HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-016 Findings - Bemis BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND
January28,2004
In the Matter of Planning Action #2003-127, )
Request for Land Partition and Site Review )
to Construct a Multi-floor, Mixed-use Building)
with Underground Parking upon the Area )
Occupied by the Existing Ashland Springs )
Hotel Surface Parking Area 212 E. Main )
Street. An Exception Is Requested to City )
Downtown Design Standards to Allow Recessed )
Balconies on Street Facing Elevations {VI-b-(3)}. )
Final Decision
APPLICANT: Ed & Tanya Bemis
The appeal. This matter came before the council on appeal from a decision by the
planning commission. The planning commission approved the application to construct a
multi-floor, mixed-use (condominium and commercial) building and underground
parking upon the area occupied by the existing Ashland Springs Hotel surface parking
area at 212 E. Main Street.
Scope of review. We review the appeal de novo. Ashland Land Use Ordinance
(ALUO) § 18.108.110.A.4. The record of the decision of the planning commission
consisted of 246 pages and this record as well as other emails and documents
submitted by interested citizens, parties and city staff (numbered as pages 247 through
334) were distributed to the council on January 10, 2004, for its consideration at the
hearing on January 20, 2004. On Monday, January 12th, the planning commission
record and the additional documents were distributed to the applicants and the
appellants.
Subsequent to this distribution, additional emails and letters were received by the city
as well as additional information from the appellants. (At the hearing before the council
four of the five appellants withdrew as appellants leaving one appellant, Bill Street.)
These subsequent emails and letters, numbered Al-A30, and the additional information
from the appellants, numbered B1-B79, were distributed to the parties and the council
on January 16, 2004.
At the hearing on January 20, 2004, additional documents were placed before the
council for its consideration with a cover sheet entitled "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." For the continued portion of the hearing
on January 22, 2004, documents submitted after the January 20, 2004, hearing
presented to the council were received by the council with a cover letter labeled
"Additional public input received from January 20 (after council meeting) until January
I - Bemis Final Decision
G:\legal\PAUL\PLANNING\Bemis\findings - council bemis final.wpd
I , IT
22 (4:30 p.m.) regarding Appeal of Planning Action 2003-17." Various other documents
were introduced at the hearing and were marked as exhibits beginning with the number
"CC-1 ."
All of the above-described documents were received by the council and were
considered for this proceeding.
Relevant Substantive Approval Criteria. The relevant substantive approval criteria as
set out before the planning commission and the notices for this proceeding adequately
describe the approval criteria that must be met by the applicants. For the purpose of our
decision, however, we will set forth and discuss only one of the criterion the applicants
failed to meet. The applicants must establish that the application meets the limitation of
gross square footage as contained in the Detail Site Review Zone and the Site Design
Standards:
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 3OOfeet. Any building or contiguous group of
buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may
expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the
gross square footage or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this
section shall be subject to any variance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance.
(Emphasis added.)
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.)
2 - Bemis Final Decision G:\legal\PAUL\PLANNING\Bemis\findings - council bemis final.wpd
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.
4. All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate a streetscape which includes
curbs, sidewalks, pedestrian scale light standards, and street trees.
We find that this project is situated in the"North Main Street, Historic District, and Oak
Street" Detail Site Review zone and is therefor subject to ALUO § 18.72.050.
The project is likewise subject to the above-quoted site design standard since that
standard is imposed on large scale projects pursuant to Site Design Standard II-C-3:
Developments (1) involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet or a
building frontage in excess of 100 feet in length, (2) located within the Detail Site review
Zone, shall, in addition to complying with the standards for Basic and Detail Site
Review, shall conform to (site design standard II-C-3a)2)).
Findings.
1. We find that the project has a total gross floor area of 81,212 square feet and is
therefor subject to the large scale project site design standards set forth in section
I1-C-3. Of this total gross floor area, 23,245 square feet is designated by the applicants
as a basement area leaving 57,967 square feet of gross floor area above-ground. Of
the above-ground area, 23,671 square feet is designated for above-ground parking,
leaving a total gross floor area above ground designated for commercial and residential
areas. The project has a building footprint of approximately 19,000 square feet. The
applicant produced no evidence to show that the size of the building is within the
limitation as we interpret it.
2. The planning commission approved this application because it found that the project
did not exceed the maximum square footage allowed by the above-quoted standards.
The commission applied an interpretation of a previous city council that 45,000 gross
square footage was to be interpreted as meaning the footprint of a proposed building
not the gross floor area. We disagree with that interpretation and find that it is wrong.
3. We find that the applicants have failed to meet the limitation 45,000 gross square
footage feet imposed by ALUO § 18.72.050.C and Site Design Standard § I1-C-3a)2)
because we determine that the gross square footage of the proposed project is 81,212
and thus exceeds the limitations imposed by these standards by over 36,000 square
feet.
4. The interpretation used by the planning commission was made in the year 2000 by
the then sitting city council. The council approved an application by the Oregon
Shakespeare Festival (OSF) in planning action #2000-074 by interpreting these
standards as follows:
3 - Bemis Final Decision
G:\legal\PAUL\PLANNING\Bemis\findings - council bemis flnal.wpd
"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 I1-C-3-a-2."
5. Our extensive review of the standards involved in that decision, which we determine
are the same standards involved in this proceeding, lead us to a different conclusion
and interpretation. First, we believe that such an interpretation was unnecessary in the
OSF decision. The structure involved did not have a gross floor area in excess of
45,000 square feet. Here, there is no question the gross floor area of the structure
exceeds 45,000 square feet. We interpret this provision to mean 45,000 gross floor
area square footage and includes all floors within the structure, whether underground,
in a basement, designated for parking or otherwise. As noted above, we find that the
gross square footage of the proposed structure exceeds 81,000 square feet.
6. We do not arrive at this conclusion capriciously or arbitrarily. The 45,000 square
footage limitation was adopted in 1992 for important reasons and after a lengthy public
process. This provision was not interpreted by the council until the OSF project in the
year 2000. For that project the footprint interpretation was first applied and then shortly
thereafter in 2001, it was last applied for the YMCA project. After the YMCA project, the
interpretation has prompted controversy and has been the subject of many public
hearings, meetings and discussions before the planning commission and this council.
7. These public hearings began in August 2001 when the planning commission
conducted a hearing regarding the interpretation. Then followed a hearing before the
council in September 2001 plus several public discussions by the council in 2002,
culminating in a joint study session with the council and planning commission in June
2002. In addition, the planning commission held two subsequent study sessions and a
public hearing in early 2003 where the commission recommended that the council not
interpret the ordinance as referring to footprint. Following the commission public hearing
4 - Bemis Final Decision G:\legal\PAUL\PLANNING\Bemis\flndings - council bemis final.wpd
this council held a study session and indicated that the limitation should be interpreted
to mean gross floor area of all spaces.At that time, we voiced support of the planning
commission recommendation for a limitation of 45,000 square foot gross floor area.
8. This extensive public process occurred completely outside the quasi-judicial process
associated with the application being considered in this appeal. The applicants were
well aware of the public process as at least one of them appeared before us to
comment on the proposed ordinance amendments and one of the principal architects in
the firm representing the applicants serves on the planning commission. In addition, the
representative of the owner of the property subject to the application, Doug Neuman,
appeared before the council in the May 2003 study session to comment on the matter.
9. Even within this quasi-judicial process, applicants have been given notice and an
opportunity to comment on a possible reinterpretation. Applicants were advised a week
prior to the hearing of the city attorney's opinion describing the circumstances by which
the council had the authority to reinterpret the OSF opinion. Applicants' had an
opportunity to respond and did respond to that opinion, through their attorney, on the
day of the hearing. Subsequently and prior to the applicants' rebuttal, applicants
received an additional opinion from the city attorney's office regarding this issue.
Applicants' attorney responded to these opinions during applicants' rebuttal.
10. We acknowledge that the standards in effect at the time of the filing of the
application are the standards to be applied to this application. ORS 227.178(3). The
application was filed on September 12, 2003, and deemed complete on October 3,
2003. While the council adopted amendments~ to ALUO § 18.72.050 and the site
ALUO § 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. fi. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. gr., 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. gr. or a gross floor area
of 45,000 sq. ir., 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
5 - Bemis Final Decision G:\legal\PAUL\PLANNING\Bemis\findings - council bemis final.wpd
design review standards in § II-C-3)a on September 16, 2003, with an effective date
October 15, 2003, the standards to be applied to this application are the standards
adopted in 1992. The provisions of ORS 227.178(3) do not prohibit us from
reinterpreting the meaning of the applicable standards.
11. This is not a case of whether the 1992 version of ALUO § 18.72.050.C or its
identical site design standard is the applicable standard. These standards were
applicable to the OSF proceeding and are applicable to this proceeding.
12. The question before us is what the application of those provisions mean to this
project. We think the circumstances involving the OSF interpretation and the significant
public process after that interpretation, involving both the planning commission and this
council, allow us to acknowledge that this council's interpretation of those standards
was effectively made as of May 2003. As noted above, we voiced our support, at a
study session in May, of the planning commission recommendation that buildings
should not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet.
13. Even if it can be argued that May 2003 was not an interpretation by this council, we
feel we have the authority to appropriately change that interpretation in the course of
this proceeding.
14. Finally, even if the applicants were to assert that this interpretation was
unanticipated, there is no evidence that they could produce to show that the size of the
building is within the limitation as we interpret it.
Ultimate Conclusions and Decision. We find that the applicants' project exceeds the
limitation of 45,000 gross square footage imposed by ALUO § 18.72.050.C and Site
Design Standard § II-C-3a)2) because we determine that the gross square footage of
the proposed project is 81,212 and thus exceeds the limitations imposed by these
standards by over 36,000 square feet. The application is denied.
Dated January 28, 2004.
Alan DeBoer
Mayor
City of Ashland
means any floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same
meaning as provided in the building code.
6 - Bemis Final Decision G:\legal\PAUL\PLANNING\Bemis\findings - council bemis flnal.wpd