Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBemis 1/22 - Exhibit 32-33 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, STAFF REPORT October 14, 2003 Page 3 &4: Builaing Design - AaaitionalInformation Neeaea 5T AFF CONCERNS/RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that additional information be provided before the Commission considers approval of the Site and Building Design. Given the conceptual nature of the exterior drawings, Staff feels more detailed information is needed to understand the distinction between the main building fac;ade and the depts. Of adjoining features such as cornices, columns, projecting balconies, and horizontal bands used to distinguish between upper and lower floor levels. Page 5: Downtown Design Stanaara VI..B "Recessea or projecting l1alc;onies..........~ The information provided makes it difficult to determine the dimension of the balcony projection, or set back from the plane of main fac;ade. Thereforer Staff cannot thoroughly evaluate the merit, or lack of merit, to the exception reQuest, without the applicant providing additional details as described earlier in the report. Page 7: PUl1lic Space Requirements STAFF CONCERNS/ RECOMMENDATION: Based upon past applications, the area within the project devoted to public plaza space may need to be increased. Assuming approximately 40,000 to 44,000 square feet of gross interior floor space, 4,000 to 4,400 square feet could be required, rather than 1 ,963 square feet (based upon foot print). If the Commission believes public space is based upon gross interior floor area, the site plan must be modified with this standard. As a result, approval of the application should be ctelayed until such changes are made and evaluated by the Commission. Page 9: 2. Insiae the Downtown Design Stanaaras Zone The proposed building footprint of 19,633 is well within the maximum footprint of 45,000 square feet. In Staff's evaluation of the proiectr howeverr it appears that the uppermost level of structured parking would be considered in the gross floor area calculation. Since it appears that more than 50% of the outside perimeter of the upper level of structured parking is exposed by more than six (6) feet above grade, the upper parking level would likely be considered a story, not a basement. If that were the case the gross floor area for the proiect would be approximately 58,899 sQuare feet. r~'~~n :~~~-:'~::f,~-:J EXiiilme G 3 2- PA # - IAA, l.IIJ DATE_~ Sf~ IIf\.: -- -- IT (/-:~~'-,- :.----:- LUBA 99-059 GREER v JOSEPHINE CO FO I ,,' C,j A.-;111;'nd I I':lnnmg- Exhibit http://luba.state.or.us/pdf/nov99/99059.pdf I EXI',18/TCG - ~ ~ f" /l. # ----=-- \ -::"H, -- STAFF At oral argument, intervenor contended that, because county staff has applied its -" _._::,~ interpretation of RLDC 92.020(H) in other cases, the county is required to continue applying that 2 interpretation in this case, regardless of its merits. Intervenor cites to Holland v. City of Cannon 3 Beach, 154 Or App 450,962 P2d 701, rev den 328 Or 115 (1998), for the proposition that, 4 having adopted an interpretation ofRLDC 92.020(H), the county cannot now "change the goal- 5 posts" by reinterpreting that provision. However, Holland involved a standard that the city treated 6 as inapplicable during all points of the proceedings before the city until the decision was remanded 7 by the Court of Appeals, at which point the city sought to apply that standard as a basis to deny the 8 application. The Court of Appeals held that the city's actions violated ORS 227.178(3), which 9 requires that approval or denial of an application be based upon the standards and criteria that were 10 applicable at the time the application was first submitted. There is no question in this case that 11 RLDC 92.020(H) was applicable at the time the application was submitted and throughout the 12 proceedings below. As construed in Holland, ORS 227.178(3) constrains a local government's 13 ability to change interpretations regarding the applicability of its approval criteria, but we do not 14 read Holland as constraining reintervretations of the meaning of indisvutablv avvlicable standards. 15 See Alexanderson v. Clackamas County, 126 Or App 549,552,869 P2d 873, rev den 319 Or 16 150 (1994) (in the absence of any indication that different interpretations are the product of a design 17 to act arbitrarily or inconsistently from case to case, a county hearings officer is not bound to follow 18 the previously applied interpretations of planning staff). Even if Holland does so, we verceive 19 nothing in that case that reQuires L UBA or the Court of Apveals to afJirm an intervretation. no 20 matter how long-standing. that is inconsistent with the exvress text of the relevant vrovision and 21 "clearlv wrong." 22 This subassignment of error is sustained. 23 ~ Iv~ ~ I f~ ~ &(( f{y~d' 1/2-2-/1A4t/- '. n 'IT'