall also be required: The method and type of
energy proposed to be used for heating, cooling and lighting of the building, and
the approximate annual amount of energy used per each source and the methods
used to make the approximation.
(2) 2 copies of written findings of fact addressing the following criteria for Site Review
approval:
18.72.070 Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an
application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the S~e Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the S~e Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter.
****
Proposal must demonstrate compliance w~h these sections. Also, written findings
must address the following these sections based upon evidence/plans provided in
the record:
A. Basic Site Review Standards;
B. Detail Site Review Standards;
C. Standards for Large Scale Projects;
D. Criteria for Downtown Area Development;
E. Downtown Design Standards; and
F. Compliance wlDowntown Plan
Note: VI-I<) 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;
2) There is demonstrable evidence that the attemative 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).
JAN 1 5 2004
tB-~tf
II ~ [1m 1
I mil ~ 1.1
3) The exception requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting
the Downtown Design Standards.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban stonn drainage, and adequate transportation can and will
be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991)
(3) (2) copies of written findings addressing the following criteria for approval of a Conditional
Use Permit for a Hotel Use or alteration of the existing Hotel Use:
18.104.050 Approval Criteria. A conditional use pennit shall be granted if the approval authority
finds that the proposed use confonns, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. That the use would be in confonnance with all standards within the zoning district in which
the use is proposed to be located, and in confonnance with relevant Comprehensive plan
policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban stonn drainage, and adequate transportation can and will
be provided to and through the subject property.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the
impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of
the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the
following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target
use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian,
bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of
facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive
Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the
proposed use.
4. Also to be Included with such application shall be a statement and evidence showing that
all of the following approval criteria for a Variance exist (for providing less than 65% of the
ground level In a permitted or special permitted use:
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
JAN 1 5 2004
<B -?s
the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 S1, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or condttions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.(Ord.
2775, 1996)
5. (1) copy of plans on 81/2" x 1111 paper stock for inclusion in Planning Commissioner Packet
-)6. eft' (9) copies of landscaping plan. should comply with minimum standards for landscaping
plans (green sheets).
--
NEXT APPLICATION DEADLINE: September 12, 2003
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: October 14, 2003
FEE: Conditional Use $1500.00
Variance $750.00
Site Review $750 + Y2% of total project value
Applications accepted on a first come-first served basis with the
-:ft' first 15 COMPLETE applications submitted each mont~
processed. Additional applications will be processed th{' ·
following month.
8. IS,03
Date
JAN 1 5 2004
~-"
II ~ ~.I
I mil ~ II
CITY OF
ASHLAND
/ < ( ~. (" . <,
J~)~~~~J,j~~)~JLJe;i\TrQ)f~1 ~~()rl r;~{~~~lG~ '
~~~--~~~-~-~~
REQUEST DATE: 7/21/03
PROJECT LOCATION 1 t & M .
APPLICANT: Oqden & Kistler/Ed Bemis
PHONE
s am Planning
Code Compliance
: 779-5237 D. Wilkerson Water
Electric (x2)
d Sprinqs Hotel) Engineering
Fire
Police
Street
TIME: 3:00 Conservation
Building
. , .. " I"
County/ODOT
TYPE OF PROJECT: Site Review - Mixed Use Building (Ashlan
(for staff use only)
CONFERENCE DATE: August 13. 2003
Department Comments
i,/-~
#/
/
~ &i11/1J~
<fir
Pre-Application Fonn.doc
Last printed 07/28/03 10:41 AM
r.l'
JANl 5 2004
13-fo?
.. We do not expect any projects of this size in the next few months. "
----- Original Message -----
From: Awdb@aol.com
To: colin@mind.net
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11 :18 PM
Subject: Big Box
I visited with planning today and was assured that any project that would be 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. this would not have affected the new
theater as I would still view it as two separate buildings. We do not expect any projects of this
size in the next few months. It would have affected the YMCA addition as they are now slightly
over the square footage. I might also suggest when you address Council that when you state you
are on the Planning commission that you clarify that you are speaking as a Citizen only and not
representing the Commission. Thanks!
Alan DeBoer
Submitted to Planning Department 1/15/04 by Bill Street
Include in packet for Public Hearing 1/20/2004
!JAN 1 5 2001
8-~8
II n 11m I
v
I m~ ~ 1.1
t'age 1 or .)
JBStreet
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
"Gino Grimaldi" <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>
<jbstreet@ashlandhome.net>
"John mclaughlin" <maC@ashland.or.us>
J.u.esday, se;mber 16. 2003 8:12 AM
Re: Big Box rdinance Delayed?
Bill,
The last delay was to give Mac more time to work out some of the
language issues raised by the Council. At issue was how to define
automobile parking areas located in the basement. The Council also had
some concerns about section 1, subsection 2. Tha~ section refers to
both footprint area and gross floor area. The resolution of those two
issues look obvious when you read the ordinance that will be before the
Council this evening, but it did take some work by Mac and Paul Nolte.
It was felt that we should take the time to get it right rather than
risk putting something forward that was flawed. Our intent and goal
was to get this to the Council at their last meeting.
I am reluctant to give you 100% assurance that someone will not take
_ ~ advantage of the development opening that you mention because there is
/" probably a scenario out there that could result in someone taking
advantage of the opening.
I hope I have addressed your issues. Please let me know if you need
additional information.
Gino
>>> "JBStreet" <jbstreet@ashlandhome.net> 09/15/03 07:45PM >>>
Gino,
Thanks for your quick reply.
I do understand that the Second Reading is on this Tuesday's agenda.
But it
should have been "read" two weeks ago.
Was there an explanation given when it was pulled on the Friday before
the
meeting? My paragraph below which addresses this issue asks for an
explanation for the delay. I hope you or Mac will provide one.
I am concerned at this point that we need to move this ordinance
forward
before someone takes advantage of the development opening that
presently
13-~T
JAN 1 ::> 200410/15/03
Page i 01 L
JBStreet
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"JBStreet" <jbstreet@ashlandhome.net>
"Alan DeBoer" <awdb@aol.com>
Monda~ October 13 ?nn~ IHiO PM
"Semis gden Kistler Application
Hi Alan,
John Morrison caught me by surprise Thursday evening at the Black Sheep. He
said he had been at the Historic Commission meeting the night before learning
about the Bemis project.
I personally had been led to believe that the Bemis/Ashland Springs application
would be less than 45,000 square feet. I had a good look at it today and the
visible above ground size is over 60,000. How could this have happened?
Do you remember our discussing this possibility over two years ago? You made a
point of saying to me that the Council would keep a close eye on the applications
and Planning Staff would let you know if anything over 45,000 was on the horizon.
As you can see below, you said much the same thing to Colin Swales in an email
of last March. This was after the Planning Commission had voted unanimously to
interpret 45,000 as gross square footage. 50, what has happened?
What can you do now to stop this application from going forward?
Will you attend tomorrow's Planning meeting?
Bill
"We do not expect any projects of this size in the next few months. rr
- Original Message -
From: Awdb@aol.com
To: colin@mind.net
Sent: Wednesday, March 19,200311:18 PM
Subject: Big Box
I vis' s foota e
would comA tn COUR('il fnr intArpr~t~tinn nf how WA view it I will honor e p annm t r ss
-:!9uare fgatage, n~ footprint. this would not have affected t e ne a er as would still view it as two separate
buildings. We do not Axpect any proiects of this si7A in the next few months. It would have affected the YMCA
addition as they are now slightly over the square footage. I might also suggest when you address Council that
when you state you are on the Planning commission that you clarify that you are speaking as a Citizen only and
not representing the Commission. Thanks!
Alan DeBoer
- Original Message -
13-70
~JAN 1 5 2001
11/12/03
II n 11m 1
I m~ a 1.1
Page L or L
From: Colin Swales
1X To: Ashland City Council; Paul nolte ; John McLaughlin; Gino Grimaldi; Fran berteau
Sent: Thursday. March 13. 20031'!=;6 PM
Subject: Big Box interpretation - endorsement of PC decision
Mayor and City Council,
At the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission on 2/11/03 the proposed changes to the "Big Box" ordinance
were discussed.
The decision was made to recommend to the council that they "interpret" the gross sq. footage of the
ordinance to mean "gross floor area" .
:t ~ome concerned citizens have asked me to reauest that you, as a body, endorse the PC's recommendation ()J
this "intArprAtation" pending further discussion surrounding this subject at the Council Study session which in not
scheduled until May 7th. Any changes suggested at that meeting would have to go through the long public
...jy hearing process and ~es opportunity for applications under the previou~'i!1terpretatio!:!:~hi_ch was the
/' p~ma reason for the PC's recommenaatlon to act now.
Such an endorsement of the Planning Commission s ecision was missing from your last meeting and I do not
see it on the agenda of the upcoming meeting.
Could you please find time, perhaps during your "Other Business from Council Members" at the March 18
meeting to include such an endorsement of the PC's decision.
thanks
Colin Swales
Planning Commission.
8-71
!JAN 1 5 200~
11/12/03
Page 1 of 1
Bill Street
From: JBStreet Ubstreet@ashlandhome.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:46 AM
To: Bill Street
Subject: Fw: Bemis Ogden Kistler Application
----- Original Message -----
From: Awdb@aoLcom
To: jl:>~treet@ashlandhome. net
Sent: Mondav. October 13, 2003 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: Bemis Ogden Kistler Application
First, I have stated at Council meetings that we will use the Planning Commission interpretation. Mac ~ys that he
is still using the old interpretation and that it takes a change to move that interpretation. I am disappointed that h~
did not brin<;1 this to Council if it is the case. I will not attend the meeting as I want to remain impartial if it comes to
Council on appeal. Does your square footage include parking?
Alan DeBoer
~JAN 1 5 2004
1/14/2004
B-7~
II n ~.I
l mil ~ II
Bill Street
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
John mclaughlin [mac@ashland.or.us]
Monday. DecAmhAr ?? ?oOJ 1'10 PM--
BiII.Street@ashland.k12.or.us; Bill Molnar; Mike Franell; Gino Grimaldi; mac; Paul nolte
RE: FW: Bemis Appeal
Bill,
~
Regarding the 120 days, while the application was submitted on September 12, 2003, it was
not deemed complete until October 3. 2003. The applicant also modified the request as it
was continued to the November meeting. At a minimum, the 120 days does not expire until
January 31, 2004. There is adequate time to hold a hearing on Jan. 20, 2004 in front of
the Council.
Hope this helps.
Mac
>>> Bill Street <Bill.Street@ashland.k12.or.us> 12/19/03 09:59AM >>>
Thanks Gino,
Yes, I would like to know the answer to my question today, if possible. The
answer may affect how we prepare the appeal. With the holidays approaching,
it's difficult to get everything done in time.
Cheers,
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Gino Grimaldi [mailto:grimaldg@ashland.or.us]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:25 AM
To: Bill.Street@ashland.k12.or.us
Cc: Paul noltei Lee tuneberg
Subject: Re: FW: Bemis Appeal
Bill,
Paul was out of the office yesterday afternoon. He is also out today but
will be back on Monday. If you need something prior to Monday, let me know
and we will track down an answer.
Regarding your question about where to bring the appeal and the fee. Please
bring it into the front counter that downstairs in City Hall. This is the
same place that people corne in to pay utility bills. You should ask for a
receipt for the appeal fee if they don't offer to give you one.
Gino
>>> Bill Street <Bill.Street@ashland.k12.or.us> 12/19/03 07:59AM >>>
Paul,
Did you receive my email of yesterday? (See below.)
Please reply,
Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Street
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 11:00 AM
> To: 'Paul nolte'
> Cc: 'Gino Grimaldi'
> Subject: Bemis Appeal
>
>
>
Paul,
I need further assistance from you regarding the timeline for the Bemis
~JAN 1 5 2004
1
'6- 7.3
> appeal. How does the 120 day rule apply to this application?
> Specifically, how can the the city comply with its 20 day notice of appeal
> rule and the state's 120 day rule? I believe the Bemis application was
> filed on September 13. See below.
> Thank you,
> Bill
>
>
>
> Statutory Deadlines - Oregon law specifies that local governments must
> render decisions on
> land use permits within 120 days for cities, and 150 days for counties, of
> receiving a complete
> application for such a permit. Any local appeals -- for planning
> commission to city council, for
> example -~ are included in that time limit. There are similar time limits
> on LUBA's decisions.
> In total, the state's land-use planning program serves to increase the
> predictability of land use
> decisions for everyone.
>
> 18.108.110 Appeal to Council
> 3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place
> of the hearing on the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties
> at least 20 days prior to the hearing.
>
2
f3-7lf
VAN 1 5 2004
II ~ ~.I
I m~ ~ II
Bemis Project Timeline
. October 17,2000 City Council approved OSF New Theater. Planning Director McLaughlin explained
that the parking structure was less than 45,000 gross square feet and therefore in compliance with the
1992 "Big Box" ordinance. Council did not discuss "footprint" interpretation. (See minutes.)
. November 7,2000 City Council approved Findings ofOSF application. "Footprint" interpretation
appeared in OSF attorney drafted Findings; however, there is no public record that the Council was
aware of the interpretation at the time of their approval of the Findings; Council did not discuss
"footprint" interpretation. (See minutes.)
. December 13, 2000 Pre-Application Conference with Ogden/Schmitz for Addition to Ashland YMCA;
Staff refers to "Big Box" ordinance, but does not suggest that Council has already approved "footprint"
interpretation. States that code revision will be necessary. (Direct excerpt from Comment Sheet):
Staff Comments: the proposed addition will bring the total gross floor area of the facility beyond the
45,000 square foot maximum. The Ashland Land Use Ordinance specifically prohibits the approval of a
variance to this standard.... Note: The City Council has directed the Planning Staff to re-evaluate the
code language for the existing 45,000 square foot standard...It is uncertain at this time the timelinefor
such a code revision.
. June 12,2001 Doug Neuman's interest in developing Ashland Spring's hotel parking lot is referred to
in Public Forum at Planning Commission meeting. City Attorney Nolte's ruling on "footprint"
interpretation is referred to for the first time at a public meeting. Council has yet to discuss ruling or
interpretation in public. (See minutes.)
PUBLIC FORUM
COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, requested two items be discussed by the Planning
Commission. He would like the Planning Commission to interpret 18.72.050 C (Site Design and Use
Standards)-the "big box" ordinance. The City Attorney has ruled that the building size of 45,000
square feet is not floor area, but rather size of the footprint. This means one could possibly build a
building 180,000 square feet or more or even 225,000. Swales believes when this ordinance was
drafted it was not the intent to be able to build buildings of this size. He believes the ordinance was
intended to address floor area, not building footprint. Doug Neuman has shown a desire to
develop the back area of the Lithia Springs Hotel and it is only fair that he has an
interpretation of the ordinance.
. July 10, 2001 Planning Commission approved YMCA addition: McLaughlin used OSF "footprint"
interpretation for first time; announced amendment to ordinance will be on agenda at next PC
meeting. No discussion of interpretation. (See minutes.)
. August 14,2001 PC approved amendment to "Big Box" ordinance after brief discussion, forwarded to
Council. (See minutes)
Timeline submitted by Bill Street
1/15/2004
. September 4,2001 City Council did not pass PC recommended amendment; delayed first reading of
new Big Box ordinance which would interpret 45,000 gross square feet as referring to "footprint".
Asked for more public input. (See minutes)
13-7S
. February 19, 2002 City Council discussed time1ine for Big Box discussion (See minutes):
Morrison noted that while sensitive to the Planning staffs workload, he believes the council owes it to
the community to thoroughly examine the issue. Hearn agreed, and emphasized that presently there is
no work in the pipeline that would be disrupted and that the community would appreciate having more
input.
. April 16, 2002 City Council discussed Big Box process (See minutes.):
Council discussed the update on the "Big Box" ordinance process, particularly if the time-line would be
adequate to protect the needs of the city. Staff clarified that while the process might trigger someone to
try and beat the adoption of the ordinance that at this time they have no knowledge of actions that
would be a problem.
. February 11, 2003 Planning Commission, after full discussion, rejected Staff"footprint"
interpretation proposal and interpreted Big Box Ordinance to mean 45,000 gross square feet; requested
McLaughlin to report interpretation to Council. Commissioner Hanson's comments (See minutes):
Hanson did not see any reason to change the ordinance in thejirst place. He said "footprint" was
thrown in to the get the project approved. Seventy-jive thousand square feet of building is atrocious. He
believes the proposed ordinance is a waste of time. He does not see anything in the range of 45,000
square feet happening in the downtown. There are places on Ashland Street and in that area where
larger buildings can be placed. He doesn't see having to regulate a 45,000 square foot footprint
downtown or in anyplace in the Site Review Zone. He believes it should be what the original ordinance
said--45,OOO square feet gross.
. March 19,2003 Mayor responds to citizen's plea to Council (during Public Forum 3/18/03) for them
to move more promptly to endorse the PC's interpretation reached more than a month prior on Feb 11"
(See emails in packet.):
-- Original Message --
From: Awdb@aol.com
To: colin@mind.net
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:18 PM
Subject: Big Box
I visited with planning today and was assured that any project that would be 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. this would not have affected the new theater as I would still view it as two separate buildings.
We do not expect any projects of this size in the next few months. It would have affected the YMCA addition as they
are now slightly over the square footage. I might also suggest when you address Council that when you state you are
on the Planning commission that you clarify that you are speaking as a Citizen only and not representing the
Commission. Thanks!
Alan DeBoer
Timeline submitted by Bill Street
1/15/2004
13-71,
III ~.I
I mil a II
. April, 2003 Bemises began planning building project with Neumans (See Historic Commission
minutes 10/08/04)
. May 7,2003 MacLaughlin made first report of PC recommendation at Council study session-3
months after PC interpretation of February 11, 2003; (Excerpt from minutes.):
The Commission recommended that the Council re-interpret the ordinance where the 45,OOO-sq.fl.
applies to gross floor area of the entire structure. Council discussed the variable building sizes in the
downtown area and that there was no intent to allow the 45,OOO-sq.fl. in the downtown area.... Council
voiced support of the Planning Commission recommendation of a 45, OOO-sq. fl. footprint (footprint is
transcript error; see Commission recommendation above) and exceptions for affordable housing in the
downtown area.
Doug Neuman participates in public comment on proposed ordinance. (See minutes.)
. June, 2003 Two informal meetings: Bemises and McLaughlin; Bemises and Grimaldi (Bill Street
meeting with Grimaldi: 11/2003)
. July 21,2003 Bemis Pre-application meeting booked for August 13.
. August 13, 2003 Pre-Application Meeting with Bemis; Comment Sheet (See packet) contains
references to size and location, interpretation of land use language, existing and proposed "Big
Box" ordinances; also states under existing "Big Box" ordinance: Separate buildings must be
separated by the height of the tallest building.
. August 19,2003 City Council first reading of new Big Box ordinance; direct excerpt from minutes
of meeting below - McLaughlin spoke directly after Street made his comments about "window of
opportunity" .
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.
. Septemberl2,2003 Bemis submitted application. Considered incomplete by staff (See October 3, 2003
email quotation): there is no record of notification of Bemis of this fact in city files.
Timeline submitted by Bill Street
1/15/2004
. September 16, 2003 Council passed new Big Box ordinance after two week delay. (Reading originally
scheduled for 9/0912003). McLaughlin and Nolte unable to complete draft oflanguage in time. (See
Grimaldi emai19/1612003 in packet.) Tanya Bemis participates in public comment on ordinance.
(See minutes.)
~-77
. October 3,2003 Bemis application "deemed complete" according to McLaughlin email of
12/22/2003; there is no record or notice of completion in city files. (See email in packet.)
Bill,
Regarding the 120 days, while the application was submitted on September 12, 2003, it was
not deemed complete until October 3, 2003. The applicant also modified the request as it
was continued to the November meeting. At a minimum, the 120 days does not expire until
January 31, 2004. There is adequate time to hold a hearing on Jan. 20, 2004 in front of
the Council.
Hope this helps.
Mac
. October 8, 2003 Historic Commission reviewed application; several commissioners commented
that application is incomplete; Shostrom, chair, said it looked more like a pre-application; Knox
explained the ordinance does not say anything about conceptual approval.... Leighton then moved
and Whitford seconded to recommend conceptual acceptance of Planning Action 2003-127, with the
need for the applicants to provide more specific details to the full Commission.. ..The motion was
unanimously approved. Council Chair John Morrison becames aware of size of project for the first time.
(See minutes and emaiII0/1312003)
. October 9,2003 Tree Commission reviewed proposed landscape plans; realized they were incomplete.
(See Review in packet.) Commission sent forward recommendations that:
1) landscape plan needs to be resubmitted with species and detail to meet minimum standards and 2)
irrigation plan needs to be submitted (none was) according to minimum standards.
. October 14, 2003 Planning Commission reviewed application; asked applicant for more details;
again, "looks like a pre-app" comments; McLaughlin informed PC that Council has authority to
reinterpret Big Box ordinance if application is appealed. PC voted 4-3 to continue to November
meeting.
. October 16, 2003
New Big Box Ordinance became law
Timeline submitted by Bill Street
1/1512004
. October 31, 2003 Wilkerson of Ogden Kistler submitted additional information necessary to
complete application; see also October 3, 2003. (See packet.)
13-7g
II ~ 1m I
I fi~ ~ 1.1
All plans now include additional dimensions, square footage calculations, north arrows, and graphic
scales .... For your reference, we have included a Project data sheet that lists the pertinent statistics
about the building.
. November 12, 2003 Ogden Kistler submitted new drawings at the beginning of meeting; PC members
declined to take time to review them. Senior planner Bill Molnar and Wilkerson (of Ogden Kistler) had
different impressions of size of project (8,000 square foot difference of opinion) . PC approved
application 4-2; Hanson absent.
. December 26, 2003
Citizens filed appeal
Timeline submitted by Bill Street
1/15/2004
13-lr