HomeMy WebLinkAboutBemis Exhibits (1/20)
Ashland Chamber of Commerce
January 16, 2004
/'-_..... 7'.~ . . """
I t ,,:y ot Ashland
1 . PL,i:ming Exhibit
I E)(\i1l3!1' ~. I
t2~:::-_~ STAFf ___
Mayor and City Council
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Friends,
I am writing this letter to let you know that today, Friday, January 16th, I previewed the
plans for the mixed use development project from Ed Bemis that is being appealed to you
for your review and approval. While I cannot speak for the Board as they were not
presented the plans in time for their review, I can say that the project as approved by the
AsWand Planning Commission was impressive.
Encouraging residentiaVcommercial development in the downtown area enhances our
local business activity thorough the visitation of those residents in downtown businesses.
Since infill is encouraged in AsWand, it would seem to be a good idea to incorporate
parking underground and utilize the above ground space for commercial activity. As you
know, retail space in the downtown core is always in demand. I can also say that I
thought that the design incorporated like building design of the surrounding area and
would improve the foot traffic for those businesses facing the development on First Street.
Thank you for your on-going leadership in the future direction of our beloved City.
Sincerely,
--1'\ "
j/w~ uJd~
Dana Welsh
President
Ashland Chamber of Commerce
110 East Main Street · P.O. Box 1360 · Ashland, Oregon 97520-0046
(541) 482-3486, ext 15 · (541) 482-2350, fax
www.ashlandchamber.com
Cit:..' of Ashland
P:a.nning Exhibit
I ,,~~",;'!Cc-_ '2--~
,.'_TE STAFF
c.,.:l4.IU V8!t; ~UU~ C~~ t 9~
.
227.1'78 Final action on certain appli-
catioDS required within 120 days; proce-
dure; exeejltions. refund of fees. (1) Except
as provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this
section, the governing body of a city or its
designee shall take ffual action on an appli-
cation for a permit, limited land use deciSIon
or zone change, including resolution of all
appeals under. ORS 227.180, within 120 days
after the application is deemed complete.
,,... ..-.
(3) If the application was complete when
first submitted or the_ applicant submits the
requested additional infonnation within 180
days of the date the application was first
submitted and the city has a comprehensive
plan and land use regulations acknowledged
under ORS 197.251, approval or denial of the
application shall be based upon the standards
ana criteria that were applicable at the time
the application was first submitted.
. . .
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF PLANNING ACTION 2003-127
ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
City of Ashland
Planning Exhibit
EXHIBIT ~ ?
PA#
PATE STAFF
January 13, 2004
To the Ashland City Council:
I have reviewed the plans and elevations submitted to the Planning Department, and
would like to voice my support for this important project. The Ashland Springs Mixed
Use Development complies with the City's Land Use Ordinances, Site Design Standards,
and Downtown Plan in several important ways:
. It provides commercial and residential uses that are in keeping with the stated
development goals of the Ashland Downtown Plan,
. It maximizes the potential of a bleak surface parking lot through infill
construction that screens parking f~om public view, while leaving a portion of the
site available for pubic amenities.
It accommodates the existing hotel parking requirements without impacting
vehicular traffic flow in or around the site,
. It creates a pedestrian- friendly streetscape "edge" on both Hargadine and First
Streets that is in keeping with the aesthetic of Downtown Ashland and the
surrounding buildings,
. It creates a pedestrian "link" in the alley directly behind the hotel, connecting to
the pedestrian plaza behind the New Theatre and the mid-block pedestrian path
under construction behind Earthly Goods,
· It locates retail and commercial spaces directly adjacent to the sidewalks and
pedestrian plaza, to further enhance and enliven the streetscape,
· It locates residential units above retail and commercial spaces, in keeping with the
Downtown Plan's stated goal of "living above the store," and
. This project will be good for Downtown!
SIGNED:
Address / Ci t
Phone Number
l(rs2-03~2-
(f~ e" _~ '
2- 33 (\.toJrYYA..1 AJe
J I '1 ~71i- /fL/E,
3 f 9 (jj)~ CCA dL
I y! j 1
81 ;/~y-111t7>t U? r
:/h J ~~~/tY
. ,,\~
6BZ -2 7.3E)
1c?2-S-74t
'+ ~ ;J" - r;- 7 '1---y::
~'->':?i0
. 'S-2 -7?:iz,/
h'[/jw7i!~G:.
I/c?;';;l -iJ R j~.
Cf. - A - 6~J'-E:
'+~{)'-2J~ O}
Page_of_
J1
C} . j/ t 'JI~
5:J.. ( I cvlM<A- "
l! <6i- -.J '_ (J c(
SIGNED:
Name
S i gnature
Address / City
Phone Number
~)#~~1iJI f~~/iI!-;{~~~~g-! ~~-1111i
1f2.qe J7C:::1iL::lL /~~ ~. V?'t-- <-'t) '7 l .) 1'; K...I ~: (7L In' 1 rJ ~ Y ~ l . Y II {
.. , '- ~ / !
\) Iff;;.. ,. CJ I;;" ()
1-t). -0 fd-<J
'I~2.. '\) , 1.-
1./ J.: 7 _-I ., f)' ()
L"/f ,) t
B9l)-4/~O
t(~j -cl)J~
l 2--3/~(
-U>V
Page_of_
SIGNED:
Name
Signature
Address / City
Phone Number
21~~~f:(: ^~~ ~2- 'M~
~z.. .CG4C
4ee3 · -;1S';
. ~tU1d I.IfZ.tJ21t,
,/ /' /
fk,A)wJ 'i g '6-;;2(,,3 '1
1/20 f3(J VY I 'k 8 r;/ c-
rJ( f ;J . (p ~ if'
3 L -iZ.I~ 5~. iZ(] Jio.-J cJ-. -- %ill
;~)~ (0/50-<- .::?3'1 )1-5/A- Sf dS;(~ I!, 1Yd'0?/S~
I {, Z-a::J ~''. v2. ^-5f,23
I
1:Z~ W6Sl NpJfrOA 51' f} 5tj\JT,vD) Of(. 9/ ~ zc 4aG ~bbl\
,(;)/1 ^ - ,J)6f al~~ '7 7$;2u {/~-It@
~ c!?1~ r to w~t'Aj~Y-/ ~L {Jtr.j~ Cf15J'CV 1(& 1/2 ~1
Page_of_
SIGNED:
Name
Phone Number
T ,/ .r
tA\i q~~DtdAK..
V,",/ ~
~\ow- \< (C\.v,( ~~'~k flLl ~6l1/V--
~) D
/?l4-/f /?1ohAII $~~
.\v~ J-~653
f~
l c]t c f-\ k \"m lLl A\-!'1LIkt"!') t.[ /i~
1 ~ ~ A \ VV' (' J c. S-\- A ~ l \ ~~'- c.-^ a lZ. Y <6'6 - L ~ L S
q<; l- tit.! t../ C)
gs-s- A,,/( <;1..tI:-~ Ils/'Ic.J 01. ..
Page_of_
SIGNED:
Name
CS ~~cI "~II <.
UJOdc:(
Signature
Phone Number
LJ ~2- 'to?
LJ.gZ 4!OL
~]'
~ 1-4N'
300
~-6633
1f1~-66J>
t/()
Page_of_
SIGNED:
Name Phone Number
2.-:> ( ~ 7 Ce:::J. c)
1D / -C}9'~
,,;t~ 82-"$5D9
liB 2 - ~ ')"S- E)
./
/
-; -/
~3 / LlMr )((!, 5 ,5r
5~:;)-/fd/7
Page_of_
SIGNED:
Phone Number
Page_of_
SIGNED:
Phone Number
Lf~u ~~l<<
'1'71 ~?10~7CI
'~ :{ ).- ) () J- ?
4'B '2--2 L ?s2:~
4f(-jizz..
L. - .~ -5622:.
. I~S- 'T-efl1'l ,4v~ ~ ,,~. if{. (~ (l~ 8- 'IB q 7
Page _ of _
SIGNED:
Address / Cit
Phone Number
c5L/ / -15c~2 - 036 ~
Page_of_
SIGNED:
~ame ~a~u,/e r " Add, ress / Cit~, /
$'14-~ ~ ~ L-L/,~/L-
, .---- -::::..----::;;>
t: rico us ~ /x -----' 'i d 3 e r f-a G- ~
Phone Number
'- r~'-r ;;? CJ g 7 d_-
If fl3 - 3 0 ') 5-
305 C HE LJ..../
1 to -:; B gt~
'-I80~ 3y.,~3
JI f''t~ 5'?"70
l/'Y;4; -1..1'7;>&
48:Z~5i 0
.-.-
35( -'1555
Lt, <i ~ - Lf-)3o
Page_of_
SIGNED:
Name
<c-=:f :>-~~
t4CO
,-\-<g L - <:;:::. \=
Address / Cit
Phone Number
5 (.~ I 6J~jl,~ tn-~ lef ~_:f) - C l-;? i
l'fzp 17L'~L !/!Y.~D 4h GS"'d'1
~?3/ilHf~A. ~~ 'if ~ -Yf7>
Page_of_
I 1 11
SIGNED:
Address / Ci t
Phone Number
t/f2~ t./N3
8~ -6~,
L/ t:-7 - '~,~," C.:::.. ",.."
I J-L~ ~ 5 ~
",~-?~~
L /68-(') c <0 C)
Page_of_
SIGNED:
Name
Signature
Phone Number
~ ~ -0:5(' )
Page_of_
~d~ff;pi:;e:/
1~!G" LC'Oct
, . " '. )
~ \ ~ ~~ ~,--Q cQ) ~ {J.-s t----QCU,- Q
~~.~~ ~LLpp~t-- 'ilu-
~ct~~ ~"2c&( ~ ~L+--
~~1.. ~CSL~--J-C~~ ~ (S2M. 1Lu--
~~~ ~\ ~1LQ c;~if L~
~~~ 9-6\-. ~, ~,-~+u-~il
~ f-Z~ -r~~'-t
~4 ~ ~ cS;'~~~
/72 s:- )3rl'~'~ ( s:rc;
,~~?--- 3 ~o ~
\~\i~\ \ ~ \\v~^A - \\~f' \\~~\
,~~. '~..~ 'lw,\ ~(. ~ ~ ) - Qt\ U
cf1rtf:r-,. L )~r.. Y"./\-C~
~). ~
10 ~/,. ~J-{ /
M~&' 9::fJ10
~ ~'J,.~ (7;' 6--5
212 East Main Street Ash/Cln 10
,_ CL regan, 97520
Phone; 541-488-1700 Fa'" ./,. 08
_ L .s z m z <:. 5 4 1 - 4 0 - 1 70 1 l(' l(' l(' ash / "n / . l' h /
" u C.S )rzngs ate .com
SIGNED:
Name
Address / Cit
Phone Number
~~'\~
feZ-I flY}
rro- ot~~
Page _ of _
I 1
SIGNED:
Name
Address / Cit
Phone Number
~~'\~
10:2,( fJf}
\ cvCZ\ -J ~
,/
D,"r\LIt] i-1f?c/<~'i y/-vv/t'A
t3 ~- /,
11(~ . rA-IC~ ~;h ~.t-- q?~/-T~~cIt-, cV/2 L( %t--%Of, r-
- ,
\ftcl--'a~L -r;-'bCOGt, t~144:6S OlD \"+(,,)\./ 5"lS -([Ll-13Eb
. I
f' fj f) ---1-17
~(e",-f S-"35-zJl{fJ
c,f&$-BC?3)
/3 -j frl()I<VV~C:L4~ OR.. ~#V-ffl/J U4.
75Zl)
Page _ of_
I I 11
City of Ashland
Planning Exl}ibit
EXHIBIT ~ q.. .
PA#
DATE
Ashland Springs Mixed Use Developmen
Square Footage and Use Summary
TOTAL BUILDING AREA
81 ,212
LESS BASEMENT AREA
-23,245
TOTAL ABOVE-GROUND AREA
57,967
LESS ABOVE GROUND PARKING
-23,671
TOTAL ABOVE-GROUND COMMERCIAL
AND RESIDENTIAL AREA
34,296
-l (") (") " J;1 (") r
0 0 0 =;. Ol 0 m
-l ::J ::J ~ N ::J <
)> 0. 0. ~ Ol en m
0 0 CD
r r < r
r r 0 CD
CD CD CD < Ol
< < ~ ~ .-+
~ ~ 0
m -<
N ...... ~ r
0 CD
Ol <
::J ~
()
CD
r
CD
<
~
;0
m
en
a
m
z
-" ...... -I
m m j;
r
'"\J
)>
;0
"
Z
G>
'"\J
C
OJ
C
en en 0
'"\J
)>
;0
"
Z
G>
:I:
0
-I
m
m ...... .J>. r
(Xl w m <0 '"\J
)>
;0
"
Z
G>
-I
0
-I
co W .J>. )>
<0 0 0 .J>. m <0 r
01
-..J
W
-l (") (") " 'lJ (") r
0 0 0 =;. OJ 0 m
-l ::J ::J ~ N ::J <
)> 0. 0. ~ Ol en m
0 0 CD
r r < r
r r 0 CD
CD
CD CD ~ < Ol
< < ~ 0-
~ ~ m -<
N ...... ~
r
0 CD
Ol <
::J ~
()
CD
r
CD
<
~
;0
m
~ en
~ 0
s::: m
::s Z
::;: -I
N ...... III j;
.J>. en (Xl
i-v ):.. (Xl r
m .J>. ...... I
0 N (Xl
.., 0
CD
r+ 0
Dl
3:
III 3:
-
0 m
@ ;0
.... 0
.en ...... w .., j;
0
...... <0 ...... ::s r
...... .J>. -..J -
(Xl (Xl 0 III I
(') 0
0 0
::s 3:
c..
0 3:
3 m
::s ;0
-. 0
m m s::: j;
en en 3 r
...... ...... III J
01 01
19B
~:s:
0.3:
~!B
.., 0
...... ...... ,,-
-. )>
01 01 ~r
-..J -..J
UJ UJ J
::T
0 "tI
- )>
!!!.. ;0
- 2S
(')
w ...... ...... 0 z
...... W 01 N ::s G>
<0 (Xl N (Xl c.. I
.J>. 01 W .J>. 0
0 m -..J -..J
0
;0
3:0
mC
or
...... :I:~
...... UJ .J>. N ...... . 0
(Xl ):.. i-v ...... .J>. 0,
0 0 N (Xl W en Z
m m -..J N en m -
-I
0
-I
)>
r
(Xl ...... ...... ...... ...... )>
...... (Xl <0 <0 (Xl .J>. ;0
i-v Co 0, 0, Co ):.. m
...... .J>. m en ~ 0 )>
N (Xl 0 <0 N W
:s: -l -l c:
::i" 0 0 en
![ .-+
3" ~ )>
s::: (") CfJ Gl
3 0 s::: m
3 -a
(") 3 -a 0
0 0 ~
3 CD ::l-
0 c
3 () ~
!iI en
CD CD
0
() CfJ en
!iI -a S-
Ol
CfJ () Ol
CD 0
-a ^
Ol lJ S'
() 0 (.Q
CD 0
;0 < QO
0.: 9.
CD CD
..c 0. 0
C ()
=;. c
CD OJ
0. ~
0' 0
::J
0 ......
CfJ
-a
CD
()
iir
'lJ
CD
0
3
.-+
CD
0.
C
en
CD
"tJ
)>
;;0
"
z
Gl
o
~
~
......
N UJ
--..J i-v
...... 0
.J>. m
w
......
Co
.J>.
o
......
......
Co
o
m
.J>.
01
W
......
<0
)>
OJ
0
Ii <
m
G>
w N UI ...... ;0
~ w .... co CD CD 0
-N '"m <0 Co en en C
<0 -..J 0) .J>. m 01 Z
m ...... .... (Xl 0 <0 0
OJ
I~ )>
en
m
3:
N ~ ...... m
w 0 w (Xl .J>. Z
'0 N Co ):.. -I
-..J -..J .a:.. .J>. 0
0 CJ1 U1 N UJ
111
c:
r-
o
z
Gl
o
~
(") I m
00><
3 ~ ~
0" S"
S" " (.Q
CD 0
0. 0 I
-0 0
" 0 ~
g ~
-oCfJr
::::!. N' 8-
~ CD CfJ
N"
CD
S-
..,
o'
..,
0-
-a
Ol
S:
o'
::J
S'
(.Q
......
)>
..,
CD
Ol
w ...... .J>.
N N .J>.
...... en N
w -..J -..J
o 0 m
:s: -l
S' 0
3' ![
c 'lJ
3 ~
~ (')'
Q: CfJ
o' -g
CfJ ()
-a CD
Ol 'lJ
() ..,
CD 0
<
;0 0.:
CD CD
-@ 0.
=;.
CD
0.
'lJ r OJ r en
C8-c8--1-
Q:(")O:CfJm
o' 0 S. N'
CfJ < (.Q CD C
-g ~ 61 ~
~ cg % ~
..,
~
(")~'lJ
~ 0.: ~
::l- CD CD
'< ::J en
Ol CD <;
o 0. fir
0. CfJ ::J
0.: 'lJ
CD OJ
~ ~
^
en
(Xl(XlNNUJ~<O~
womenmCJ1i-v
~g~~it~~~
c...."
~ ..,
!:: ~9
D) -.
~ ~
I\) .....
00
1\)0)
0.....
00)
~
en
:T
CD
CD
.....
'TI)>
.., (J)
(J) :T
..... -
Qo~
Xo.
0) en
"'''0
(Q ..,
0) -.
o.~
-. (Q
~ (J)
CD s:
en _.
.....><
.., CD
m 0.
ene:
(J)
)>CD
(J) 0
~CD
0) <
~ CD
0.-
'" 0
0"0
.., 3
CD CD
(Q ~
o .....
~
~ ~CI a
-. Ul '" ~
8 - :::r- !a.
l5 Qo _ =
.:o! _ CCI
~ ::r _ ~
g~ ::I lS..
....CC1 a.. "<
CI 0..
CI.. '" _.
:i"-a ~
<D ... a
=. -- a
c; :I ."
<Dca
\it'"
-;; 3
'" --
==><
CI C'D
= -
.ca.. _
..
o C
cZ'"
o C'D
= a..
a..
C'D
<
C'D
-
o
-a
=
C'D
::s
...
i~~ :
I~~
i@:i
~ to;. (1)
!l! ("t) .,
)>-
);
~
fI)
fI)
S'
co
C/)
2'
~
It:
~I
Ii
h
t
3:
Q)
~
:r
co
~
a
'<
It
J
f'
...
.. i
'l
, I
:.:
----- ~'T4
I
I
,J
s:
Q)
~
S'
co
C/)
...
c:
Co
'<
n
}I
~:
~i
~iil
laf
i~7;l,~~
"'1'" ..,', ' '''''''';'1
';t','~~~J;lr:':";il'~.\1
\,;",.,,t """'''''.,."
. .,., """"1
;.""'"",ltl'.) ......:'..,~.,
\;:~~:~i1 i~;t';:'iI';1
....'_\."~.'.,..I~.~f.; "'. ;;,~: (.1-:"'-';
/-rr.',:.i 10 ';:~:,::'~i:, "~:';:_~
'" """,.,'- ..".,.!.~ I
:j';"i't;{:'~I';;"V.:\
.' ,.",.,,1, ","',;. ;;,.."'.:.t
~~;':i\~~!1. N "i~V':a
Ul{
il
;1
""'...,..."", '
..,.""'....
.........
'\.
"'\.'\
"
~\
\
Ulm
Cf-
If
5'
s:
Q)
fI)
fI)
5'
co
C/)
-
c:
Q.
'<
n
t
11I
~
&'
~
So
~
!II.
f
...
~
J
~
f
'< --
""-
,0 -.
Ci'~
::1-
:5Qo
-<
~ =-
::5c
=....,
-l'>o(Q
C
c
'"
=-
-
C
=
a..
..
o
....,
(1)
(Q
o
=
3
--
><
CD
CL.
c:
'"
CD
CL.
CL.
CD
<
C'D
-
o
"'C
3
CD
::I
....
8
~
o
~
<
'"
1;;
-0
:>:l
~
:I:
I
:r
o
z
'"
!!l
o
'"
'"
15
z
o
to
C.
CD
:::::J
^
-.
en
......
...-
CD
.,
:t>
):>
'"
...
c
CD
...
o
3
'"C
C
...
;;;-
o
::iI
r. I 111
::;=-
Ci'~
;g-
ctlO
~
to,):::r-
g~
..,.(c
C
Q..
::i"
(1)
VI
-
... :::I
mea
pr'"
~ 3
:::r- -.
c ><
~ ('D
.?- a..
o
...
(1)
(C
o
~
Q i !!!.
'" !'! N
=-~~
_ 0
Q 3
:::I -g
a.. a.
o
'" ::::s
""C
~
-.
c
'"
('D
a..
a..
('D
<
('D
-
o
""C
3
('D
::I
...
~
~
<
~ (I)
~ rw~!i.:J
e;
:r
I
S "
:z
~
c '!>'l~
'"
Ul
i5
:z
~
, -.
0,. en
,.....
,.,...
(I)
.,
""~
,*!~
)>
:;
Q
Q
Q
c-
o
n
::ll:""
c-(1)
.a cz
<1> '"
- -
[3
"'!:! cz
:r --
-=
-
Q
Q
c-
o
n
::ll:""
c-('t)
.a cz
<1> '"
- -
[3
"'!:! cz
a 5-
~
Q
Q
c-
o
n
::ll:""
c-('t)
.a cz
<1> '"
- -
[3
"'!:! cz
a" 5-
_ "C
~ c-C
cg ca ....
.; ~ cz
Q 0" c-
~ 2. -
~..~ 0
.... -. ""
t'D2, ~
~
Q
Q
c-
o
n
Cl _ ::ll:""
~ ~ C'D
~~ ~
- --
o 0
~.a- 3
~ir S. E.
- =
"'U
w
10
(l)
o
.....,
N
'. ,
391E09BC
-l
000(0(00)
;:!S::S::S::S::S::
.....wwwww
r- -, -, -' -. -.
::l ::l ::l ::l ::l
UHf) en en en
~;+";+":-+:-+
(0
o
O..:...a.~-'--.Io
8CXl--.jWN
_0000
.j:>.0000
-
s:
Q)
'~
-.
:J
o
-
en
:1"--
.j:>.
"U;)Q)
N-..J
.....c..u
....
.... c..u c..u ......
.:....
c.o
c.o
....
.... c..u w...... c..u
:..., ......CXl--J 0
W NGlC:l 0
U1 U"I c.") c:: C) C)
W
...
Co
CJ1
'"al
....
.j:>.
UI
0)
......
.p..
.j:l.
-
::r
CJ1
W
N
o
CJl
c..u
N
o
-l
o
-
(..) III
c.om-..Jc..u./::>.O)~
W (0 -..J CJl CJl m
c.o N 0:; () N OJ
CJ1W./::>.OCOO
o
o
o
OJ
-
o
o
"
m
Q)
en
.....
s:
Q)
-.
:J
(J)
.....
.
391 E09BB
-l W-i'>-
o WO
-l s:: s::
:t>ww
r- -, -,
::l ::l
~~
r
}>
;0
G)
m
;0
"
o
o
-l
"'U
;0
Z
-l
(..) W
"U;)<.D
NN
00
....
c.o
"U;)
.....
(..)
(..)
c.o
N
o
o
o
N
.....
00
....
W
391E09BB
OJ
OJ
o
^
en
::r
(l)
(l)
"0
r;o}>
o w -
c ...., (l)
(i)' (l) x.
en- m en
Dl
::l.
::r
-lCJ1-i'>--i'>--i'>-WWNN............CJl
o <.D.....CJ1......-..JCJ1.....CJ1W......s::
-lS::S::S::S::S::S::S::S::S::S::Dl
:t> ~,~,~.~.~,~.~,~.~.~. S'
r- ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l en
en en en en en en en en en en:-
:-+:-+~:-;+":-+r+;r-;t":-+
Ien;o
o 3 (l)
::l Dl ~
^~Q
o ::r
::l Dl
10 ::l
OJ 10
Dl (l)
....,
~
;0
G)
m
;0
"
o
o
-l
"'U
;0
Z
-l
c.o c.o (Xl CXl CXl CXl 00 --.j ..... ..... ~.
NOCOooO>CJ1-i'>-C'Ooo.....O>
00000000000
00000000000
I\)
I\)N........... -i'>--i'>-............
'"alc" -CJl tn (00 "0 "..!::.. N
OOOO-..JOOOOOO
mOOON0CJ10OOO
CJ1!
'N ::s:.,
CJ1 ::;;ll.
W'mr:}
.-..;
CIi
w F
c.o ./::>. ...... ..... ...... -i'>- -i'>- ./::>. CJl ...... W .....\Il'
:..., Cl)u, u, .~OO -.....(0 NO en .' j~
I\) NO-..J./::>.OOOo)CJlONCJ1~~:
o CJl 0 N CJ1 CJ1 0 00 0 0 CJl 0 .:"..',
N
::l
Co
N
m ./::>.
:""N
CJ1 0
m w
-i'>- ./::>. CJI...... .....
OWONCP:"'"
o Cl C 0 -..J ..... '
OCPooC;-JO
(..)
...
Co
r
}>
;0
G)
m
;0
G)
;0
o
(j)
(j)
en
N
m
CJ1
o
o
o
vI
C
o
o
.j:l.
-
::r
o
-I
o
-
CD -"" -"" -"" ---l. J\.) DJ
.j:l. ~.~~!,>.~!,-,.~:-"_N~.~T
a CJl 0 ..... W ...... 0 C.7I 0 ./::>. CD 0 ,"
CO.....O./::>../::>......O./::>.CJlOO.....
Nmo./::>.CJlOO.f:>.OOOW
c
o
~
Z
-I
o
~
z
)>
en
::I:
.-
)>
Z
C
OJ
c:
-
.-
C
-
Z
C)
en
o
c:
)>
:;0
m
"
o
o
-I
)>
C)
m
)>
z
)>
.-
-<
en
-
en
'"0
tIl
(0
CD
N
o
-
N
'. 'II 111' '
391E09BD
r
)>
;:u
G)
m
;:u
TI
o
o
-i
'"0
;:u
Z
-i
-iNNNNNNWNNN
S ~~2J;~:ng~g~~fd
>:s::s:s:::s:::s:::s::::s::s:s::::s:
~ tIl tIl tIl tIl tIl tIl tIl tIl tIl tIl
5. 5' 5. 5' 5. 5' 5. 5' 5' 5'
(J)(J)(J)(J)(J)(J)(J)(J)(J)(J)
:r-r+;t";"";t"r--~:-+:-+:-
OJ(J):S:'"UOJ~~O'"OC:
CD (ij. CD tIl 0 roo CD :y
tIl CD- ::!. ::J 0 0 - E ::::j, -.
0....,CD(03C:-3CDtIl
CIl Z CD -, l(O ()......
""" tIl CIl CIl 0" - v
:::.. 0 0" CD 0 -. (J) tIl
g..., C otllo~
::J3 . IE(J)
tIl 0 ......
::J ...... -, :J
~go
CIl CD
CIl
o
-
m
-
o
o
3
en
C"
. t:
III .,
'=..,<
9; ..
,~jO
?to
~:~,."~ -
At:
cti3
~
C"
-.
Q)
~::I:
0.0
f"'to-
CO
(0(0(0 to <0 to <0
ooooooo.\:>..\:>..\:>.
OOOOOootOcocn:
0000000000
--..!cnU'1.\:>.WN......OOO
N
OONN->. W->.->.tONN
):. OO(O(()WCoCno'~Co
c..;I -..j())0-.... ......(OOJOWN
.... .p.. 01 ->. ->. -..j eJ1 OJ <D 0 ..~
....
..p..
(}1
en
o
(.!.; I\; N
C~ ~".J 0:.
'::..:) W ~
~, ....:- ':"} .....!r.
c..;I
...
a.
o
.po.
.+
::r
o
-i
o
....
.po. Dl
NNN...... W-.-~CO(Jl(Jl-
CD 0 (;, (.0 (~) (,J c:n .~;~ "c ~ (~n
CO -..j CX> 0 ->. ->. to OJ ->. OJ -I'>
....-I'><J1->.->.-..j<J1OJOJON
391E09BD
-i NNNN
Q-I'>-I'>-..IOJ
....W-..I<J1W
>s::::s::s:s:
~ tIl tIl tIl tIl
S' S' 5' S'
(J)(J)(J)(J)
r"'"":-+:-+r+
-
-
r
)>
;:u
G)
m
;:u
TI
0
0
-i N
'"0
~ N
b
z N
-i O'l ....
;.",. ::r
Uf,' -.
N ~. Q)
.!>- -I'> OJ W -..j 'TI
O'l N OJ co OJ ',C
(}1 0) OJ N OJ "I'~ 0
.... OJ 0 0' 0 t:
N
:J ::s
a. f"'to-
Q)
N -.
0 ()) eN -..j ::s
c..;I (Xl CO OJ Qo
CO en N 0)
(}1 C) (JI CJ
c..;I G)
...
a. .,
r -.
)> -
-
::u -
G) CO OJ
m CO OJ
::u CO CXJ
0 0
G) .po.
::u .-
0 ::r
(j)
(j)
(j) CO ex;
N CO OJ
CO (Xl
m 0 (.)
-i
0
.-
CO -I'> N Dl
.po. CO ."'- OJ W -
CO (Jl :r--. CD C)
N VJ ("...) (j'1 -I'>
N N C) C) r:::)
391E09BA
r
)>
::u
G)
m
::u
TI
o
o
-i
'"0
::u
Z
-i
)>'"UOIOJ
=tIl::JtIlO
CIl 8: CD 3. 6-
g 5. ~ ~ tIl
-(0 0 ::J CIl
en ~ -, ::r
o -)>CD
::J 0. C
(J) ......
...... 0
tIl
......
o.
::J
-
"'tJ
Q)
Q.
Q.
-.
::s
,CQ
....
"0
'e::, ::s
'flj' en
~ cn->......NN'~....
c.n ~ mm -<0 .~ "tJr. ~
-..j 0 0 N N N~. _.
(,.) -..j000(j):l1i~.0
;.:..
~. ::s
I\,) ":r............
01 Q).-I'> -I'> W 0) 41'
N ~ 6 6 (oml~r-:
"'4 0 0 0 OJ 0 "':':
O-..lOOOW"
N
:J
a.
.po. ~
'0 CJ
o 0
o c:
w
...
a.
o
1::
::r
o
-I
o
....
.po. ..... Dl
~ .!0 ~1 ~O~) 5.0 -
co 00 GJ (!.) OJ OJ
.po. ......C.'JND::N
W ~C')C)C"'(0
c
o
:E
z
-I
o
:E
z
)>
en
J:
.....
)>
Z
C
OJ
c:
-
.....
C
-
Z
G)
en
D
c:
)>
;;0
m
'T1
o
o
--t
)>
G')
m
)>
z
)>
r
-<
en
-
en
I(~ City of Ashland
. Planning Exhibit
I E~:'i'f'q tc....- 5
! 1),~ ~";t ----
Additional public input received from January 16 (after council
packets prepared) until January 20 (4:00 p.m.)
regarding Appeal of Planning Action 2003-17.
I 1 "
1I 1 I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
January 9, 2004
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Mike Franell, Assistant City Attorney
Reinterpretation of the city's big box provisions,
Ashland Land Use Ordinance ~ 18.72.050.C and
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards ~ II-C-3-a-2.
With the filing of the Bemis appeal (Planning Action # 2003-127) to be heard by the city council
on January 20, 2004, questions have been raised as to whether the council may reinterpret the
big box provisions applicable to this appeal.
RE:
As background to this issue: the council adopted new Commercial Development Standards
including specific limitations on the size of the buildings in the Detail Site Review zone in 1992.
A limitation of 45,000 sq. ft. was imposed. These standards were developed through an
intense and highly publicized public process. This limitation on square footage was contained
in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) ~ 18.72.050.C and the Ashland Site Design and
Use Standards (Site Design Standards) ~ II-C-3a)2):
ALUO & 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone.
A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted
pursuant to Section 18.72.080.
B. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards
adopted pursuant to this chapter, which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in
length or width, shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure.
C. No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall
exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of
300 feet. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which
were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or
length. Neither the gross square footage or combined contiguous building length as set forth in
this section shall be subject to any variance authoriz~ in the Land Use Ordinance. (Emphasis
added. )
1 - Reinterpretation Opinion
G:\legaI\Office\ALOPs\R\reinterpretation big box final opn.wpd
I 1 IT
11 a I
Site Design Standards & II-C-3a) Orientation and Scale
1. Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to
human scale by incorporating changes in building mass or direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct
pattern of divisions on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting.
2. No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings shall exceed a gross square footage
of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Any building or
contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, and which were in existence in
1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. (Emphasis
added. )
3. Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a diStance equal to the
height of the tallest building. Ifbuildings are more than 240 feet in length, the separation shall
be 60 feet.
4. All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate a streetscape which includes curbs,
sidewalks, pedestrian scale light standards, and street trees.
In 2000, the City Council approved an application by the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF)
and in the process interpreted the 45,000 sq. ft. limit of the ordinance as applying only to the
footprint of a structure, and not to the gross floor area square footage:
"The City Council does not interpret "gross square footage of 45,000 square feet" to
mean gross floor area square footage. This quoted phrase is to be interpreted as
meaning 45,000 square foot footprint. It is to be distinguished from those provisions of
the land use ordinance that specifically refer to gross floor area such as in section II-C-3
of the Site Design and Use Standards ("Developments (1) involving a gross floor area in
excess of 10,000 square feet. . ." Emphasis added.) The City Council finds that the
parking structure does not exceed a footprint of 45,000 square feet. Even if the
limitation were to be interpreted to mean "gross floor area" the parking structure does
not exceed the maximum allowed. During the City Council public hearing, Ashland
Planning Director John McLaughlin testified that his staff had carefully computed the
gross floor area square footage of the building and found it to be less than 45,000 gross
floor area square feet. Mr. McLaughlin attributed the deviation to measurements taken
by opponents from the exterior limits of the building rather than the interior limits. He
further testified that the City always computes building gross floor area square footage
based upon the interior size of a building and emphasized that even without subtracting
the planter areas along Hargadine Street, that the building floors were less than 45,000
square feet. The City Council accepts and adopts the findings of its Planning Director
and concludes that the parking structure does not violate the provisions of either ALUO
18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2."
In 2003 after extensive public hearings and meetings before the planning commission and the
city council, the council amended both the land use ordinance and the site design standards to
change the 45,000 sq. ft. restriction to apply to the gross floor area square footage (Ordinance
No. 2900 adopted September 16, 2003):
2 - Reinterpretation Opinion
G:\Iegal\Office\ALOPs\R\reinterpretation big box final opn.wpd
ALua ~ 18.72.050.C.2. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or
expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a
gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft., including rooftop parking, with the following exception:
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not
count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any
floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as
provided in the building code.
Site Design Standards ~ II-C-3a)2)
*****
Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings
shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft.,
including roof top parking, with the following exception:
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not
count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any
floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as
provided in the building code.
The question has now been raised as to what latitude the council has to change the
interpretation in the OSF case to make the 45,000 sq. ft. limitation applicable to gross floor
area square footage for applications received before the effective date of these recent
amendments.
In reviewing the relevant court decisions and statutes regarding a governing body's
interpretation or reinterpretation of its ordinances, there are several general principles that
have been established. Under Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508, 514-15, 836 P2d 710
(1992), the courts are required to give deference to a local government's interpretation of its
own ordinance provisions, so long as the interpretation is not clearly against the language of
the ordinance or made in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The Court's decision to afford
deference to the local governing body interpretations of its planning ordinances has been
codified in ORS 197.829:
(1) The Land Use Board of Appeals shall affirm a local government's interpretation of its
comprehensive plan and land use regulations, unless the board determines that the local
government's interpretation:
(a) Is inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan or land use regulation;
(b) Is inconsistent with the purpose for the comprehensive plan or land use regulation;
( c) Is inconsistent with the underlying policy that provides the basis for the
comprehensive plan or land use regulation; or
(d) Is contrary to a state statute, land use goal or rule that the comprehensive plan
provision or land use regulation implements.(2) If a local government fails to interpret a
provision of its comprehensive plan or land use regulations, or if such interpretation is
3 - Reinterpretation Opinion
G:\IegaI\Office\ALOPs\R\reinterpretation big box final opn.wpd
I 1 IT
11 1 I.
inadequate for review, the board may make its own determination of whether the local
government decision is correct.
Where the council has not made a previous interpretation of a particular ordinance, it free to a
adopt any reasonable interpretation, even if the interpretation is different than has been
applied by staff or other subordinate decision makers. Alexanderson v. Clackamas County,
126 Ore. App. 549, 552 (1994). .
When the council has made a previous interpretation of its ordinance, its~bility to reinterpret
the meaning or application of the ordinance and still retain deference in the courts becomes
more uncertain and is dependent upon the circumstances of the governing body's different
interpretation. If the reinterpretation is occasioned by a change in state or federal statutes or
regulations affecting the interpretation, then it is entitled to deference. Greer v. Josephine
County, 37 Or. LUBA 261,266 (1999).
If the council makes a reinterpretation outside of quasi-judicial setting, then, assuming the new
interpretation is reasonable given the language of the ordinance, it is probably entitled to
deference. If the reinterpretation results in unjustified selective or conflicting applications of
local provisions to different applicants it is most likely not entitled to deference and may result
in a reversible error. Holland v. City of Cannon Beach, 154 Or App 450,456 (1998).
If the reinterpretation has a justified basis, so that it is not considered arbitrary, if it is made in
conjunction with application in a quasi-judicial hearing, the parties in the hearing may be
entitled to notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed new interpretation. Wicks v.
City of Reedsport, 29 Or LUBA 8, 27 (1995)~
As to any reinterpretation in the situation now facing the council in the Bemis appeal, the
following observations are noted:
1. The council has made a previous interpretation of this specific ordinance;
2. The reinterpretation is not precipitated by any event, 'such as a change in law, which
would explain the need for the reinterpretation;
3. The project application has already been received for which a reinterpretation of the
ordinance would most likely have an affect;
Applying the principles set forth in the court decisions to these observations, since there has
been a previous council interpretation, the council most likely will not be able to receive
deference as an initial interpretation if it decides to change the interpretation. Since a project
application has been received for which a reinterpretation will most likely have an impact, if the
council desires to reinterpret the ordinance, it may desire to provide notice and an opportunity
to comment on any proposed reinterpretation to all parties involved in the quasi-judicial action.
The fact that the council began a public process through which the planning commission held a
public hearing and through which the city council received public comment prior to the filing of
the Bemis application may suffice for the notice and opportunity to comment in order for the
council to receive deference to a reinterpretation. It certainly lends credence to an assertion
that the reinterpretation is not being done in an arbitrary fashion to infringe on the rights of the
4 - Reinterpretation Opinion
G:\legal\Office\ALOPs\R\reinterpretation big box final opn.wpd
applicant. While there is a good chance of receiving deference from the courts to a
reinterpretation of the 45,000 sq. ft. limitation, there is still the possibility that a court would not
grant deference and could reverse the impact of any new interpretation on the proposed
project.
5 - Reinterpretation Opinion
G:\Iegal\Office\ALOPs\R\reinterpretation big box final opn.wpd
.. , IT
11 1 I
Paul nolte - Paul Nolte Ltr 012004 (00053766).DOC
Page 1 I
Page 1
January 20, 2004
M*
January 20, 2004
Via E-Mail
Mr. Paul Nolte
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
noltep@ashland.or.us
Re: Ed and Tanva Bemis
Dear Paul:
Attached is my response to the question of the City's ability to "reinterpret" the 1992
ordinance. I think the statute and the Holland case are decisive on this issue. It isn't really a
question of reinterpretation, it's a question of applying the standards which were in effect at
the time the application is submitted.
I don't think: I've seen a set of clearer findings with respect to a Council's interpretation of an
ordinance than the ones included in the OSF findings which create the "footprint" standard.
That interpretation became the law in Ashland and it was applied to at leas.t two applicants:
OSF and the YMCA. I think Holland is directly on point, that the City cannot now
reinterpret that standard ,post-application and apply the new standard to the Bemis project.
Very truly yours,
.. ! IT
11
1 I.
Page 2 I
Paul nolte - Paul Nolte Ltr 012004 (00053766).DOC
Page 2
January 20, 2004
M*
Gary C. Peterson
GCP:ph
Attachment
::>aul nolte - Memo to Paul Nolte from GCP (00053689-2).DOC
Page 1l
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Paul Nolte
FROM:
Gary Peterson
DATE:
January 20, 2004
RE:
Post Application Changes to Ashland Land Use Ordinance
~18.72.0S0(c)
Issue:
Can a city change a standard for approval after a land use permit
has been filed?
Answer:
No.
Facts:
Ashland Land Use Ordinance ~18.72.050(c), in effect at the time this application was
filed, prohibits new buildings that exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet.
In approving the Oregon Shakespeare Festival Theater Project in 2000, the City
Council established the 45,000 square foot standard as follows:
"The City Council does not interpret 'gross square footage of 45,000
square feet' to mean gross floor area square footage. This quoted
phrase is to be interpreted as meaning 45,000 square foot footprint. It is
to be distinguished from those provisions of the Land use Ordinance
that specifically refer to gross floor area ..." (Hereinafter "Footprint
Standard. ")
The City also applied this Footprint Standard to the YMCA expansion.
On September 12, 2003, Applicants Ed and Tanya Bemis submitted their application
under the Footprint Standard. On October 3, 2003, the City deemed the application
complete. On September 16, 2003, the Ashland City Council changed the Footprint
Standard to a "floor area" standard as a part of Ordinance No. 2900, which did not
become effective until October 16, 2003.
The issue raised in your memo to the City Council on January 9, 2004 is whether the
Council may now "reinterpret" the '92 ordinance and apply a "floor area" standard to
- 1 -
.. , 'IT
11
l I.
Page 2 I
:>aul nolte - Memo to Paul Nolte from GCP (00053689-2).DOC
this application.
Analvsis:
Approval or denial of the land use application shall be based upon the standards
and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first submitted.
ORS 227.178(3). The issue of post-application changes to a municipality's
development standards was addressed by the Oregon Court of Appeals in Holland v.
City of Canon Beach, 154 Or App 450 (1998).
In Holland, the petitioner was an applicant for a subdivision. The Holland
subdivision application was filed approximately one year after the Canon Beach City
Attorney wrote a letter notifying the City Manager that certain den_sity standards
contained in the Canon Beach City Code were implicitly repealed and were no longer
applicable to subdivision approvals. The staff report on the Holland subdivision
referenced the City Attorney's letter and indicated that the density requirement would
not be a standard for approval. The Canon Beach City Council subsequently
approved a subdivision application for a different applicant (the Chapman Point
Subdivision) and as a part of that approval, acknowledged that the density requirement
was no longer a standard of approval in such subdivisions.
The Holland application was subsequently denied on grounds unrelated to the density
requirement. Holland appealed that denial and was granted a remand. On remand,
the City Council denied petitioner's application for reasons that included failure to
comply with the density standards. The hearing on remand was the frrst time the City
raised the density issue as a standard of approval during the application process. The
City indicated in its order that after petitioner had fIled its application, the City
had reinterpreted its Code to include the density standard.
Petitioner argued that the application violated ORS 227.178(3).. Petitioner also argued
that the City had approved the Chapman Point Subdivision on similar facts, and
therefore the City was not consistent in its application of the density standard. The
City of Canon Beach argued that the City's "reinterpretation" should be upheld
because it was entitled to deference under Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508
(1992). The Oregon Court of Appeals disagreed with that analysis as follows:
"[W]hat we implicitly questioned in Alexanderson and Friends of
Bryant Woods Park, is that local governments may apply both such
interpretations interchangeably on different occasions and still obtain
LUBA's and the Court's deferential review of either or both variations.
"It is unnecessary to resolve that question in its full breadth in this case
because the Clark standard is not determinative here in any event. We
explained in Davenport, 'Standards and criteria is a statutory term; its
- 2-
Page 31
)aul nolte - Memo to Paul Nolte from GCP (00053689-2).DOC
,
meaning is a question of state law, and a local interpretation or
application of it does not bind us'. Although the City may interpret its
legislation, subject to the limited standard of review defmed in Clark,
neither its interpretation nor its legislation can be given effect if it is
contrary to or necessitates the misapplication of state statute. For
example, a city could not circumvent ORS 227.178(3) by 'interpreting'
approval standards or criteria in its legislation as not being approval
standards or criteria. We have also said in Davenport that the purpose
of ORS 227.178(3), is to assure both proponents and opponents of an
application that the substantive factors that are actually applied and
that have a meaningful impact on the decision permitting or denying
an application will remain constant throughout the proceedings.
"We conclude that, under the facts of this case, [the density standard]
was not an applicable approval standard or criterion, within the
meaning of the statute, at the time the application was first
submitted. It was treated as inapplicable in the staff report, and that
view was confirmed by the City Council in a subsequent decision on
the Chapman Point Subdivision application. Although that application
was, of course, a different one from this one, the two applications are
indistinguishable for purposes of the question at hand - at least given
the rationale for the City Council's answer in the Chapman Point
decision. If [the density standard] was implicitly repealed and a nullity
for all purposes, it was as much so for purposes of this application as
for the Chapman Point Subdivision. The City had treated [the density
standard] as inapplicable before, during and after petitioner's filing of
his present application, and it was required by ORS 227.178(3) to
assure that the standards in criteria would 'remain constant
throughout the proceedings' on the application. It is immaterial that
the City Council did not put its imprimatur on the interpretation that the
section was inapplicable until after this application was filed or that it
did so in a proceeding on a different application. Its Chapman Point
decision served as a ratification by the highest city body of what other
city officials had said generally and of what the staff report had said in
connection with this application particularly." (Emphasis added;
internal citations within this block quotation omitted.)
The Holland court found that because of the City's interpretation of its own
Code, the density standard was not a part of the standards and criteria at the
time of the application. To subsequently reinterpret the Code and include the
density standard violated ORS 227.178(3). Because this reinterpretation violated
ORS 227.178(3), the Court of Appeals was not required to review that decision with
deference and the City's decision was reversed and remanded.
- 3 -
-. , -IT -
.11
~ I.
Pag~ 4l
Paul nolte - Memo to Paul Nolte from GCP (00053689-2).DOC
Conclusion:
The facts of the present case are very similar to the Holland case. The City Council of
Ashland has interpreted its own Land Use Ordinance to include a gross Footprint
Standard. Just as in Holland, the City Council interpreted its own ordinance as part of
an application from another party. Under Holland, such interpretations become a
part of the standards and criteria for approval as those terms are defined under
ORS 227.178(3). Holland requires that substantive factors that are actually applied
and have a meaningful impact remain constant throughout the proceedings. To now
reinterpret the gross Footprint Standard would be an inconsistent application of a
substantial factor that has a meaningful impact on the land use decision. Such a
reinterpretation would be a change in the standards and criteria as set by the
City Council and would violate of ORS 227.178(3). That would be r~versible error
under Holland, and not entitled to a deferential review by LUBA or the Oregon Court
of Appeals.
-4-
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Kate Jackson <KateJackson@opendoor.com>
Mac McLaughlin <mac@ashland.or.us>, Fran Berteau <Fran@ashland.or.us>
1/20/04 5:01 PM
Fwd: Review the Bemis application using new rules.
Fran and Mac,
This one may have been directed only to me. Please include with
council packet. (P.S. yes, I know it is after 4 p.m...,)
Kate Jackson
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Donna Rhee <dgrhee@opendoor.com>
> Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 2:34:58 PM US/Pacific
> To: Kate Jackson <KateJackson@opendoor.com>
> Subject: Review the Bemis application using new rules.
>
> Kate:
> For what its worth, the Bemis application, which I understand was not
> complete (a rush job), should be resubmitted for review according to
> current guidelines. Please put this in your package of objections to
> approval of the project as it is currently designed.
> Thanks
> Donna
>
> Donna G. Rhee
> 338 Scenic Drive
> Ashland, Oregon 97520
> (541) 482-5946
> (541) 482-8157 fax
> *** "I awake in the morning, ***
> torn between a desire to save the world,
> and a desire to savor the world.
> That makes it hard to plan the day."
> *** E. B. White ***
>
>
Kate Jackson
Ashland City Councilor
20 East Main Street
Ashland OR 97520
541-482-2612
katejackson@opendoor.com
Kate Jackson
541-482-2612
katejackson@opendoor.com
Ashland OR
'I I IT
11 I I,
1/15/2004
To Ashland Mayor and City Council;
Colin Swales and I are the dissenting Planning Commissioners in PA 2003-127, also known
as the Bemis Condos/Parking Structure. This application was submitted under the original
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Detail Site..Review Standards (ll-C-2),
My objection to this project is the scale and mass of the building and its impact on the
existing Downtown. Due to the fact that First Street is a steep upslope, we are presented with a
unique and unusual circumstance. The character of a side street is quite different from the way
we think about Main Street. The massing of the east elevation of this building is five stories
tall. The elevation of the fifth floor, extended over to the Ashland Springs Hotel (ASH), would
be 7 stories tall. The pedestrian connections with plazas and people..spaces are overwhelmed
by the mass of this building. This creates a canyon that will have both minimal sun exposure
and an unknown effect with regard to wind tunneling. I feel is that this building should be
stepped back from the tower of the ASH. We have articulated, for the same reason, why we
want hillside homes to terrace down the hillside to give some "relief' to their sites by reducing
the architectural massing.
I have been involved in Ashland's Big Box discussion from the beginning. After a lengthy
study to create an acceptable "Big Box Ordinance", we decided, after compromise, that 45,000
sq/ft was big enough. The first test of this ordinance was the Mountain View Retirement
facility at North Mountain and Maple Streets. The Council decided to rezone this parcel to
Hospital Zone, and I can accept the decision based on a public need that outweighs the
negative impact for this project as a reasonable justification.
OSF A's New Theater was the second test. The council could have made this the Shakespeare
zone, but the argument chosen was to say that these buildings were not contiguous SO they
were each under 45,000 sq/ft. Because the "theater use" does not require parking in the C-I-D
zone I was willing to accept this interpretation. This is another decision that was based on
social-cultural need. We have a huge investment in the success of OSF A I cannot help but
believe that this has some weight because of OS FA's esteemed position in the City. *
The YMCA's expansion benefited from this redefinition, and I believe this is another highly
valued social amenity of our town. I would have been willing to rezone YMCA's property to
accommodate it's use.
The Bemis planning action is the fourth test of the ordinance. The application was
submitted after a year of public testimony and two days before the Council voted in favor ofethe revisions to the ordinance that clarified that gross means gross and footprint means
footprint. The Big Box restrictions are all about scale, massing and context. I think that this
building's east elevation is too massive and I believe that the Detail-Site Review Standards
. I am not sure how "Gross Square Footage" was redefined to mean
"Footprint". See Colin Swales Minority report.
-. , -IT'
, 11. ~ I,
requirements at the time of application are sufficiently clear. I disagree with the majority of
Commissioners and the Planning Staff in their interpretation of the ordinance.
The core of my argument is that Planning Staff and the City Attorney have chosen to extend
an erroneous interpretation of Gross Building Area vis-a.-vis Building Footprint from the
Council decision concerning OSF A's New TheaterlParking lot. For me the big difference in
the comparison is that the Theater does not require parking in The C-I-D Zone. The Bemis-
Condos and ASH are a for profit enterprise. The City has nothing to gain by giving permission
to this development. It is an unnecessary compromise and an erosive factor for the Downtown.
The first question that I believe must be answered is; is the building contiguous or not with
the ASH? If it is not deemed to be physically contiguous, it is undeniably symbiotic and is
connected by use. I contend it is a Group of Buildings.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Detail Site-Review:
II-C-3a) Orientation and Scale
2) No new buildings or contiguous
groups of buildings shall exceed
a gross square footage of
45,000 square feet or a combined
contiguous building length
of 300 feet
The interrelationship of this project and the ASH are obvious. The parking for the ASH is
under the Bemis building. The ASH must have parking to be a hotel in the Downtown. Hotel-
use is one of a few uses where parking is a requirement in the C-ID zoning. Since ASH
requires this relationship with the Bemis Condos- their physical connection is inseparable.
Because of this co-dependency, one cannot exist without the other. They need the elevator,
stairways and circulation to access the parking. This makes them contiguous in their use. I
consider that this is a group of buildings.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Detail Site-Review continues;
3) Buildings not connected by a
common wall shall be separated
by a distance equal to the height
of the tallest building. If buildings
are more than 240 feet in
length. the separation shall be
60 teet.
The buildings are required to be separated by the height of the tallest building. The
Planning Commission and Council have discussed the importance of maintaining a "Build-to"
proscription that brings buildings up close to the street in the downtown. The pattern of Main
Street is an exception to this definition of "Groups of Buildings" . The circumstance of a
secondary street, on a steep hill has not been considered in any of the Planning Commission or
Council discussions. I believe that you can interpret the ordinance to mean that we encourage
Main Street to develop as contiguous buildings, with a three story maximum height, and at the
same time determine that this building's 52' height is incompatible with the downtown,
because ~t is on steep, secondary street.
The issue of the ownership of the proPerty is irrelevant to what defines a development and if
it is one contiguous development. Ownership and title can be changed, held by different
entities (an LLC or limited partnership) and yet can essentially be controlled by the same
parties, the City of Ashland will never be able to regulate proPerty development by the
property's ownership. Whether or not these properties are different tax lots or not is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the building acts as' one complex sharing the parking structure and is on
one tax lot.
I contend that the five story fa~de placed on the east side of the proposed building
produces a huge shadow on what is described as pedestrian.. oriented area. The building could
work with the steep grade of First Street by stepping-back on the hillside, reducing the overall
impact of the building and conforming to either of the above ordinance sections.
What is too big, too tall, and too ugly are no more clearly defined than the definition of
contiguous or gross. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that Gross Square
Footage means aggregate of the total Square Footage of a building. This recommendation sent
to the council reinterpreted the original interpretation. We sent our reinterpretation that "gross
sq/ft does not equal footprint" on to the Council. The Planning Commission reinterpreted this
significantly before the application was made. The Planning Commission, being adjunct to the
City Council as both a Quasi-Judicial as well as Legislative body, is equipped and instructed to
make this kind of interpretation.
The proposed building has approximately 55,000 gross sq/ft if interpreted by the current
ordinance, 85,000 gross sq/ft according to the original ordinance, and if you consider this a
group of buildings connected to the ASH, you are over 125,000 gross sq/ft.
The impetus for the Big Box ordinance was to regulate scale, massing and impact. I am
pretty clear about what the community has decided is too big by Ashland Standards. The
City of Ashland has the legal authority and the right to deny this application and require them
to begin anew, using the most recently adopted ordinance. Planning Commission could have
justifiably requested that the design increase separation requirements from the ASH by keeping
the distance between the two buildings separated by the height of each successive story. I
believe that stair-stepping the third and fourth story to create greater separation of this "group
of buildings" will make it not only a better place to live and shop, but will ultimately make it a
significantly better building and more compatible with our Hi .' own.
,-'"
./,/or'
'. ~ IT .
.-
,11 ~ I,
BEVERLY KENEFICK
1385 Windsor at Indiana
Ashland, OR 97520
541 482-7146
beverlyk@mind.net
1/15/2004
, ...... ....,
r~\fH_~l '~~, f -- r! '\::!. ,.-
j n ,L~ [,Lr~Lt.C! \; i :: _~"'~' .
;1 t!:.
; r. JANt f~ ; ,
Ul~c:':"'", ~ ~.}
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
The City Council
Ashland, OR 97520
I am in agreement with the Citizens for Responsible Government in asking the Council to
review the approval of the Bemis Big Box project. Since I am unable to attend the Council
meeting on January 20th, I want to voice my opposition to a project of this size in our city.
It is my hope that you will send the project back to the developers for downsizing and
revision. We neither need nor want a project of this size in our jewel of a town.
Sincerely,
~y~
Beverly Kenefick
'. n 'IT'
1-- r {, ,- L'?'-1
, -,. _ ,; ',. ' : : :" ~:-:F?i.\
, ," ~.. I~
, r '.' f,. '''-}~'
I' "'.f~./# 1 . , : . , .
(" i! . ' .', ~,;,':' ' ,,:
" ,".", 1"
. '~L:~;; '.:, .~"...~,_. U.
t"'). .. '). "'1.".,. ..... ...... j -, f ..1 f
"-- , ,. "........... ,~.......
- - ~ --
. ~'
~ (~~olZ-
'~ S~! fJA.aJ~ :
GJ~~ ~ ~ (l~ ~ ew.UljP$ffl\- ~
If~ ~ ~ ~ It<< ~(~ ~rl'O'
l.hke~ ~ lJHf' ~. 9 tUe. OZJ~ ~
~ ~ ft-$- (/) fl" lv-dt f!JLu.. /-e tht.
[U:CUJ4/ecd-t'e..- I(.s~ Cl ~ II ct.'l"\~J~'~~1ot i (2) 4
~ ~ ~ een..;f'~ ~,
fJrJ~4 ~ ~~ ~~ ) & 4 tuiu
10A.L ~ -: /J IviiJI- (f~ ~ ~ aUA ~
~ duril~ ~ A.A/;) I {4vJ.. (q) A ~
~ t"- !J~ (]~~ If'-' ~1~(ltVt ~
c4ut ~bA cJWt 1( /fiLA ~" ~ b,~. D1-
ltJ"v ~ ~ tb~(]J /) ~ ~ 5 bCJ1C
f5Y~~ ~ 1~~'~~
&o~ WM ~~{w.~,
~n. .
~e&2-J ~ s:.-rMYL-
(37S- ~ I ~D~
Lf<a ' 72 7 2
.. ..- - .... ....--.."
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Bryan and Nancy Holley <holley@opendoor.com>
<berteauf@ashland.or.us>
1/16/042:26PM
Second Attempt to Get E-mail about Bemis Through
Subject: Honor your Commitment, Take Courage and Reject the Bemis Big Box
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:00:25 -0800
From: Bryan and Nancy Holley <holley@opendoor.com>
Organization: Planet Earth
To: Ashland City Councilors <council@ashland.or.us.>
CC: Bill and Jane <jbstreet@ashlandhome.net>, Colin Swales <colin@mind.net>, Jack Hardesty
<jfhardesty@charter.net> ,
John Fields <golden-fields@charter.net>, Bill Street <BiII.Street@ashland.k12.or.us>
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Each of you has gotten to know me to one degree or another over time and I have appreciated
getting to know some of you through
one-on-one e-mails and sit-downs. I have tried to participate in local matters since we arrived
in 1989 -- my small, tenacious effort to
contribute to ensuring that Ashland remains a place to treasure. After I had listened for the
pulse of the people and educated myself
about local issues for two or three years, I first entered the arena of political activism in
the early 1990s by writing a Guest Commentary
for the Ashland Daily Tidings entitled, 'Where is our Vision?' I urged that Ashland citizens
vote to approve the Meals Tax, challenging us
to think about what our vision was for the future and reminding everyone that visionary
Ashlanders in the early 1900s had to fight the
money and power interests in order to create Lithia Park, today a beloved local and national
landmark. The measure passed after a very
close vote and an intense campaign which on occasion regrettably declined toward name-calling.
Say what you will about that vote but
the revenue generated by the Meals Tax clearly helped Ashland reach legal compliance with state
DEQ water standards, modernize the
wastewater treatment facility (with a side-effect of creating a now highly-used dog park) and
thus improved the quality of the water that
. we are sending downstream into Bear Creek and the Pacific Ocean.
Vision must be important to us in our society, because the first George Bush lost a presidential
election when he didn't understand the
vision thing whereas Clinton knew how visions and dreams inspire and motivate each of us. The
subject of vision also was an important
component at public debates during the last Ashland mayoral election, and all five candidates
vowed to pursue public exercises to help
the Ashland citizenry create a vision of what they wanted for their city in 25 or 50 years. And,
again, sitting at your goal setting session
last Satuday morning, I listened as a discussion revolved around vision. You've had an
opportunity to hear me speak on numerous
occasions, and therefore have some idea of what values I fight for. I've been attempting to
articulate my personal vision for the future of
Ashland since that first published commentary.
Now comes before you our appeal on the Bemis Big Box. Bill Street, who has closely participated
in almost every Big Box discussion for
11 ~ I,
several years, has exercised his citizen's right to visit the Planning Department and examine
all the file material on this proposal. The
Bemis Timeline he created (part of your packet)--the result of numerous hours of research and
supplemented with a few additional notes
from some of us-is a remarkable civic document. Apart from its comprehensive nature and
absolute reliability as to the facts, I believe it
is an extraordinary example of just how hard Ashland's citizens are willing to work as
volunteers to support the values they believe in. I
urge you to read the Bemis Timeline carefully and to contact the city staff if you have
questions as to the veracity or accuracy of any of
the statements in it. If you asked city staff to prepare a Bemis Timeline for you, believe me,
they would produce something for you that
would contain the same accurate information that Bill has provided for you as a citizen
volunteer.
As you know, I participated and gave testimony on the Big Box issue at both Planning Commission
and Council meetings, urging you to
adopt a Big Box ordinance quickly. I suggested you set the building size limit at 25,000 sq.
ft., as did John Morrison, but our view did
not prevail. I distinctly recall the Mayor reassuring the public and those of us who were
worried about closing a window of opportunity
for building a Big Box in downtown Ashland. He left us with the sense that, because it was being
discussed in public and on TV, city
staff, including the planning director, understood that it was his and the councils' wish that
the Planning Director inform them if any Big
Boxes were proposed. We got the feeling that the Mayor was dedicated to protecting the public
interest by making sure no such Big
Boxes would be approved prior to the adoption of the revised Big Box Ordinance (9/16/03 &
10/16/03). In his March 19,2003 e-mail to
Colin Swales (see Timeline), the Mayor explains that the Planning Director had assured him that
any such project, "would come to
Council for interpretation of how we view it." Well, folks, the reality is that staff apparently
did not keep the Mayor and Council fully
apprised of the Bemis proposal and you wouldn't be reviewing it at all right now unless five of
us had put our money where our mouth is
and ponied up our American dollars to file our appeal. Somehow, the links of communication on
this subject among staff and elected
officials were broken.
So I now ask the Mayor and all of you to honor your prior public commitment. You adopted the
recent Big Box ordinance, in part, to
correct a previous Council's misguided interpretation (see Cameron Hanson's testimony on Feb 11,
2003) that allowed OSF, in my
opinion, to build an illegal building. Now you are reviewing the entire planning process that
has led to the approval of an 82,000 sq. ft.
Big Box, precisely the kind of out-of-human-scale structure we were fearing and only one
important vote away from approval. If you
deny our appeal, you will be sanctioning the construction of the most massive big block building
ever built in Ashland (excepting, of
course, the 'historic Ashland Springs Hotel, whose ambiance as the upright Grand Old Lady of the
Ashland streetscape and viewshed,
will be irreperably changed for the negative should this Big Box be approved).
Despite what they say, it is disingenous at best for the applicants to state that they were
unaware of the looming change in Big Box rules.
City staff as much acknowledged that there was a general awareness of this potential hot-potato
'I niT.
issue, devoting an entire section to it in
its October 14, 2003 staff report and I quote: "Large-Scale (Le. "Big Box") Development
Standards? Recent Amendments --On
October 16, 2003, the recent amendments to City design standards effecting
large-scaledevelopment go into effect. Since this
application was filed prior to the effective date of these changes, the proposal is evaluated
upon the standards effective at that time
and not the amended standards. In anticipating questions regarding this matter. . ." It
appears, then, that planning staff recognized a
potential area of public interest and was prepared to present arguments if questions were
raised. Strange that planning staff, with whom
applicants met repeatedly, would be aware of an impending change in ordinance and yet the
applicants were unaware. They stated for
the record that they did not rush their application through (see Timeline and make up your own
mind if any of our normal procedures
were rushed) to beat the more rigorous new Big Box requirements. Please carefully re-read that
entire section of the staff report as it
also paints a picture of what staff believes might happen if you reject applicants' proposal and
require them to re-apply. The outcome is
not nearly as dire as they and their representatives will no doubt testify, since even with the
new rules they would still be able to legally
build a fairly large building, including underground parking and meeting all of the ALUO and
site and design standards.
It is also true that one half of the Ogden/Kistler firm (architects for this project), Ray
Kistler, is a planning commissioner and most
certainly has a sophisticated understanding of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and other city,
county and state planning protocols and
procedures. Because of his direct involvement in this project, he appropriately recused himself
from participating during all Planning
Commission discussions of it. Nevertheless, he sat at numerous planning commission meetings
during several years of discussion of the
proposed Big Box ordinance and, one could.fairly speculate, performed his professional duty and
advised his clients about the upcoming
Big Box changes during their meetings.
In the 250 years of American history, we are reminded repeatedly that we as a society must not
only show respect to the letter of the
law, but to the spirit of the law. As you review this matter, I would remind those of you who,
like me, have only a partial understanding
of all of Oregon and Ashland's complicated land-use regulations, to remember that your City
Council review is the only place along the
entire quasi-judicial path where an official body is given an opportunity to examine a land-use
matter from a broader perspective than just
the basic legal criteria, that is to say, the spirit of the thing. Just as the planning
commissioners talk about balance and trade-offs, you as
a Council are entitled to look at this project thinking of such aspects as our community values,
your sense of fair play, your feelings
about what your consituents desire, etc. The many legal ambiguities and inconsistencies and
miscommunications that are revealed in the
Timeline represent a clearly defensible legal position for you, allowing you to simply say that
the application is incomplete or was not
managed in a normal, legal fashion. This will take courage because, as usual, the applicants
have invested huge amounts of money to
date and have been given support and hours of staff time at every step of the way due to the
nature of the Ashland planning process.
. 11. ~ I,
The applicants have money, power and connections and have shown every indication that they are
prepared to spend whatever it takes
and do everything they can to achieve their goal.
You wondered at goal setting what you could do to improve the planning process because you are
hearing from constituents that people
are very concerned about growth and development. If you want to create interest in whatever you
decide for your vision process, if you
truly want citizens involved, then you will find no better opportunity to send them the message
that you care as much as they do about
preserving the small-town character of Ashland than by rejecting the Bemis proposal. If you
approve it, this City Council will have
missed an opportunity to act boldly, will have violated a public commitment and will be
remembered as the City Council that allowed a
Big Box to be built, forever changing the Hargadine Street Corridor and confirming citizens'
beliefs that their wishes are not heard nor
acted upon. Do the right thing! Honor your commitment! Stop this awful Big Box!
Best,
Bryan Holley
mailto: holley@opendoor.com
'. n
, 11 ~ I,
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"John Fields" <golden-fields@charter.net>
"Ashland City Councilors" <council@ashland.or.us>
1/17/042:25PM
Bemis-Condos Minority Report
1/15/2004
To Ashland Mayor and City Council;
Colin Swales and I are the dissenting Planning Commissioners in PA 2003-127, also known as the
Bemis Condos/Parking Structure. This application was submitted under the original Ashland Land Use
Ordinance Detail Site-Review Standards (11-C-2).
My objection to this project is the scale and mass of the building and its impact on the existing
Downtown. Due to the fact that First Street is a steep upslope, we are presented with a unique and
unusual circumstance. The character of a side street is quite different from the way we think about Main
Street. The massing of the east elevation of this building is five stories tall. The elevation of the fifth
floor, extended over to the Ashland Springs Hotel (ASH), would be 7 stories tall. The pedestrian
connections with plazas and people-spaces are overwhelmed by the mass of this building. This creates a
canyon that will have both minimal sun exposure and an unknown effect with regard to wind tunneling. I
feel is that this building should be stepped back from the tower of the ASH. We have articulated, for the
same reason, why we want hillside homes to terrace down the hillside to give some "relief' to their sites by
reducing the architectural massing.
I have been involved in Ashland's Big Box discussion from the beginning. After a lengthy study to
create an acceptable "Big Box Ordinance", we decided, after compromise, that 45,000 sq/ft was big
enough. The first test of this ordinance was the Mountain View Retirement facility at North Mountain and
Maple Streets. The Council decided to rezone this parcel to Hospital Zone, and I can accept the decision
based on a public need that outweighs the negative impact for this project as a reasonable justification.
OS FA's New Theater was the second test. The council could have made this the Shakespeare zone, but
the argument chosen was to say that these buildings were not contiguous so they were each under 45,000
sq/ft. Because the "theater use" does not require parking in the C-1-D zone I was willing to accept this
interpretation. This is another decision that was based on social-cultural need. We have a huge
investment in the success of OS FA. I cannot help but believe that this has some weight because of
OSFA's esteemed position in the City. *
The YMCA's expansion benefited from this redefinition, and I believe this is another highly valued
social amenity of our town. I would have been willing to rezone YMCA's property to accommodate it's use
The Bemis planning action is the fourth test of the ordinance. The application was submitted after a
year of public testimony and two days before the Council voted in favor of the revisions to the ordinance
that clarified that gross means gross and footprint means footprint. The Big Box restrictions are all about
scale, massing and context. I think that this building's east elevation is too massive and I believe that the
Detail-Site Review Standards
* I am not sure how "Gross Square Footage" was redefined to mean "Footprint". See Colin Swales
Minority report.
requirements at the time of application are sufficiently clear. I disagree with the majority of
Commissioners and the Planning Staff in their interpretation of the ordinance.
The core of my argument is that Planning Staff and the City Attorney have chosen to extend an
erroneous interpretation of Gross Building Area vis-a-vis Building Footprint from the Council decision
concerning OSFA's New Theater/Parking lot. For me the big difference in the comparison is that the
Theater does not require parking in The C-1-D Zone. The Bemis-Condos and ASH are a for profit
enterprise. The City has nothing to gain by giving permission to this development. It is an unnecessary
compromise and an erosive factor for the Downtown.
The first question that I believe must be answered is; is the building contiguous or not with the ASH? If
it is not deemed to be physically contiguous, it is undeniably symbiotic and is connected by use. I contend
it is a Group of Buildings.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Detail Site-Review:
II-C-3a) Orientation and Scale
2) No new buildings or contiguous
groups of buildings shall exceed
a gross square footage of
45,000 square feet or a combined
contiguous building length
of 300 feet.
The interrelationship of this project and the ASH are obvious. The parking for the-ASH is under the Bemis
building. The ASH must have parking to be a hotel in the Downtown. Hotel-use is one of a few uses
where parking is a requirement in the C-1 D zoning. Since ASH requires this relationship with the Bemis
Condos- their physical connection is inseparable. Because of this co-dependency, one cannot exist
without the other. They need the elevator, stairways and circulation to access the parking. This makes
them contiguous in their use. I consider that this is a group of buildings.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Detail Site-Review continues;
3) Buildings not connected by a
common wall shall be separated
by a distance equal to the height
of the tallest building. If buildings
are more than 240 feet in
length. the separation shall be
60 feet.
The buildings are required to be separated by the height of the tallest building. The Planning
Commission and Council have discussed the importance of maintaining a "Build-to" proscription that
brings buildings up close to the street in the downtown. The pattern of Main Street is an exception to this
definition of "Groups of Buildings". The circumstance of a secondary street, on a steep hill has not been
considered in any of the Planning Commission or Council discussions. I believe that you can interpret the
ordinance to mean that we encourage Main Street to develop as contiguous buildings, with a three story
maximum height, and at the same time determine that this building's 52' height is incompatible with the
downtown, because it is on steep, secondary street.
The issue of the ownership of the property is irrelevant to what defines a development and if it is one
contiguous development. Ownership and title can be changed, held by different entities (an LLC or limited
partnership) and yet can essentially be controlled by the same parties, the City of Ashland will never be
able to regulate property development by the property's ownership. Whether or not these properties are
different tax lots or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the building acts as one complex sharing the
parking structure and is on one tax lot.
I contend that the five story fa<fade placed on the east side of the proposed building produces a huge
shadow on what is described as pedestrian- oriented area. The building could work with the steep grade
of First Street by stepping-back on the hillside, reducing the overall impact of the building and conforming
to either of the above ordinance sections.
'I n 'IT'
, 11. U I,
What is too big, too tall, and too ugly are no more clearly defined than the definition of contiguous or
gross. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that Gross Square Footage means aggregate of
the total Square Footage of a building. This recommendation sent to the council reinterpreted the original
interpretation. We sent our reinterpretation that "gross sq/ft does not equal footprint" on to the Council.
The Planning Commission reinterpreted this significantly before the application was made. The Planning
Commission, being adjunct to the City Council as both a Quasi-Judicial as well as Legislative body, is
equipped and instructed to make this kind of interpretation.
The proposed building has approximately 55,000 gross sq/ft if interpreted by the current ordinance,
85,000 gross sq/ft according to the original ordinance, and if you consider this a group of buildings
connected to the ASH, you are over 125,000 gross sq/ft.
The impetus for the Big Box ordinance was to regulate scale, massing and impact. I am pretty clear
about what the community has decided is too big by Ashland Standards. The City of Ashland has the
legal authority and the right to deny this application and require them to begin anew, using the most
recently adopted ordinance. Planning Commission could have justifiably requested that the design
increase separation requirements from the ASH by keeping the distance between the two buildings
separated by the height of each successive story. I believe that stair-stepping the third and fourth story to
create greater separation of this "group of buildings" will make it not only a better place to live and shop,
but will ultimately make it a significantly better building and more compatible with our Historic Downtown.
Sincerely,
John Fields
I. J,9bri.r}j'~I~ygEtIi}:~:~tQE....~~i-ri!~'~2~
Page 1
From: kristine pandey <cashmina@yahoo.com>
To: <awdb@aol.com>, <cate@mind.net>, <cehearn@aol.com>, <trimaldg@ashland.or.us>,
<donlaws@mind.net>, <jmorrison@rvcog.org>, <katejackson@opendoor.com>, <mac@ashland.or.us>,
<alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
Date: 1/16/0410:57AM
Subject: STOP bemis box
thanks
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hot jobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
F>C3g~1!
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Selene Aitken" <seleneaitken@yahoo.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/17/042:24PM
Reject Bemis Project
I've been a resident of Ashland since 1985 and a homeowner since 1987.
I'm very concerned about the Bemis project because it violates the character of Ashland which drew so
many of us here.
A building this size belongs by Albertsons, not in the center of town.
Unbridled growth will wreck this place. Please be moderate, reject this project which slipped under the
wire and belongs elsewhere.
Thank you,
Selene Aitken
From: "live Your Dreams" <liveyourdreams@mannapages.com>
To: <awdb@aol.com>, <donlaws@mind.net>, <cate@mind.net>, <jmorrison@rvcog.org>,
<ceheam@aol.com>, <katejackson@opendoor.com>, <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>,
<maC@ashland.or.us>, <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
Date: 1/17/042:25PM
Subject: "Reject, Turn down, Stop etc...the Bemis project".
City Council Officials Alan DeBoer, Don laws, Cate Hartzell, John
'Morrison, Chris Hearn, Kate Jackson, Gino Grimaldi" John McLaughlin and
Alex Amarotico
Please TURN DOWN the Bemis project. A Big Box of over 80,000 sq. ft.
has no place in our downtown. The beauty of Ashland and the draw of
,this town with the Shakes pear plays and the beauty of our park is in the
small size of this town and It's buildings. We do NOT need such a huge
'building. PLEASE REJECT this prosposal.
",. .
",,~ SI I
,"";F: . ncere y,
A~~,.'LuCretia Smith
\.. . .
>?(\shland resident
'. ~ 'IT'
. 11. ~ I,
'~9hn...'.I"T!.'~.I.~~gblir1 -....~.~.rl)..i.~.. ..Pr2j.~.~!.J~.QI...f2r...As..6Ia.rld
From: dianaversluis <dianav@mind.net>
To: "Alan DeBoer" <awdb@aol.com>, "Don Laws" <donlaws@mind.net>, "Cate Hartzell"
<cate@mind.net>, "John Morrison" <jmorrison@rvcog.org>, "Chris Hearn" <cehearn@aol.com>, "Kate
Jackson" <katejackson@opendoor.com>, "Gino Grimaldi" <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>, "John McLaughlin"
<mac@ashland.or.us>, "Alex Amarotico" <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
Date: 1/17/043:12PM
Subject: Bemis Project NOT for Ashland
Please do not allow the small town flavor of Ashland to change. Size of
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Sarah Seybold <saseybold@charter.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/17/043:12PM
Turn down Bemis project
Lets keep Ashland unique and limit such as this proposed Bemis Project. We
moved here to get away from San Jose and San Francisco congestion. Such a
project will drive many of us out of this lovely gentle paced town. Sarah
Seybold
J John mcjaughTI~- Be~f!pi91~f=~~=~":="'.''':~==.:~~~:",,.=,==~=-'~' ~~: :==::= ~=~,"~,:~~-
... Pa'" e"rt
.........9", ..,
From: Clair Killen <clairk@internetcds.com>
To: <awdb@aol.com>, <cate@mind.net>, <cehearn@aol.com>,
<grimaldg@ashland.or.us>, <alex@standin9stonebrewing.com>, <donlaw@mind.net>,
<jmorrison@rvcog.org>, <katejackson@opendoor.com>, <mac@ashland.or.us>
Date: 1/17/043:13PM
Subject: Bemis project
Dear City Officials<
Don't vote against the spirit of the 45,000 sq ft " Big Box" ordinance.
Clair Killen
993 B st
Ashland
clairk@internetcds.com
t ..j2E6.....1!i'9!~ygbIi.6,=,.~'~..6)i.~..er2J~S! ...
Page 1l
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<Butler JS 1 @aol.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/16/0410:37AM
Bemis Project
Please consider the appearance of this giant structure as detrimental to the
community we live in which is a small town nestled in the hills. This would
be the beginning of the cold look of a large city and a sore eye to the rest ot
the town
thanks
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<ButlerJS1@aol.com>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/15/04 10:27PM
the Bern is Project
Not a good idea for the downtown area. I would protest such a monster
project in our small community. My vote is NO
'. n 'IT '
.11
~ I,
Page 1J
~.2.6Q..:rii9~~~9bjir..~".';B~j.~.~!!'...'I'~.r.Il...~.qi!.6:,......~iQP...~!c:::.:i6~.......~,~..6i.i~....Pr.()j~ct"
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
manna health 1 @charter.net
<manna health 1 @charter.net>
1/17/0410:35PM
"Reject, Turn down, Stop etc...the Bemis project".
Message
City Council Officials Alan DeBoer, Don Laws, Cate Hartzell, John
Morrison, Chris Hearn, Kate Jackson, Gino Grimaldi" John McLaughlin and
Alex Amarotico
Please TURN DOWN the Bemis project. A Big Box of over 80,000 sq. ft. has
no place in our downtown. The beauty of Ashland and the draw of this town
with the Shakespear plays and the beauty of our park is in the small size of
this town and it's buildings. We do NOT need such a huge building. PLEASE
REJECT this prosposal.
Sincerely,
Alford R Smith
Ashland resident
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. . .
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552/ Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 12/15/03
l Jo6'n' mCiaughlin: Stop 'the.Bi~i~oxe[91~"Ct~:::::::"::,:::,:::.:~~=:::.:::=.'..'
.~':." .^^..
.:.y,.".,..,......,...:.,.,.,.,.
:::'::..:'::,:::.:::::.
:.:.:.:~~9:~'..I]
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
John Seybold <jseybold@charter.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/18/04 1 0:46AM
Stop the Big Box Project
The mayor has informed me that my protest of the Bemis Project should go to
your office.
I am opposed to the 80,000 square-foot building project in the heart of
downtown Ashland.1t is not a building suitable to Ashland.
I came to Ashland partly to get away from the kind of big-city crowding and
bustle represented by such buildings. I am concerned about parking and
traffic, as well as the deterioration of Ashland's "charm" and quality of
life.
Please stop the Bern is Project.
John Seybold
Ashland
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Anne Stine <astine@wildernessrites.com>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/17/042:25PM
reject the Bemis project
Dear Councilors, I am adamantly opposed to the Bemis project. All
Ashlanders who love this 'town' want it to stay that way. This will
turn Ashland into a city and destroy the small town feeling. I BEG YOU
TO LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE, HAVE THE COURAGE AND INTEGRITY TO
STOP DESTRUCTIVE GROWTH, PLEASE, PLEASE......
Anne Stine, 876 B St., Ashland
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
herschel <cherscheI13@earthlink.net>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/17/042:26PM
No Bemis Big Box
Stop, you are destroying the character of Ashland. Please do not allow such a large building!
C. Herschel King
, LI. ~ I,
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
jimjoann <jimjoann@mind.net>
<Council@ashland.or.us>, <Iarrykellogg@charter.net>
1/17/043:10PM
Reject the Bemis Project
To All Concerned,
I am writing to express my opposition to the Bemis Project, the project
for the property at First and Hargadine up for review at your Tuesday
meeting. It is frightening to me that this project has gotten so far in the
review process. It is totally inconsistent with my vision for Ashland.
Since I believe you also want Ashland to continue to be an outstanding place
to live and visit, I would think it would be inconsistent with your vision
also.
This project dwarfs anything else in the downtown area. Unless you want
Ashland to become like New York City or even Portland, buildings of this
size and scope have no place in that location. This project was slipped in
under old guidelines even though it was not really ready to be submitted,
but it clearly.is not consistent with the stated intentions of your new
guidelines. It does not even meet the old guidelines. The property
improperly blocks the sun from nearby buidlings and is not even owned by the
project submitter. These violations were incredidbly dismissed by the
Planning Commission as being a "hardship" to enforce against the developer.
Well, how about the project itself being a hardship to present and future
Ashland residents. And is it a coincidence that one of the architects of
the project sits on the Planning Commission?
It would be very easy to design a project for this property that is
consistent with the new building guidelines and that would not impact
parking and traffic as this project seems to do.
Please keep a sound vision for Ashland and its downtown area by rejecting
this inappropriate project. Thank you.
Jim Watkins
501 Parkside Drive
482-6221
cc:
<DFWi@aol.com>
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Lance Bisaccia" <em4Ianceb@mind.net>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/17/042:26PM
No Bemis Big Box
To members of the Ashland City Council,
I strongly oppose construction of the huge Bemis project, which will radically change the aesthetic quality
of Ashland, and surely bring more such bad changes in the future.
I am shocked that the proposal has gotten as far as it has, which casts doubt on the values and priorities
of those who have supported it.
Lance Bisaccia
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Anita Nevison" <nevison@ashlandhome.net>
"Ashland City Council" <council@ashland.or.us>
1/17/045:44PM
Bemis Big Box
Dear Mayor and Councilors:
In politics, perception is reality. I am concerned that a major
project that would not pass muster on September 23,2003 is acceptable four
days earlier. The public needs a clear explanation of events. It's a
question of law, public trust, and integrity.
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Anita Nevison
"C. CUSTODIO" <ccustodi@msn.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/042:31PM
Bem is Project
I am writing to urge you not to allow the Bemis Project.
My husband and I moved here last August atter three years of visits to Ashland to be sure that this is
where we want to retire. We love it here, and it's in large part due to Ashland's village-like community. To
put a huge structure in the historic part of town seems very much out character.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very sincerely,
Carol Custodio
ccustodi@msn.com
1460 Fielder St.
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Penny Manceau" <manceau@earthlink.net>
"Ashland City Council" <council@ashland.or.us>
1/17/042:51 PM
Reject the Pemis Project
Dear Council Members, I ask you to reject this project due to its size and impact on the downtown area.
Thank you. Penny Manceau
488-6472
,11, ~ I,
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Paul Mensch <paulm@herseyhouse.com>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/17/045:13PM
Bemis Project
Ladies and Gentlemen -
I have just finished reading the numerous opposing emails and letters
regarding the above project that were in the council packet posted on the
city web site.
I think most of the objections raised to this project are without merit. I
will not even address the emotional reasons stated by many of the writers,
as they are irrelevant to a planning action (as I'm know you are all
aware).
Many have commented that this application was "snuck in" four days before
the latest "evil big box" ordinance was passed. If this is indeed the
case, so what? The applicant merely exercised his legal right to submit an
application. The ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of the
application are the only ones relevant.
Some commented that the view would be affected by this building. It seems
to me that the Ashland Springs Hotel already takes care of affecting view.
Several people commented that this building would adversely affect traffic
and pedestrians in the downtown area. I fail to see how one could
logically reach this conclusion.
Some think that the building would be too big for downtown. At a
non-scientific glance, it appears that it will be smaller than the Elks
building or the Ashland Springs building (not to mention the Plaza Inn,
although that's probably technically outside of downtown).
I read a comment about the submitted plans not being complete. This could
have some merit, but then again, Mr. Swales was allowed to submit an
incomplete appeal for the New Theatre project, so there is apparently
precedent for the submission of incomplete paperwork to the city. In any
event, in my experience with commercial construction projects, plans are
never complete until the building is finished.
I am trusting you all to evaluate this project in accordance with the rules
and regs in effect at the time of the application. While I otten (most of
the time) disagree with council, I believe that most of the time you act in
a professional manner. Please do so again.
Paul
---------------------
-----------------------------------------
Paul Mensch
451 North Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
- May I always be the kind of person my dogs think I am.
- Politically correct isn't.
(, .~Q6.ri"i!i~f~~',95Ii~'~'Bg"~~,Q':~,(~:,~Q?$.
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
joanie nissenberg <joanniss@yahoo.com>
<alex@standingstonebrewing.com>
1/17/042:26PM
RE:NO BIG BOX
You have an opportunity to REJECT the Bemis big box
project and retain the nature and density of our
current downtown without the traffic problems and
outsized visuals of. Please serve citizens by
rejecting this monstrosity. Thank you.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hot jobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
....N" ...,y."..'"',."'_.cc._"..,:,:..'^w.,_:.'''.'''.....:<..._,__._.v"'':~._,:,':'::':""'"
J9~n ,~,9,I~ugb1}h~-:J~i~as.'~,Ju~Q.,~q~~,~ ~~~!~.pr~J~9t ,,' ~..._~-,-~~..~-,--,~~,-;--'-"--"--"--'
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Craig K. Comstock" <ckc@mind.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/17/042:26PM
please turn down the Bemis project
Dear John McLaughlin. t
This kind of project is what I became an Ashland homeowner to ge away
from.
Craig Comstock
Box ~rQject
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
John ,Seybold <jseybold@charter.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/17/04 3:11 PM
Stop the Big Box Project
Dear Mr. McLaughlin,
I am opposed to the 80,000 square-foot building project in the heart of
downtown Ashland. It is not a building suitable to Ashland.
I came to Ashland partly to get away from the kind of big-city crowding and
bustle represented by such buildings. I am concerned about parking and
traffic,as well as the deterioration of Ashland's "charm" and quality of
life.
Please, stop the Bemis Project.
John Seybold
Ashland
'. n n'
_...__~age 11
'':'"''---~----~--~-c'''''
' , 'Pa'e1'
, III ~ I,
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Paul Mensch <paulm@herseyhouse.com>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/18/04 7:13AM
Email submitted comments regarding land use actions
Council, et al -
I have just received a "form letter" response from Don Laws regarding the
comments I emailed you about an upcoming land use actions. (I wouldn't
want to mention it by name, now would I???).
Don's response indicates that he will not open or read my email upon advice
from Mr. Nolte. While I appreciate and respect the concerns regarding
ex-parte communication in land use actions, you must remember that this is
2004 and you ARE going to receive comments in these actions submitted by
email. Such submissions that are addressed to the entire council should
and must be considered as written comments regarding the action, in my
opinion. In fact, it appears that most of the 88 pages of comments
attached to the online version of the council packet were submitted via
email.Mr. Morrison, and I sure other council members as well, merely
forwarded email sent to them individually to the rest of the council. I
thank him for this, and find myself, for once, in agreement with his
actions.
Perhaps before refusing to read a citizen comment regarding a land use
action, you all should look at the email headers to see how the message was
addressed. I hope that the statutes are not so backward as to considered a
message addressed and delivered to the whole council electronically
ex-parte. If they are, I will certainly communicate these concerns to my
state representatives in the hope that they will address the issue.
Paul
Citizen who will be heard!!!
---------------------
-----------------------------------------
Paul Mensch
451 North Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
- May I always be the kind of person my dogs think I am.
- Politically correct isn't.
cc:
Mac <mclaughj@ashland.or.us>, <noltep@ashland.or.us>
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
edgar morton <mrpotatoed@yahoo.com>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/0410:52AM
bemis project
i support the appeal of the bemis project.help keep ash land small and beautiful for the people of
ashland.thanks for your time,
edgar morton
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hot jobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Council Members,
"cheryl" <cheryl@cherylkempner.com>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/04 4:56PM
Reject Bemis Project
Please reject the Bemis Project. The developers should be ashamed of
th~m~elves proposing a last-minute project in violation of the impending law.
This IS a total abrogation of their civic responsibility. The developers are
obviously not respectful citizens and the project should be resoundingly
rejected.
Cheryl and Ken Kempner
Cheryl Kempner
447 Pape'Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541 )552-0100
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Isaac Walker" <iwalker@jeffnet.org>
"Ashland City Councilors" <council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/04 1 :58PM
STOP! the Bemis Project
I'll not waste your time reciting the many objections that concerned, civic-spirited citizens have raised
regarding this obscene proposal. You have the power to stop it. Exercise that power in the best interests
of this city, not in the interests of developers. .
Sincerely,
Isaac Walker
Ashland
'. n n'
, II, ~ .,
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Malena Marvin" <malena@riseup.net>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/0410:03AM
Bemis Big Box
Hello Everyone,
I'm sure you can guess where I stand on this issue! But I wanted to make
sure my voice gets counted too.
Please, do not let them get away with this unconscionable stretching of
our local rules of governance. We do not need that big building to be put
in right there. I heartily support the citizen-sponsored appeal you will
be reviewing Tuesday evening.
Remember that it is decisions like these that Ashland Community Action
will do its best to publicize to voters this fall. I ask you to give us
the pleasure of reporting that you did everything in your power to
preserve and enhance the small town, character of our community.
Thanks for considering my comments.
Malena
Malena Marvin
Freelance Worldsaving
Ashland Community Action
http://Iists.riseup . neUwww/modindexlashland-comm unity-action
Again and again some people in the crowd wake up,
They have no ground in the crowd,
And they emerge according to much broader laws.
They carry strange customs with them
And demand room for bold gestures,
The future speaks ruthlessly through them.
-Rainer Maria Rilke
<fontfamily><param> Times_New _Roman</param><bigger>1 /17/04
To:
Mayor and Council
From:
Hal Cloer
Re:
1 st St./Main/Hargadine
The Tree, Historic, Traffic, and Planning Commissions provide
sufficient opportunities for public input into informed and experienced
deliberation that, unless there is new information to be introduced,
little is to be gained from a city council hearing on development. On
the other hand, if a particular interest group has not gained agreement
in other bodies, the Council provides an opportunity to reverse earlier
judgments, thru political theater that can achieve that purpose.
During my 4-year term as a planning commissioner, an organized protest
to the Council of proposed development between Ross Lane and Peachy
Road by 20-30 good citizens of Harmony Lane and Garden Way, driven by
worst-case imagining, managed to block planned development, affordable
lots, effective traffic patterns, emergency vehicle access, etc. An
organized group of Indiana Street citizens, protesting the development
of Mr. Gillespie's garden between Oregon and Windsor Streets, managed
to eliminate values of affordability, pedestrian safety, emergency
vehicle access, and open space, by storming a Council hearing. The
intensity of the wishes of an interest group trumps recommendations of
the community development office and a series of deliberative hearings
often enough that I'm sure I can find other examples.
From today's Tidings story it appears that a group calling themselves
"Citizens for Responsible Growth" believes that proposed development on
1 st Street, between Main and Hargadine is not "small town growth" and
threatens the "quaintness" of Ashland. I suspect that most people
prefer infill to sprawl, and expect that the westerly side of that
block will be, and should be, developed. The contention seems to be
that this proposal develops too much of the block (I doubt that many
in the protesting group would claim that the parking lot adds much to
the ambiance of the city and must be retained).
I was in the minority on the planning commission that approved the
original "big box ordinance", thinking it resembled Measure 5, Measure
11, term limits, and another examples of attempts to preempt future
problem-solving, from worry that others in the future will not be as
wise and virtuous as the proponents. The difficulty is that human
intellect is too limited in ability to anticipate all the variables
that will be in play in the future, for satisfactory outcomes to be
guarenteed.
'. n 1r '
. II ~ I:
Downtown development is from cross-street to cross-street. I'm
uninformed as to why 45,000 sq. ft. is the proper footprint for
downtown development (what's the footprint of a city block, of the
Enders Building?). If traffic, parking, appearance, etc., are all
acceptable, it's not clear to me how one decides how much of a block
should be developed (the viability of the completed building might be
an issue, requiring information about finances, leasing commitments,
etc., but I've not heard that issue being raised).
Since my wife and I own a couple of unreinforced masonry buildings on
the Plaza, and Ashland is currently in the window of subduction plate
slippage cycles that experts promise will put all unreinforced masonry
buildings between Crescent City and British Columbia on the ground, I
wonder how the 45,000 sq. ft. requirement would limit reconstruction.
And I wonder what other circumstances would make this limit an
unforseen problem.
I hope that any Council reversal of the judgements from other forums
will be based on fact, not just on empathy for a group of worried
citizens.
</bigger></fontfam i1y>
Hal Cloer
815 Creek Stone Way
Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 482-8364
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Nancy Spencer" <nanspen@mind.net>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/04 3:02PM
Bemis Project
Dear Council members, I'm writing to state my strong opposition to the
Bemis Project. I thinnk it would drastically change the downtown area for
the worse. Please don't approve this project. Thanks. Nancy Spencer
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Dennis Sobolik" <denniss@darex.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/19/043:56PM
Object to the Bemis Project
We object to the size of the proposed Bemis Project. It does not fit with
Ashland's small town atmosphere and charm. It is way too big to make an
attractive addition to Ashland.
Dennis Sobolik & Susan Silva
1280 Timberline Ter.
Ashland
cc:
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<council@ashland.or.us>
Robin Foster <bushbeatle@opendoor.com>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/044:34PM
Slow on Bemis Project
I urge Ashland's decision-makers to make no hasty decisions in
approving such an out-sized project for downtown Ashland. The Bemis
project contains many well-considered aspects, yet the scale of this
massive construction is not in keeping with Ashland's walkable center.
Best wishes on your deliberations,
Colleen Curran
'. n '1m'
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
. II, ~ I:
Suzanne Aubin Addicott <suzaubin@earthlink.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/046:07PM
Bemis Project
As a property owner in Ashland (253 8th St., and 66 Alida St.) and a rural
resident (Old Hwy 99 South), I am writing to protest the Bemis Project
proposed for the parking lot behind the Lithia Springs Hotel. I maintain
that it is inappropriate for our small town to take up parking space for
high-end condominiums and stores with what amounts to a decrease in parking
space for residents of Ashland, visitors not staying at the hotel, and
really insufficient parking for customers at the proposed shops. Beyond
that, the 80,000 sq ft building is far too large for our small downtown area
and doesn't, in my opinion, serve the town in a positive, most useful way.
Let's keep Ashland a unique small town. Upscale condominiums ($1 million+
range according to what I've been told) would be a detriment to the essence
of our small community. This does not, in my opinion, go along with good
munincipal planning everything considered.
Sincerely,
Warren Addicott email:woaddicott@earthlink.net
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Rudi Sindelar <sindelar_rudi@yahoo.com>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/044:16PM
BEMIS Project
I'm apposed to this expansion
Rudi Sindelar
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Erica C. Thompson" <tigerlilythompson@yahoo.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/19/042:47PM
reject the bemis project
I am against the Bemis Project on grounds that will be a major eyesore to downtown Ashland and is a
needless addition to the beautiful community.
-Erica C. Thompson
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Kim Boehler <kimbo@mind.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/045:50PM
Applause please..
January 19, 2004
To Members of Ashland City Council
I applaud those in our community who are taking time to ask individual
voices to speak up regarding the Bemis Project in Ashland. This is just one
more issue that makes many of us long time residents begin to feel (and say
amoung our selves) that Ashland is becoming less and less desirable as a
place to live. And those who feel this way are not irresponsible and
reactionary citizens. We are well educated, caring, peaceful residents who
have made a choice to live in this area with our families. But because of
property values our home (the ground we live on) is being over developed for
profit.
I would like to go on record as one more Ashland citizen opposed to the
Bemis project and other similar projects in this town. Please help preserve
the Ashland we know and love.
Sincerely,
Kim Boehler
408 Walker Avenue
Ashland, OR 97520
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Bob Morse" <morse@mind.net>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/049:09PM
The Big Box
DearCoundIMembe~:
I sincerely encourage City Council members to honor the spirit of the
law and acknowledge that for all intents and purposes the proposed Bemis
Project defies the now adopted downtown footprint and square-footage
limitations. I know that I am not alone in loving the small-town look and
feel of Ashland.
I most deeply wish that the Bemis Project be rejected.
Thank you,
Bob Morse
122 Seventh Street
Ashland
, II, ~ II
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Lindea Kirschner <dea777@talknatural.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/19/0410:16PM
BemisProject
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am adamantly opposed to the proposed Bemis Project in downtown
Ashland. Quite honestly, it would be a monstrosity in our beautiful
downtown. It is so out of proportion with the rest of downtown. It
most certainly would not qualify under the Big Box Ordinance.
Let's preserve the ambiance of Ashland by refusing to approve projects
like this. They don't belong in our downtown. We are not San
Francisco or Seattle or another big city. We're Ashland and must do
what we can to keep creating a town where we want to live.
Sincerely,
Lindea Kirschner
360 Merrill St.
Ashland, OR 97520
cc:
<council@ashland.or.us>
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"T. Long" <skylark@mind.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/048:21 PM
Respect Ashland's character--REJECT the Bemis Project
Tonette T. Long, Ph.D.
766 Roca Street
Ashland, OR 97520
541/488-1550
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"John and Linda Sanders" <elorri02@hotmail.com>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/04 3:38PM
REJECT THE BEMIS PROJECT
From: "BIL.L ROCCO" <bill.rocco@morningstar.com>
To: "BILL ROCCO" <bill.rocco@morningstar.com>, <mac@ashland.or.us>,
<council@ashland.or.us>
Date: 1/19/046:39PM
Subject: RE: Bemis Project
I'm writing to encourage you to reject the Bemis Project.
It's much too big; it's inconsistent with the overall look and feel of downtown; and if projects like this one
are allowed to go through, Ashland will loss the charm and character that are its primary appeal'.
Thanks for considering my views.
Sam Rocco
355 B Street
Ashland, OR 97520
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"BILL ROCCO" <bill.rocco@morningstar.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/04 6:35PM
Bemis Project
Please reject the Bemis project. It's too big;
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Aslaug Sindelar" <aslaug13@hotmail.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/19/044:20PM
Bemis project
cc:
<council@ashland.or.us>
II n 'II .
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
. II. a II
<J FreebergO@aol.com>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/04 9:57PM
Bemis proposal
Dear Council memebers,
I am against the Bemis proposal.
I think the Bemis proposal sets a bad precedent and is not in the interests of our city in terms of scale,
site, or purpose.
Thank you,
Jim freeberg
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Pamela Roessler" <pamuela@mind.net>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/04 9:41 PM
reject the Bemis project
Dear City Council members,
I am writing to you to express my concern regarding the negative implications of the Bemis Project. I am
against this big development in the downtown area.
Sincerely,
P. K. Roessler
446 Allison Street
Ashland Oregon
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Andy Bayliss" <andy@mind.net>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/04 10:58PM
No Big Bemis Project
Dear Council and Mayor,
I am appalled at the proposed huge Bemis project. Ashland citizens were clear about not allowing such
projects when they first passed the big box ordinance several years ago, and agian recently when they
closed the loop holes.
Put a stop to this monstrosity, and save our historic, small town feel. The economic value of our
downtown, as well as our aesthetic sensibilities must be defended.
Sincerely,
Mary Bayliss
385 Idaho Street
Ashland
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Mary Pat" <marypat@mind.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/20/04 9:42AM
Bemis Project
Dear decision makers,
We have of course a choice as to how Ashland develops. It can be like lovely Vail, Colorado that went
towards the interests of those only with money and thereby creating what they wanted and losing the heart
of that town. We don't have to do that.
The heart and soul and uniqueness of Ashland lies in it's diversity of people opinions ,freedom to allow all
voices and creativities and openness to the gift all have to give rich or poor or in between. The proposed
project will alter, perhaps even irreversibley the face of Ashland, the traffic the view the way of life will be
hugely impacted. The wealthy are beginning to dominate the future of Ashland. The vibrant and diverse
schools here are losing their children because few families of ordinary means can afford to live here. We
want to preserve the very unique spirit of Ashland which will be destroyed by the dominance of the wealthy
and things that serve them and not all people. We need to look deeply at the future impact of this and
serve all of the people in Ashland not just the power of money.
May the highest possible decision for all be made.
Mary Pat Mahan
261 Grant St.
Ashland, Or.
cc:
<council@ashland.or.us>
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Website User <WebUser@ashland.or.us>
Ann Seltzer <ann@ashland.or.us>, Steve Belsky <steveb@projecta.com>
1/20/048:11AM
City of Ashland Website - Feedback Form
From: Susan Farber
Email: sjmfarber@aol.com
Date: 1/20/20048:11 :12 AM
Subject: Beemis Project for Downtown
Suggestions:
As a former resident of Ashland for 30 years I urge you to support this project.
They have designed a beautiful mixed use project that will only enhance the versitility of your downtown.
I was born in Ashland and lived there for 30 years before ~oving to Central Point for affordable housing.
Although I am unable to live there I still enjoy visiting and shopping when able. I currently am part owner
of a mixed use developent in Central Point and the benefits are huge. People who are able to live/work
downtown make the neighborhood safer, promotes more business within walking distance, less traffic in
the long run and vitality with residents as well as tourists in the area day and night.
Please do not let the newcomers to your area strangle the business community area as they have the
housing areas. The charm of your city we only be enhanced! I applaud Tanya & Ed...they are longtime
residents with vision. .
Please Respond via email...
II n 'II '
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<Soulseed@aol.com>
<council@ashland.or.us>, <mac@ashland.or.us>
1/20/04 8: 15AM
Bemis Project
Dear Ashland City Council
I was horrified to see the picture of the Bemis Project yesterday, handed out
at the Armory during the Martin Luther King memorial and no doubt viewed for
the first time by many Ashlanders, THE DAY BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING!!
Is rampant greed at work here in Ashland? It would seem so. This hideous
structure would so obviously dwarf the glory of our downtown area. Any
architect with integrity would not contemplate such an eye-sore.
Want to create more wealth in downtown Ashland? Close off our main street to
traffic and create a pedestrian area, vibrant with life. Study other cities
around the world that have done this and you will find only positive results.
Become more sophisticated in your attempts at supporting local business. The -
story of the Mayor's Mansion is becoming a legend, do not be known for these
kind of actions if this story is a true one.
Attempt the Bemis Project and you will bring more strife into our beautiful
town than you are now imagining! From the protests through to the pollution
and the continued destruction of this town's heritage, it will only be a very
bad experience for all concerned.
Sincerely,
Dinah Breakell-180 Lincoln Street 488 1289
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Hello,
"Tia Hatch" <tiahatch@mindspring.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <council@ashland.or.us>
1/20/046:38AM
Bemis Project
, II. U II
As an Ashlander, I am opposed to such a large structure being built on the Ashland Springs parking lot
site. A smaller version of Bemis Project might be acceptable, but a 4-story structure is unacceptable.
Thank you for registering my lack of support.
Dorothea Hatch
815 Michelle Avenue
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Rivers Brown <jrivers@mind.net>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/20/04 8:41 AM
Reject Bemis Project
Dear People, please consider my reasoning on why the Bemis Project, as
is, should be rejected.
First and foremost, it does vastly exceed the current "big box
ordinance" which is our law. This ordinance was enacted to prevent
large structures from changing the small town atmosphere of our fair
city into that of the larger ones that people are now seeking to
escape, if only for a weekend of relaxing leisure and entertainment
here. When our town starts to look like what they are trying to take a
break from, why would they want to come here?
I have started to hear rumbling remarks not about Ashland's quaintness,
but about "Constant Construction" being associated with it. No doubt
the Library, Firestation, and Boulevard are a lot to blame, but then,
every vacant lot and unworthy house that is bulldozed contributes to
this also. Another trouble with such large projects, besides their
impacting the ambience after they are finished, is that they take so
long to build and contribute so much noise pollution and congestion
while under construction.
I guess the price of success, as a community that cares, is that
everyone will want to move here and build whatever they feel is needed,
without really realizing what makes it so attractive in the firsts
place.
We might want to look at "vested interest." What is at the bottom of
why folks feel the way they do about things of this sort? What do they
profit from it, one way or another? More money in their pockets, or a
better sense of community, or a relaxed feeling of being in a "family
town" could be some considerations. Some people are moved by the good
of the community, some are just moved by what benefits them personally.
We have a good law on our books for a very good reason. Let's stick
with it, please, and not allow this out-of-scale structure to be
plopped down into the heart of our downtown.
Thank you for your consideration on this issue. Respectfully yours,
Rivers Brown, Ashland
cc: <mac@ashland.or.us>
II ft 'II '
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
, II. U 1,[
<Javna@aol.com>
<Council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/045:03PM
Re: Bemis project
Dear Councilmember:
A few weeks ago I sent a letter encouraging you to stop the Bemis project.
The letter accurately expresses my view that the current rate of development in
Ashland threatens both the quality of life in our community, and the tourist
industry on which our local economy is based.
In response to my letter, I received an em ail from Ken Ogden, Bemis
project architect, suggesting that I don't have all the facts. I know Ken and
respect him as person of integrity who cares about Ashland---so I'm willing to
consider the possibility that he may be right. Unfortunately, since I'm living in
Italy this year, I can't really follow up and research the issue as thoroughly
as I'd like. In fairness, then, perhaps it's best that my letter be
disregarded in favor of other residents who are on the scene and can judge first-hand
what's best for Ashland.
Thank you for your consideration,
John Javna
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
andy burt <lizandy@internetcds.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <council@ashland.or.us>
1/20/04 12:55PM
Reject the Bemis Project
Keep the character of downtown Ashland. Please reject the Bemis
Project.
Andy and Elizabeth Burt
John mclau hlin - Bemis Pro'ect
Pa
From:
To: ,
Date:
Subject:
"C. CUSTODIO" <ccustodi@msn.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>, <council@ashland.or.us>
1/19/04 2:31 PM
Bemis Project
I am writing to urge you not to allow the Bemis Project.
My husband and I moved here last August after three years of visits to Ashland to be sure that this is
where we want to retire. We love it here, and it's in large part due to Ashland's village-like community. To
put a huge structure in the historic part of town seems very much out character.
Very sincerely,
Thank you for your consideration.
Carol Custodio
ccustodi@msn.com
1460 Fielder St.
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"cpeake" <cpeake@mind.net>
<council@ashland.or.us>
1/20/043:00PM
Bemis development
To Mayor and Council, City of Ashland:
I support the new project proposed for the property adjacent to the Ashland Springs Hotel. It looks like
an attractive building which in no way detracts from the charm of the city. I did not move here because of
the "quaintness" of Ashland. I'm here because of the cultural and educational amenities the community
offers. There are many, many pretty small towns in America with "quaint" buildings and a feeling of living
in a simpler past era. I would have no desire to live in them. Nor do I have any desire to live in the past.
What I look for from the City of Ashland is a vibrant present and a sound plan for managed, positive
growth for the future.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Peake
500 Lakota Way
Ashland, OR
488-9890 cpeake@mind.net
, II. U 1,[
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Scott Harding" <scott@scotthardingphoto.com>
<counc.il@ashland.or.us>
1/20/0412:28PM
Stop Bemis Behemoth, Represent our Community Values
Dear City Councilors,
The construction of the giant Bemis Building represents nothing but a
liability for the City of Ashland and an extremely visible manifestation of
the erosion of community values.
Ashland is so great largely because it has retained some critical aspects of
a small-town feel. By authorizing a massive, generic-looking structure
downtown, the City is allowing the continuation of a transformation into
Anytown, USA where Bix Boxes reign and smaller, more intimate styles of
development fall by the wayside.
In addition to being inopposition to our town's heartfelt values, the Bemis
project plan arguably has not met requirements in submitting a reasonable
complete plan prior to enactment of the Bix Box ordinance. It is clear that
the plans were rushed in to beat the deadline and that the spirit of the
project is already in conflict with the ideals of the city and its people.
There is no reason the City should grant extensions or bend the rules for
this project.
And, of course, all this aside, the project is inviting further downtown
parking problems, issues wqith traffic flows, and will further increase the
danger to pedestrians in an area where pedestrians have been killed by cars
in the past. The feel of Main Street will be diminished not only by the
appearance of the building but by the blocking of sunlight and views.
For all these reasons and more, I urge City Council to firmly and resolutely
reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Scott Harding
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Ann Magill" <magill819@earthlink.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/19/045:10PM
Bem is Project
John McLaughlin
Ashland City Planning Dept.
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Mr. McLaughlin,
I work in Ashland and am amazed the city would consider a behemoth like the
Bemis Project. Traffic and downtown views in Ashland are already much too
cluttered. Soaring real estate values have driven residents like myself and
those with young families to the outskirts. I urge you to advise the Council
to halt a plan of such monstrous proportions. I fail to see how this project
would grace the community in any way.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ann M. Magill
254 French Circle
Talent, OR 97540
, II. U II
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Judy Gin" <ginli@mind.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/19/04 9:33PM
Save downtown Ashland
To the City of Ashland, I would like to express my opinion on the
Bemis Project that has been proposed for downtown Ashland. The thought of more buildings in our
downtown area is extremely disturbing to me. The very reason that so many people like our town is
because it is not crowded like the big city, it's quaint, and the traffic is managable. The number of shops
that already exists are visited by the tourists and there seems to an equal balance between sellers and
buyers. Building more shops would be counter productive. There is nothing wrong with protecting what
we already have by controlling growth. I do believe there are many cities that actually have the whole in
mind when they limit growth. More then a building that would destroy our beautiful panoramic views, we
need a much more efficient transit system that would enhance our air quality, and limit traffic. By mass
transit, I mean transportation that is clean and quaint and fun to ride for everyone. I definitely think the
Bemis Project will destroy the atmosphere that tourists so love about Ashland, meaning the small town
feeling. Let's care for what we have, and not do what everyone else is doing, that is to sell out to big
buisness that do not have the town in mind, only the potential profits that building will create for them. The
impact environmentally and aesthetically would be devastating to our town which -has already lost some of
it's appeal from to much growth.
Sincerely, ' Judy Gin
tJ~Eri.~2!~~ghl!6~.J:.W: ,Reje<?t, .TlJrQ.~9~n,.~:t2PJ.!he. Bern isPr~l~~i------------- _m_
_~ag~_m~j
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Shirlie Joseph" <shirlie@mind.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/18/046:29PM
FW: Reject, Turndown, Stop, the Bemis Project
--Original Message-..--
From: Awdb@aol.com [mailto:Awdb@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 10:05 AM
To: shirlie@mind.net
Subject: Re: Reject, Turndown, Stop, the Bemis Project
Under Oregon State law all projects submitted for building are under
strict rules. The city Council becomes the appeals board for citizens
and developers. Both the Council and I cannot have any conversation on
the project without declaring the nature and content of that dialogue.
Please excuse the council for not responding to your e-mail. If we do
not follow the proper procedure the decision may be questioned by the
losing party and may taint that decision, this puts the city at risk.
Your em ail mustgototheplanningdepartment.mac@ashland.or.us. to be
made part of public record. Please send it to that address. The appeal
is scheduled for January 20th.
Alan DeBoer
PLEASE LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS OF ASHLAND.
1. Parking within and around the proposed building, is already tight.
It will be inadequate to handle the demand which will be created by the
new 16 condominiums, and three commercial stores.
2. No details were submitted on how traffic flow in the area will be
affected by the new residents and users of the commercial facilities.
3. The increased traffic and parking demand will further endanger
pedestrian safety.
This is not consistent with the wants of Ashland residents, nor is it
the type of housing or structure Ashland has been seeking.
Shirlie Plummer..Joseph
. II.
U II
[, ," ,'.. " .',""", ,'.' '. '.'"" ,',.." ,'...' "','....w' 'w,'..".'".......' ",""
1~0.bD",rn919ygblirl::.!r~.~,b..~~m!~..prgj~~~
Page 1 i
___,_,__,'-'-___-.--J
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Sarah Seybold <saseybold@charter.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/18/04 1 :49PM
Trash Bemis project
I moved here from San Jose to get away from the congestion and overwhelming
buildings. Don't ruin this lovely little town to which tourists come to get
away from the big city look. Sarah Seybold
[~~~n, ~-(;~~~-~~~~'~:~~~~~I~~f"'!E~..~~~,~,~Q~,~.~,Q~,g~~i_',~~,~~~,! _,_,_,_~=~'=-=,'~':c~"~ '~~..,~~' '~-"':-''',- '~~ ~. .., ... ,
. . -. .. ..
~. F>~g~_1i
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"martha street" <thisbee@email.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/19/04 1 :OOAM
REJECT THE BEAMUS PROJECT PLEASE!
" ~Qtin 'mciaugtiJl~_~:~~!o~."'B~~~i.~fi'=~......'........_....^:...'_.....:"..M..~..~~'<<"..~=.......,,~.'.~'.'m:..:'~~w..~..,:'=:~:~~~.='=:~,...'.':..:::',..:~==.'~-......,.,.,.,.,,,~
P9g~J 1
From: "Nancy Fisher" <nisher@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>
Date: 1/19/049:22AM
Subject: Stop Bemis Project
Dear Public Officials,
I recently learned of the Bemis Project and I must say that i am APPALLED! I will not be able to attend the
meeting on the 20th so I wanted to share my opinion here. This just adds another distress to the long, long
list of things that bother me about the current state of the world. Now Ashland should be a place where the
citizen really does get to have influence so I am climbing out of my apathy and contacting you on this
matter.
It really smacks of $$$$$$$ being the driving force behind decision making. Can this be true in our own
Ashland? The project doesn't belong in our downtown. It really goes against the standard I believe exists.
Starbucks is small potatos compared to this. Remember how much controversy there was about that? So,
putting esthetics aside, what about parking and traffic flow? Pedestrian safety? These are some of my
concerns.
Sincerely,
Nancy Fisher
535 Rock St
Ashland, Or
i J 0 hQ rTl<?1 (3LJ.9.~lir1...~ .E.3.E3rTl i sPro j ect
Page 11
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Nancy Spencer" <nanspen@mind.net>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/19/04 3:02PM
Bem is Project
I'm writing to state my strong opposition to the Bemis Project. I think it
would drastically change our downtown area for the worse. Please don't
approve this project. Nancy Spencer
t Jof~,~~'?:~~_~ih~~~,~~~:~~~~~,i..j~8E _ ~~~M IS-- P'RO'JECT-'" ~.... ....,
. m-:-.._ .n.... __... ""__. __. n_..... _ .__ ..
~,c:I~e. 1,,1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"John and Linda Sanders" <elorrio2@hotmail.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/19/04 3:34PM
REJECT THE BEMtS PROJECT
cc:
<council@ahland.or.us>
. II. U II
___~~_~_____________~~~~_lJ
r-:"'., , ,_, '. ,_ ".. ',. _',_" ,. _"" .,'..,,'.', ',',' ,'~,'
~hnmcl?lJgblir1 ~ TheB~rT)i~ErQJ~ct
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Isaac Walker" <iwalker@jeffnet.org>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/19/04 8:26PM
The Bem is Project
In a word, PLEASE STOP IT! You've heard all the arguments, and there's no need to rehearse them
here. Ashlanders don't want it, and it would be criminal for your panel to allow it to be approved,
particularly when the proposal was submitted incomplete to beat a deadline.
Isaac Walker
Ashland
~~,_..___,..____._,.._m__..__..n __...._.__...... "'__'_'_ _..~___ ..._.._. ....~__.._. .,. .--.---..,.......-.... . .... .-.-.-.-.....--..................... ........ ...... ... .....
.
: ~ohn mcl~ughlin - Fwd: Slow on Bemis Project (trying again to send) . . __--'... ...._. ...._.... .........._...._.
. " ...c....._......~...~.~.._..... __ w..... ...____ ... _.,,~"'.n'~. _....... .._______~........... ._'.. ~ ___._....;~\_.....................:...' , _.:....._.-.:......_._........._...__
~._ ~... ... . _..._..._.~ .- .... - . ..- ."M ..... - ..
.. .p~.~~--~......]
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Robin Foster <bushbeatle@opendoor.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/19/0411:11PM
Fwd: Slow on Bemis Project (trying again to send)
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Robin Foster <bushbeatle@opendoor.com>
> Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:04:52 PM US/Pacific
> To: council@ashland.or.us
> Subject: Slow on Bemis Project
>
> I urge Ashland's decision-makers to make no hasty decisions in
> approving such an out-sized project for downtown Ashland. The Bemis
> project contains many well-considered aspects, yet the scale of this
> massive construction is not in keeping with Ashland's walkable center.
> Best wishes on your deliberations,
> Colleen Curran
>
>
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Lindea Kirschner <dea777@talknatural.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/19/0410:16PM
BemisProject
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am adamantly opposed to the proposed Bemis Project in downtown
Ashland. Quite honestly, it would be a monstrosity in our beautiful
downtown. It is so out of proportion with the rest of downtown. It
most certainly would not qualify under the Big Box Ordinance.
Let's preserve the ambiance of Ashland by refusing to approve projects
like this. They don't belong in our downtown. We are not San
Francisco or Seattle or another big city. We're Ashland and must do
what we can to keep creating a town where we want to live.
Sincerely,
Lindea Kirschner
360 Merrill St.
Ashland, OR 97520
cc: <council@ashland.or.us>
II n 'II'
1...JQbr1...rlJ.c;lalJgbJir1..~....F~cj :.~tQP...th~.....~.~...rn.i~....EtQj~c;t..~...NQ. QY~r~i~~cjQ~'v'~IQPrT).~nt..i.r1..~.~.b.I.?n.9
From: Harold & Patty <harold-patty@jeffnet.org>
To: <donlaws@mind.net>, <cate@mind.net>, <jmorrison@rvcog.org>,
<cehearn@aol.com>, <katejackson@opendoor.com>, <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>, <mac@ashland.or.us>
Date: 1/18/04 1 :19PM
Subject: Fwd: Stop the Bemis Project - No Oversized Development in Ashland
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Harold & Patty <harold-patty@jeffnet.org>
> Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 1 :01 :48 PM US/Pacific
> To: -awdb@aol.com
> Subject: Stop the Bemis Project - No Oversized Development in Ashland
>
> To all who serve the public good in Ashland,
>
> We are outraged by the approval of the building project behind Lithia
> Springs Hotel. It is not in scale with our downtown, it will .
> undoubtedly set precedent for other mega-structures, it may cause
> traffic and congestion, and is clearly not in keeping with the
> intention of our Big Box limitations. What were you thinking to
> approve this four short days before the limitations took effect?
> Please, let's keep our downtown limited to two stories. We are not a
> major metropolitan area. This is not Portland's Pearl District.
> Mixed use or not, this project is inappropriate to our quaint
> downtown. Please reconsider, and listen carefully to the citizens of
> this community, not just to the investors and developers.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Patricia A. Krahl
> 1032 Bellview
> Ashland, Or. 97520
>
, II.
U 1.1
Page 1 I
I~~~~-ghl~-=-Ple~~~~t~~~~~~d-~~n th~ .B.~m i~Project!-u---~
__ _~_Cl9_~__~ J
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Manj Jo Owens <mjrowens@yahoo.com>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/20/0410:40AM
Please turn down the Bemis Project!
We hope you will seriously look at the impact the
proposed Bem is project will have on Ashland's downtown
area, not only the aesthetics, but traffic and
parking. If the plans hadn't been rushed through, the
45,000 sq. ft. limitation would have been in effect.
Please turn down this project.
Sincerely, '
Mary Jo and LeRoy Owens
667 Park St.
Ashland
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hot jobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
lJ.~tirijTI<2!?~,g_bl!~-~~~ii!Q~!b~~:~~<~rri(~~~:~L=~,==='=:=:.,=::~:=:-'u',',=:==~~~'_'~=~::~~'~:-::::=:'~'::=~
Page 1 :
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Mori" <mori@moriink.com>
<grimaldg@ashland.or.us>
1/20/04 1 0:02AM
Fw: stop the Bem is project
----- Original Message ----
From: Mori
To: Mori
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:45 AM
Subject: stop the Bemis project
this project is way too big for our town and how did this project get approved during the holidays??? the
parking in this area is tight now and it will stick out from in back the hotel and look horrible. how does this
stay tuned with historic interest of ashland. the last thing we need is more high income housing. what
about a low income housing interst?? this is outragous!!!!! stop this misfit from happening for the good of
all ashland. thanks. rnori
II n 'II '
, II. U II
_~_~~e 1
-~-~-- - -
--- ----- -- --- -~ ----
r~~~~--Stop the Bemis Project
-- - ~ -~--~........--~~-_.-~_.~-_._-~--
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
lit & s houston" <lovefarm9@jeffnet.org>
<mac@ashland.or.us>
1/15/042:47PM
Stop the Bem is Project
Dear Mr. McLaughlin,
I urge you to reject the Bemis project on Hargadine. The. si~e is just too
big. A building that complies with the new 45,000 sq: ft. limit would be
fine but this one is just too big. Parking and pedestrian safety are huge
iss~es that need to be addressed. As a downtown merchant, I urge you to
reconsider this project.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Houston
Houston's Custom Framing & Fine Art
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Betty Owens-Gordon" <bettygo@mind.net>
<mclaughj@ashland.or.us>
1/15/047:31PM
RE: Reject Bemis Project
Dear Sir,
We were out of town on November 12th when the Ashland City Planning Commission approved a plan for
construction of a large commercial/condominium building at Hargadine and First Street. 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 citizens that feel that way.
We understand there is a citizen's group organized to file a formal appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision. We wish to be on record as opposing that 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 to be
approved. 1) It is not needed. 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.
Suncerely,
Betty & Clayton Gordon
436 Helman St.
Ashland
v :t:: ~
c :-2
"J,- .....
_ ~-.. 1.t...
I.s:: -< ;:!
I u; ~ U)
<:" .
,'>-< ~~I I
I 0 -- '0
8'l b.
W a. :t
Q
THE BEMIS PROJECT
Submitted by Bill Street 1/20/04
1) Ashland City Council has the authority to reinterpret the
1992 "Big Box" Ordinance.
2) There has been a lengthy, deliberate, fair and open public
process which allows the council to reinterpret.
3) The 2000 OSF New Theater application was approved by
applying the gross square footage floor area interpretation.
The "footprint" interpretation was NEVER DISCUSSED BY THE
COUNCIL at the time.
4) OSF's "footprint" interpretation of the 1992 ordinance was
unnecessary, arbitrary and capricious.
5) The 2001 YMCA addition could have been passed by
rezoning (or separating buildings - both suggested by
planning Staff), just as Mountain Meadows and Mountain View
Retirement Residence were.
6) Present council members and the Planning Commission in
February 2003 and the Mayor have repeatedly. publicly, and
in writing endorsed the gross square footage floor area
interpretation and limitation of 45,000 gross square feet.
7) Present council members and the Mayor have repeatedly
and publicly expressed their intent to apply that .
interpretation (See 6 above) if any building projects larger'
than 45,000 gross square feet are brought to the attention of
the councilor come before the council.
8) The public record shows that applicant Tanya Bemis,
Ashland Springs Hotel property owner Doug Neuman and
Planning Commissioner Ray Kistler (of Ogden-Kistler
architects) have participated in the open and fair public
process which allows the council to reinterpret the ordinance.
9) The Ashland Site Design and Use Standard regarding
Separation of Buildings should be applied to the Bemis Project
application.
10) According to City Municipal code, the Bemis Project planning
action should NOT have been presented to the citizen volunteer
Hist:oric, Tree and Planning Commissions until it was a complete
application.
11) The Bemis Project application before you tonight is sti'll NOT A
COMPLETE APPLICATION.
) 1/
l t
,(
/
;., ,
1!~"1 ~
I Wtn!Ofl-tlrw A5 AN ItPp~ 7YJ
ffAlrNNI!\Jtp ~n ~ N . ~ - 1/2 7
..u,v t-JAVl~
j
20 January 2004
John McLaughlin, Planning Director
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
City of Ashland
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Gent! emen:
As of the above date I withdraw my name as one of the appellants in
reference to the appeal to Planning Action 2003-127 a request for Land
Partition and Site Review to construct a building at 212 E. Main Street.
I only withdraw because of the City of Ashland's testimony procedures and
regulations. My withdrawal will permit me to sign up and speak for the
allotted five minutes during the public hearing.
Best,
Ij~J~:7 ~//~C~; r ., /
Bryan Holley ;;
324 Liberty Street
Ashland, OR 97520
541.488.3866
holley@opendoor.com
BH:BH
/....,,_._-<>..-<J:~.:.::.; it i:'~~'ld
1';;,~ "l"l; n: T~ ",,: .
[.: ^.'. ".,...^, ~ '. '..(l'.'. .1C. ...... '~tt) I t
t. ..~~.~;_, ;.~~~~~~~S T M F ._~~
r .
GRAVEN IMAGES
ALLERY PRESS
Drawer #54, 1257 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland, OR 97520 · (541) 488,8076
I/'U/o'
Tv ~ 4.J- /M,~ CJLr~ t
J ~ U.lfG~~ ~ 11..~ <<s' ~ '1 ~
ct te/l~ ~ v1' +' ~ "t~ -}tf rLCtk~ I~ ?dO) -{ 7,
0.. V p~ (y-- k....t ~ 6-1,4;/ LtJ'-.- \- S.tle=: ~.e. 0 I...Q..W -N tJW'i f.-veP-
A- h\J~ cvl- L l L -c'. VI-'\~ Sf-
~~l~
'51 $' D()j~ L0~
M ~ I o-iZ c(1 ~ - J..()
/,..._"~-_.-.;\, t', ;~'nd
\ F>.htbit
\ L~ c(. _J~L
\
. 1
,-.-'
/;2(
L-
./' ?L....;;,.?
V L"L.ij(~
?~)-z
<.. / ~.,
t<'.? c:" lc:::": or </" /
//
..,
'1 ; '- / /'
) '~'-'!"-G'-'"'(7...
"L(<d.~/ . .,>J::,~
/' 'Or'
f/' / ./
'- 2 c.'....,.e. ~
... 'C
t
,4.,'-
-~
/1' i / / " / / /" ,--.
u../ ; C{:,/ i ."l:. tt??W / /j//-:J
- ~ I ' ~'<"'-'L/~
I
,/
I
I
" ./?" i.=> j,
/? ~;.-;?<:c .;--.c.-
//-/"'~
I
c:.. ,,1.. /1.'__.(
.I
.' ,/?/J/
)"//~'L-.
, ,.'
I
C/ /;;,;,:!?,::::'-ct.., l
',~
::.
,/
,,>7 i
, I
+,,-...1
/ .1<'
<'-1'-
(.../
(.'dJ ~L L
f'.
\\
- ~'7
/.
I....r'
") ...... /.:. >,'7 2" ?~/ c.:' ~
-I"y/)
!
"t. '',.11.. C,/".2!U/
.)' --r-' '/./ /-
.0 V ~7 CZ-C, ~/ /t-,,,:,:. ( 1-.-.1"
/ '"r, ,....
, // / ''; /7 ()J7/ (; ,4,
,'IS> vl/U ct .1-. /( (I';/?/c;;~i
/--"-.-:" ---;':-'-:;": ~~nJ
I " . .
I \,:, ".,q',ir Exhibit
\ L~i,:,',~~'ccJL
l ~,:) ~,'~-~~'-sWC'__
--'-""--~"-"-"~'----"---'---.'-".--'--'-'------7--'--..------''-' "-""-'-"'~----~,.,--- _"~'~'_'___'_"'~'H" "''''.'.- . , "H '''''. '-, --.-- "", ,....-,--/J--"'-.,',,.----"--,.... ",
m. "
~. . I~~ /..... . ..' ~.
------------~,'.~-~-~,-~~"'~-,',-~~"~~~-~
----------------------UOUr,--~~7---~--.--/.. - ---. - ~---.-
"'-,."..".."..,-.".,-....-.,"""-"'--,,------..?;:---..~,-~~A~,Jd,~ ,.A ' ....,. , '" i/?t ". ,'. ~(<-~~
--~---- " - _~).t/:. c ~~~cd ~ 0
... - .. .-. '=tLr?&;~~r;7) ~J2t !Jif~Jf/jJ: .
~:p :ac'ft~
Cit;~f Ashland
Planning Exhibit
EXHIBIT CC: (~
PA# .
QATE ---= STAFF
. . ..