HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibits_PA 2006-02354
Page 1 of2
From: Colin Swales [colinswales@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 200711:18AM
To: John Morrison; Cate Hartzell; katejackson@opendoor.com; Eric Navickas; Russ Silbiger; David
Chapman; Alice Hardesty
Cc: David Stalheim; Richard Apicella; Martha Bennett; Barbara Christensen; Mike Franell
Subject: Request for Council to Appeal P A# 2006-02354
~_,r., '''f
City of Ashland
PJanninQ Exhibit
IExtib,t# O(-'Zb~L
PA :1;1'" O~~
11};1t . ,cifsi~ff~.
'.. N " ~.'c_~.~._,_ A
Cate Hartzell
Mayor and Council,
(cc Martha, David, Richard, Mike, Barbara)
For the Record
- P A# 2006-02354 N. Main St./Glenn
Request for Site Review approval to construct a two-story office building located on the vacant parcel at the southeast comer
of the intersection ofN. Main St. and Glenn St. A Variance is requested to allow a to-foot front yard setback where a 20-
foot front yard for properties abutting arterial streets is required. An Exception to the Street Standards is required to provide
a curbside sidewalk on Glenn St;
As you are aware, you, as our elected representatives have the final word on the
implementation and interpretation of our Municipal Code.
Back in 2000 there were two landmark planning actions, one with the City itself as
Applicants (2000-039) followed quickly by another with the City as Property Owner (2000-
074).
In adopting the detailed and extensive "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" for both
these actions, the City declared multiple provisions of our Land Use Ordinances and
Comprehensive Plan to be "ambiguous" and under the authority invested in Council they
proceeded to specifically interpret in writing these alleged ambiguities .
Last night the Planning Commission finalized their approval decision by adopting the
Findings for Planning Action 2006-02354 at North Main Street and Glenn Street.
In doing so, it is my opinion, that the PC re-interpreted (countermanded) the aforementioned
Council decisions and prior interpretations, especially as it relates to our Site Design and
Use Standards with regard to Historic District design standards. And in doing so, they
ignored ( i.e. approved a Variance to) the required Special Setbacks along arterial streets that
Council has also explicitly ruled on recently.[ ALUO 18.68.050]
I have provided voluminous detailed information to both Planning and Legal Staff who had
hitherto seemed perhaps unaware of your prior interpretations on these matters.
(Regrettably, there is no electronic database of such interpretations, and one must rely on
institutional and citizen memory, and old hard-copy files)
Sadly the bulk of this important, essential, factual, new information was deemed by Staff not
to be shared with the Commissioners last night.
4/29/2007
Page 2 of2
It is vitally important that such interpretations (and re-interpretations) are not used in
planning decisions in an arbitrary and capricious manner
Therefore I would ask you to contact City Planning Staff and your Legal Counsel on this
matter and I respectfully request that you appeal this decision, under the authority
granted to you, at the earliest opportunity by scheduling a de novo public hearing. Doing so
would then protect the integrity of our land use laws and establish your own final authority
on these matters.
In order to avoid further ex-parte contact it would be best for you to communicate with me
on this matter via Staff.
Respectfully
Colin Swales
4/29/2007
To:
Cc:
From: Colin Swales [colinswales@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 20078:40 AM
David Stalheim
John Morrison; davidchapman@ashlandhome.net; ahardesty88@charter.net; Eric Navickas;
cate@mind.net; katejackson@opendoor.com; Russ Silbiger; Richard Appicello; Barbara
Christensen; Martha Bennett; Mike Franell
Subject: Re: Request for Council to Appeal PA# 2006-02354
Page 1 of2
~""..-
I C.ity of Ashla:'tj ~~.1
Planning Exhibit
.. EXhiblt.#_ez-12l
PA #....~::~I-
~ 03te'tV1i1Staff "
~~...~~~...,... _.~~Ur~
Cate Hartzell
< <As for not providing the Planning Commission with information as suggested by Mr. Sales, you
should know that the hearing and the record were closed I cannot forward information after the record
is closed but prior to a final decision being made. > >
As the information consisted of prior interpretations by Council, that information I sent to Staff. was all a
matter of available Public Record.
Staff then has the discretion to choose what information to share with decision-makers, by means of
their recommendations and opinions to those decision-makers, and such guidance from Staff is not
considered" ex-parte communications".
So, as previously requested, I would ask Council members to fully inform themselves by contacting
Staff and/or city Legal Counsel ahead of Monday's Study Session or Tuesday's meeting. (the minutes
from February's PC meeting are included in your packet)
Thank you for putting this matter on your upcoming agenda at such short notice, I know you are all very
busy.
Let's hope preceeding business is expedited as quickly as possible on Tuesday so that you can get to this
time-sensitive issue..
Colin
On 3/15/07, David Statheim < > wrote:
I am having difficulty getting an email out. My apologies. I sent this out yesterday in response to the
request to council on this planning action. Please give me a call on Friday if! can answer any
questions.
The procedures for appeal are spelled out in Section 18.108.110. For the Council to take action, the
Council must have a majority vote to appeal the decision. I know some of you have questions. Please
let me know what those questions are. I want you to have the background you need to make the
decision about whether to call this up on appeal.
If the Council does not wish to file an appeal, Mr. Sales can make his own appeal pursuant to these
procedures. As for not providing the Planning Commission with information as suggested by Mr.
Sales, you should know that the hearing and the record were closed. I cannot forward information
after the record is closed but prior to a final decision being made. Mr. Sales can provide this
information if there is a de novo hearing before the Council.
DavidStalheim,Director
4/29/2007
Page 1 of6
From: Colin Swales [colinswales@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:44 PM
To: John Morrison; Alice Hardesty; Eric Navickas; David Chapman; Cate Hartzell;
katejackson@opendoor.com; Russ Silbiger
Cc: Martha Bennett; Tom Dimitre; John Stromberg; golden-fields@charter.net; plan@aoblack.com;
michaeltd @opendoor. com; TheDotts@mind.net; pam.marsh@gmail.com; sassetta@mind.net;
msquared@mind.net
Subject: ADJACENT is not ambiguous...
Cate Hartzell
Mayor and Council,
(cc Planning Commission, Martha),
I had hoped that somebody on Staff would respect my wish to share with you all the following
information with respect to the arterial setback issue as it relates to a recent planning application on
North Main & Glenn Street.
Sadly it was decided to withold this information (even from the PC chair), and therefore I am reluctantly
obligated to send it myself so that you can be fully informed prior to your meeting tomorrow.( re P A#
2006-02354 )
Colin Swales
************************************
To David Stalheim, Director, Ashland Community Development Dept.
David,
(cc Richard Appicello, Mike Franell, Susan Yates, Maria Harris, Bill Molnar)
Please forward to PC (and if necessary the Council for their own determination
regarding 1Ir. Bullock's submitted request for them to appeal this preliminary decision
should it be finalized by PC ; 3 attachments)
I am obviously disappointed that you say in your Recent 3/8/07 Memo to the Planning
Commissioners that the PC chair "is not likely to allow reconsideration of the decision" (for
PA# 2006-02354) following our recent request.
I am also disappointed that this request is not even mentioned on the upcoming PC agenda
and that all the Findings adoptions have also (I think for the first time ever) been bumped to the
very end of the meeting.
Firstly, for the Record, let me start by giving a brief overview of all the City's recent prior
Reconsideration requests.(it would seem all involve Land Use Actions), and how they have
been dealt with by the City. The last couple of years have been very busy in this regard I
1. PA #2004-150 (Unitarian Church)
Staff Memo 5117/05
" .... The applicant's representative, Tom Giordano, will be present at the May 17th Council meeting.
During Public Forum he will request that this Item be place on the agenda and that the Council reconsider
their motion on this action. "
4/29/2007
Page 2 of6
Council Meeting 5117/05
PUBUC FORUM
Tom GiordanolRequested the Council to reconsider the vote taken on May 3, 205 regarding
the Unitarian Church appeal. Mr. Giordano stated that according to AMC 2.04.120, the Council
could reconsider their vote. He explained that the applicant was not given the opportunity to
provide input or rebuttal....
...Councilor Jackson motion to place this issue on agenda. Motion denied due to lack of
second.
2. PA#2005-01674 (11 First Street) 11/8/05
"...Fields, as guided by the City Attorney, has concluded this action should be reconsidered and continued at next
month's meeting because of an error in the ordinance interpretation. .....He added that the action was approved
by the Commission, but due the vision clearance problem, it will undoubtedly be appealed to the Council and they
will be forced to deny it. .."
".... TOM GIORDANO... His hope is that the Commission could approve the project tonight.... He reminded the
Commissioners that the Historic Commission recommended retaining the Planning Commission's approval. ...."
12/12/05 (continued meeting)
UnanImously approved.
3. PA #2005-00084 (Northlight Project) 11/8/05
" Reconsideration
Fields decided not to exercise his power to ask for a reconsideration of this action because he does not believe
any new information has emerged..."
4. PA #2006..01548, (1651 Ashland Street) 10/10/06 Initial testimony to Hearings Board.
TOM GIORDANO, 2635 Takelma Way, is the agent & architect for the project. Giordano reiterated that only two
affordable units are required. ... Because of the construction costs, interest rates and slower markets, the
applicant is concerned about getting some return on the units. "... Giordano said it will cost $225,000 to build each
of the two units... "
ReconsIderation request - (1651 Ashland Street) 11/14106
MORRIS RE-OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING
NEW ESSENTIAL FACT (1):
".... The housing marlcet has taken a sharp decline In the last year. They are showing about a $50,000
decrease In projected Income per unit. ..."
Hearings Board did not reverse their previous decision however, but adopted the Findings as presented
Now it would seem that of the two that were actually "reconsidered", the only one that actually
resulted in a reversal of the decision was the First Street application where it was found that
4/29/2007
Page 3 of6
Staff had provided inaccurate infonnation regarding the ALUO provisions.
Therefore, in further support of my written request for reconsideration, I would request
that you also bring the following new essential facts (with attachments) to the attention
of the PC (or the Council should they chose to appeal on their own authority as
requested by Mr. Bullock) as I feel that they (and the Historic Com_ion) may have been
mislead about the SDUS for Historic Districts especially 1V-C-4.
let's go back to 2000....
When I testified orally at the public hearing on Planning Action #2000-039 back on May 9.
2000 [ attachment #1] I stated
Swales: If.. .the 134-page document (applicanfs Findings. Conclusions and Exhibits) sees a very unusual and
scary precedent for anyone who wants to tal<e the time to skid the planning process... Swales feels this
application by the city makes an unfortunate precedent when foIIawed closely on the heels of this will be both the
fire station and Oregon Shakespeal8 Theater ~ {emphasis added]
Local reporter (now Councilor) Russ Silbiger also testifying in opposition added .... The Commission has a moral
and ethical obligation to follow its own poIicies... ·
Our erstwhile Planning Director countered .... Staff has asked GanJiner that the Commission adopt the applicant's
Findings along with the Conditions. McLaughlin said Staff would pfePlJre a cowr that would adopt the Findings
and the decision of the Planning Commission ..... McLaughlin replied to Swales' comment about the Findings
setting a scary precedent. McLaughlin alf1U8d it does not set a pl'8C8dent. It brings us into an 8188 of land use
that is common throughout the State of Oregon. We haw been rather immune to it here. This type of application
is common in many other cities. "the language is not expf9SSly clear, then you """. to start Intetpreting It In
order to mat. It fit what you .. thinking.... [emphasis added]
". ..[Craig] Stone addressed SWales'rematk8. As McLaughlin pointed out, all OIdinances haw some poTtions that
are ambiguous. The City is requited to intetpret its onJinance. Stone has suggested intetpmtations he believes
are appropriate....
In my written rebuttal [attachment~] to the City's own "Findings of Fad and Conclusions of Law" for PAl 2000-
039, I pointed out that the City had cited at least NINE "ambiguities" in our land use ordinances (which
presumably prompted Mr. Mclaughlin's comments above.)
One of the "interpretations" (Page 30 Criteria 19 of applicants Findings of Fad and Conclusions of Law
(incorporated by reference into the adopted "Findings" of the PC's decision was that " 1Idjacent" means "next to
or contiguous". I objected at the time to this very narrow interpretation of IIdjacent (see attachment '#2 and #3).
Now these new interpre1ation by Staff and the PC were never passed on to Council as the PC's decision wasn't
appealed further.
However, following quickly on the heels of that planning action came The OSF theatre and parking structure .PM
2000-074
(Applicant Oregon Shakespeare Festival; property Owner: City of Ashland)
These voluminous findings pointed out equally as many. if not more, "ambiguities" and the Council upon adoption
obediently memorialized into law many novel "interpretations" of our ALUO, forever removing such alleged
ambiguities for atl time. (or unlit re-interpretation by another Council such as in the Bemis decision and its
subsequent unsuc:cessful appeal by the applicant to the OR Supreme Court)
4/29/2007
Page 4 of6
However for the purposes of PA # 2006-02354 I want to concentrate on the interpretation of oft-used word
"adjacent" as used throughout our Land Use code.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law PA 2000-074 (attachment #3)- extract-
Criterion 3 Page 19
If... the City Council interptets the ambiguous term "adjacent properties. to mean a lot or parcel that is touching
[the subject properly].....
Criterion 18 Pg 32.
"... the City Council intetptets the term .adjacent" to mean a lot or parcel that is touching the subject properly.
Based upon the City of Ashland Comptehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map, thete ate no adjacent lots or parcels
which ate planned or zoned differently than the subject property, which is planned Downtown and zoned C-i-D.
While parcels across South Pioneer and Hargadine Str8ets am in residential zones, these am not adjacent to the
subject properly because they do not touch the subject property......
Criterion 28 Page 45
If... Conclusions of Law: Consistent with its interpmtation of the term "adjacent" under Criterion 18, the City
Council intetpmts the term · adjacent" with I8Sp8Ct to "residential dwellings. to mean a lot or parcel (which is
occupied by a residential dwelling) that is touching the subject property. Based upon the site photographs and
aerial photograph at
Record p. 226 - 229 and 251, thete ate no f9Sidential dwellings which ate located adjacent to the subject
properly. ...
and then comes the final clincher:
In maching this conclusion the City Council interpmts the ambiguous term .adjacent properties. to mean a lot or
parcel that is touching (the subject property].f9SChing this conclusion the City Council interprets the ambiguous
term If adjacent properties. to mean a lot or parcel that is touching [the subject properly].
Page 74/15
2 Ordinance Term Definitions Some
opponents argued that the term adjacent cannot be intetpteted to mean touching and the term saeened cannot
be intetpmted only to requim intervening vegetation between the parking structum and lands which am
msidentially zoned The City Council concludes that the term adjacent is not defined in the ALUO Based upon the
testimony of applicant according to Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged 2nD Ed adjacent
used as an adjective means lying near or close to something botdering upon The Council finds that the dictionary
definition itself is ambiguous as to whether it means touching lying near or close to something does not mean
touching while botr:Jering upon does The City is entitled to intetptet its ordinance and the City Council and
Planning Commission must routinely make intefptetations of the ALUO to carry out its duties and the Council
believes that it has clear authority to interptTlt its own ordinance
In Clark v Jackson County 313 Or 508 515 836 P2d 710 1992 the Oregon SUpteme Court held thatlnreviewing a
local govemment's land use decision the Land Use Board of Appeals LUBA is to affirm the local govemment's
intetptetation of its own ordinance that is part of an acknowledged comprehensive plan unless LUBA determines
that the local govemment's intetpmtation is inconsistent with exp1'8SS language of the on1inance or its appamnt
purpose or policy LUBA lacks authority to substitute its own interptetation of the 0IrIinance unless the local
government's interpretation was inconsistent with that ordinance including its context Moteover ORS 197 829 1
mquims LUBA to affirm the decisions of local government unless they ate clearly wrong ORS 197829 Board to
affirm certain local government interptetations
1 The Land Use Board of Appeals shall affirm a local government's interpretation of its comprehensive plan and
land use regulations unless the boan1 determines that the local government's interpretation
4/29/2007
Page 5 of6
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
The City Council concludes that its intetptetations d the terms adjacent and screened are consistent with the
express language and purpose of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and relevant local land use regulations
underlying policies that provide the basis for the plan and land use regulations and with relevant state statutes
land use goals and rules that are implemented by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and related local land use
regulations.
Now, while I still consider these Findings to be one of the most egregious travesties of our Land Use Code, it is
nevertheless now the prevailing "interpre1ation" of said Laws by those that write them - our elected City Council.
Also it should be noted that 2 planning commissioners, Fields (now chair) and Morris, both who voted to approve
this PA 2000.{)74 ( PC minutes 8I8lOO" Briggs casting the only dissenting \/Ote" and adopt the Findings, also
voted to approve PNl2006-02354. (Another Commissioner at that time Kistler, recused himself from the Library
discussion and decision 2000.{)39 , as he was also part of the Library's architectural design team.
Now, how does all this ...... to the I'8C8IIt approval of PAnOOI-82354 ?
Well it would seem that those who voted to approve used the excuse that compliance with nearby setbacks of
other properties (i.e. 'n the vicinity - Findings") along North Main required the applicant's property to match
random, cherry-picked other non-<:onfonning setbacks along the street. But the SOUS does not mention
properties that are "in the vicinity" in this context.
Site Design and Use Standards - Historic District Standards
IV-c-4
Maintain the historic facade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls of new buildings in the
same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. Avoid violating the existing setback pattern
by placing new buildings in front of or behind the historic facade line.
As I have pointed out, (and supported by prior Council interpretations) there is only one building adjacent to the
applicant's proposal that also has a front facade on North Main Street. (we are not here talking about rear
facades as in the Lang PAl ~9)
Facade definition:
1. (Architecture).
a. the front of a building, esp. an imposing or decorative one.
b. any side of a building facing a public way or space and finished accordingly.
Therefore to comply with the SOUS 1V-C-4 Historic DesIgn guldeli..es the required front setback for the Kistler
property has to be approximately 22 ft also.
Conclusion
4/29/2007
Page 6of6
Council's interpretation stands in glaring contradiction of Staffs own new interpretation of "adjacent" contained in
the proposed Findings: "The positive benefits of the proposal are maintaining the historic facade line...... The
Historic District Design Standards require historic facade lines to be maintained by locating front walls of new
buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings.... As a result, the proposed building setback
20 feet from N. Main St. will stand out from the historic facade line..... II [emphasis added].
In fact, Council interprets the historic facade line setback (i.e. "same plane") of adjacent historic building(s) to
be 22 feet.
respectfully submitted
Colin Swales
[please feel free to forward as necessary]
4/29/2007
Page 1 of2
Cate Hartzell
From: Colin Swales [colinswales@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21,20078:47 AM
To: Cate Hartzell
Cc: David Chapman
Subject: OOOT - Jurisdiction on Main St. ?
-~
Cate
(cc David)
Following our discussion about OooT Jurisdiction over Main Street.
Below are the minutes for the TSC meeting. March 2006
No action has been taken...(yet?)
(June meeting "...3. Downtown Jurisdictional Exchange Update - Swales asked if this
request has moved forward from staff. Olson asked what form would the commission
want to submit to Council. Olson will prepare a draft for next month's meeting. Massie
would like to take topics to Council for support. Olson will see how the Council agenda
is stacking Up......"
(This draft never happened)
I feel that improvements along North Main such as the proposed $ million traffic signal at
Hersey/Wimer, possible bike lanes etc. would be better if the city had control.
***************************************************
March 2006 Traffic Safety Meeting
5. Jurisdiction of Streets Within the Central Business District - Collin Swales
Ashland is certainly not unique in the fact that all of the main arterials running through the
downtown core are state highways. The challenge is to reach a balance between the needs of
pedestrians, shoppers, employees, business owners and residents with the needs of through
traffic, both auto and freight, to move safety and efficiently. This balance is often compounded
by the need to accommodate several road authorities including OooT and the Federal Highway
Administration.
With the Downtown Plan now moving into the study phase, Colin Swales has suggested that it
might be time for the Downtown Plan Review Committee to consider a jurisdictional transfer
from OooT to the City to allow more flexibility in the design and implementation of the plan.
Swales suggested the Commission explore the pros and cons of this issue at our next meeting.
Available publication such as "Main Street... when a highway runs through it: A Handbook for
4/29/2007
Page 2 of2
Oregon Communities," developed by David Evans and Associates, Inc in conjunction with OooT
deal with many of the same issues Ashland is facing.
Discussion :
Swales is concerned that many of the items mentioned in the downtown plan will be hindered
by ODOT controlling much of the downtown corridor. It is mentioned In the plan to switch the
jurisdiction to Ashland. Swales commented that this is sometimes a long process and it should
be started so that it won't hinder options brought forth in the downtown plan. There are
financial ramifications if we take over then make costly improvements. There is a midground
with OooT where the approvals for improvements will need not be so time heavy. Like to see
the Commission make a motion to have a committee formed to begin the process of the
jurisdictional exchange. Swales suggests a motion instructing staff to draft a communication to
the Council to consider this as part of the downtown plan. Ask Council to form a subgroup.
The consultant is coming in April to meet with stakeholders. It would be beneficial to have an
ad hoc committee assigned. This will help to keep the process moving. They will be producing
a schedule for the study to work out a calendar. Swales would like to engender support from
the downtown merchants for money and support.
Bender felt the philosophy of improvement will not mean much if the City does not have control
of the area. Hammond feels that parking needs to be part of the process and she hopes that
whatever happens in the study that we employ a lot of people in the process and hopes it is a
success. Swales mentioned the publication "Main Street, A Highway Runs Through It" to John
Fields and David Chapman and asked staff to forward a copy to both of them.
Decision :
Swales motioned to direct staff to prepare a memo to Coundl informing them of the
situation regarding the jurisdictional exchange. Bender seconded the motion,
passed four in favor; two abstentions, Hammond and Mannion.
***************************
see also Bike/Ped 6/15/2006
North Main Multi.Use Path
Severson noted that while Marvin was absent he had submitted a letter from a co-worker by fax which was
distributed to those present. This letter supported the idea of a bike path along North Main, and requested an
interim step consisting of a fog linelbike shoulder stripe on Highway 99 from Butler Ford to about Schofield. The
letter indicated that this should be done regardless of jurisdiction as an interim step.
Severson explained that jurisdiction is a significant issue with this request, as the majority of the area involved is
within the county, and is entirely under state jurisdiction, meaning that the request would have to be coordinated
both through the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Jackson County, as well as the City Public
Works Division for the portion within Ashland.
4/2912007
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Page 1 of2 ",/
City of Ashland ~ /\ ,(}
Planning Exhibit u ~ \'.} \ ~ '{\
Exhibil# O~''Zb<>l ~~ \l ~ \\.~ CJ\
~:~StaC: ,~~ \l~~ ~\J
From: Colin SWales (cofinswales@gmail.com · .,J ,,\ ~\\(\ ~ t\: \.\)
Thursday, March 22, 2007 9: 13 AM '"'\ \t-l\ v\ () b<'~" ~ ~r
Martha Bennett '-..J . I' \J .
John Morrison; Cate Hartzell; Eric Navickas; David Chapman; katejackson@opendoor.com; Alice
Hardesty; Russ Silbiger; Mike Franell
Subject: Request for GSPC opinion on possible ethics violation
Cate Hartzell
Martha,
cc Council and City Attorney - (Forward as necessary)
I am writing regarding possible ethics violations during proceedings on planning action 2006-02354
The city recently received two letters on ethics from Historic Comissioners.
Quoting in part:
",..1 can imagine the potentialfor bias or conflict of interest between members of the same commission...."
Dale Shostrom, chairman of the Historic Commission
"All members detail their ex-parte contacts, and commissioners dutifully excuse themselves from any and all c01iflicts or
involvement in projects that come before the commission...." Alexander C. Krach, Historic Commissioner.
At the Historic Commission meeting OIl September 6 2006, Comissioner Giordano joined the meeting
late. Presumably this was because the first item on the agenda was a project for which he was the
planning agent. (co-incidentally this same project was also the only sucessful reversal by
"reconsideration" by the planning comision of the three requests for reconsiderations received from Mr.
Girodano during the last two years).
Towards the end of that meeting, presumably with Mr. Giordano present, a "pre-app" was heard for Mr.
Kistler's project on North Main and Glenn Street. (pA# 2006- 02354)
...[Kistler} had just found out the front setback is 20 feet instead of 10 feet which would severely
impact the ability to use the proposed design. He may need to request a setback variance..... The
majority of the Commissioners said they could support a variance to the setback if necessary... "
According to the minutes of the meeting, no declaration of potential or actual conflict of interest was
ever made, nor was their any recusal by any commissioners.
(Mr. Giordano would later represent his client, Mr. Kistler, as Planning Agent before the Planning
Commission on that same Planning Action.)
This was all pointed out by myself during the first public hearing in January on this planning action, and
my assertions have to date neither been rebutted nor denied.
Staff has also been resoundingly silent on the matter.
If after interviewing the staff present at that September Historic Commission meeting, it is found that the
minutes accurately reflect the proceediings, and that Mr. Giordano did in fact voice support for a setback
variance for his client's project, I would respedully request that this matter, after investigation by
our own legal department, is forwarded to the Oregon Government Standards and Practices
4/29/2007
Page 2 of2
Commission (GSPC) for an opinion, regarding possible conOict.
In the meantime it would seem that only a de novo public hearing (per written request by 2 citizens) on
appeal BY Council of P A 20006-02354 will clear the air on this matter.
Colin Swales
Historic Comission minutes 9/6/06
Planning Commission minutes 1/9/07
Video Planning Commission 1/9/07 (see Hr. 2:29:00> and 3:00:59
>)
4/29/2007
Cate Hartzell
-"1l
City. O.ftA#S:~d? ~/~
commenCto_tI1e_counciI-bounces@list.ashland.or.us on behalf of Colin ~ """""
[coIin@mind.net] PA # ~- t>l.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007.10:31 AM Da*"/o'7.Staff
comment to the counal . f'
[Commen-Lto)he_counciij Pesky "Rulesn,versus "what really should happen"
.~...
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mayor and Council,
While the Community Development Director prepares to implement recommended changes
contained in the Siegel and Zucker Reports, I find his memo for tonight's presentation
worrying (especially in the light of the pending Land Use Appeal around "arterial
setbacks". )
4/3/07 Memo from David Stalheim for tonight's Council meeting
http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=10081
"...This has resulted in a disconnection between the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies
and the current development and implementing ordinances.
An example of this is the conversation about setbacks along arterials. The conversation
appears to be about the "rules", rather than on what really should happen in these
corridors. And, it takes staff, Commission and citizen time to have the conversation about
what these standards should be...."
I would respectfully remind Council of Oregon State policy on this matter, especially with
regard to "Predictability in Planning"
******************************************************************
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/publications/predict.pdf
" Predictability in Planning
Planning is a process to enhance both predictability and citizen involvement. The desire
is to make decisions, which provide landowners with clear expectations as to what they can
do with their land, while assuring that citizens have opportunities to participate in
those decisions.
In Oregon, we have used our statewide planning program to greatly enhance citizen
involvement in planning, but at the same time we have taken strong measures to maintain
predictability. Our efforts toward predictability have involved many elements.
1. Clear Policy Direction - We require land-use planning. Oregon requires every city and
county to have a comprehensive plan and the implementing measures necessary to make that
plan work.
In addition, we require that those plans and implementing measures meet statewide
standards -- and they have.
Landowners, developers and permit applicants get predictability from all of that because
it puts the rules for decision making on paper, and it establishes those rules before the
permit application process begins.
2. Protection from Conflicts - One of the main reasons for land-use planning is to reduce
the number and extent of conflicts between land uses....
<snip>
5. Clear and Objective Approval Standards - The program has required that clear and
objective review standards be used in reviewing permit applications for controversial land
uses such as multifamily housing, manufactured homes and quarries.
Under Oregon law, development officials cannot use vague standards such as "compatibility
with the neighborhood" to deny an application for a needed housing type in an appropriate
zone.
Insistence on having clear standards protects developers and permit applicants from
arbitrary and inconsistent decisions and thereby enhances predictability.
<snip>
In total, the state's land-use planning program serves to increase the predictability of
land use decisions for everyone..."
****************************************************************************
*************************
1
In Ashland, any citizen (as well as Planning Commission or Council) has the right to
initiate a desired change in our Land Use "rules".
Until that time I ask that we implement the Rules we have rather that try to divine "what
really should happen "
Colin Swales
Comment to the council mailing list
Comment-to-the-council@list.ashland.or.us
http://list.ashland.or.us/mailman/listinfo/comment_to_the_council
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/745 - Release Date: 4/3/2007 12:48 PM
,
2
From: Colin Swales [colinswales@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 20079:58 AM
To: Martha Bennett
Cc: Mike Franell; Richard Apicello; David Stalheim; John Morrison; katejackson@opendoor.com; Eric
Navickas; Cate Hartzell; Russ Silbiger; Alice Hardesty; David Chapman
Subject: Appeals BY Council..done that..
Cate Hartzell
Martha,
( cc others)
After last night's meeting you told me that you had never heard of an appeal by Council on its own
authority .
However for the benifit of new Staff, I would like to remind you of the Council's own appeal of the
Condo>Motel decision in July and August 2005.
see Memo from Mike Franell
and also Council Communication
I seem to remember that Staff, on that occasion provided all the necessary information for the decsion-
makers to be adequately informed, in spite of worries about LUBA.
The question in PA 2006-02354 is whether Staff, Historic Commission and PC wrongly "interpreted"
the Historic Design standards criteria in order to overide the Special Arterial Setback requirements.
Such final Interpretations rest with Council alone per ALUO
and therefore I am requesting such a hearing on the matter by Council.
I seem to recall at a recent PC study session assistant city attornny Richard Appicello stating that his job
"...is to ensure that decision-makers are well informed.."
Why this now this resounding silence from Staff'?
Perhaps before Friday;s meeting you can change this?
respectfully
Colin
4/29/2007
Ashland Daily Tidings :: Setback not needed for North Main Street p...
http://www.dailytidings.com/2007 /0214/stories/20 14 _setback. php
February 14, 2007
Setback not needed for North Main
Street project
By Robert Plain
Ashland Daily Tidings
A divided Ashland Planning Commission narrowly approved, with a 5 to 4 vote, a
variance to a 20-foot setback requirement for a commercial building on North
Main Street.
The requirement says that new construction on main city streets should be built
20 feet from the property line. Some believe it is outdated urban design that
should no longer be enforced, while others feel such logic erodes the rule of law
inherent in municipal planning.
"It's not an easy decision," said city planner Maria Harris at the onset of the
public hearing on Tuesday night. At issue in the hearing was a request by former
planning commissioner Ray Kistler to build a commercial building on the corner of
North Main and Glen Streets 10 feet from the lot line instead of 20, as a city
ordinance states.
In approving the variance, the commission sided with city staff's
recommendation to do so, rather than with a group of planning activists that
thought the building should be built to code.
"It comes down if we have an ordinance, should it be obeyed," said Colin Swales,
also a former planning commissioner.
Phil Lang said the setback rule has been applied inconsistently over the years. In
the past it was not applied to other projects Kistler built on North Main Street,
but when Lang applied for a setback variance in 2006, his request was denied.
Art Bullock also offered a legal approach to denying the project. "The fact that
you have an alternative plan in front of you is the legal reason to deny the
variance," he said. Kistler submitted a design for the building that obeyed the
setback, but that commissioners didn't feel suited the neighborhood as well.
A majority of the commission agreed with local architect Jerome White's
interpretation of the issue. He said an Oregon Land Conservation and
Development Commission's handbook on infill states that such setbacks "actually
helped to destroy the street" by making it an inhospitable environment for
pedestrians.
Commissioners Olena Black, Michael Dawkins, Tom Dimitre and John Stromberg
voted against the variance request. Stromberg said approving the variance would
damage "the foundation for a clear application of the law."
Commissioners Dave Dotterrer, John Fields, Pam Marsh, Mike Morris and Melanie
Mindlin voted to approve the variance, and the project.
"If we could reduce this to a mathematical formula none of us would have to be
here on Tuesday nights," said Marsh. "I really buy the argument that having the
building closer to the road is better for the pedestrian environment. It's a much
better experience for pedestrians."
Kistler said he could design a building that adheres to the setback rule, but
thought the one that required the variance fit better with the historical
streetscape of North Main Street.
Morris added, "Sometimes this town is afraid of design. The 20-foot setback is
not appropriate out there. Mr. Kistler came forward with a design that is better
than what the code allows for."
Staff writer Robert Plain can be reached at 482-3456 x. 226 or
bplain@dailytidings,com
Current Comments:
I am pleased Planning appoved this building. Ray Kistler is a talent architect
and designer. This building will be an asset to the City. Kudos for Planning's
ability to see the forest through the trees.
Ben Bloom - Ashland, Oregon - February 14th, 8:37 PM
Glad to see the majority of the Commission saw that logic prevailed on the
North Main project. No surprise in the vote. Why doesn't that same majority
just excise the 20' setback line of code and avoid these spats over comma
placement permanently?
George Kramer - Ashland, OR - February 15th, 6:36 AM
lof2
4/30/2007 11: 17 AM
Page 1 of 1
Russ
From: Colin Swales [colinswales@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 15,200711:42 AM
To: Martha Bennett
Cc: John Morrison; Alice Hardesty; Russ Silbiger; David Chapman; Cate Hartzell; Eric Navickas
Subject: Time is of the essence (appeal of PC decision)
Martha,
(cc. Mayor and Council)
It is essential for an appeal under ALVa 18.108.110 "Appeal to Council" that it is filed within 15 days
of the PC decision adopting the Findings.
In the case ofPA# 2006-02354 this PC adoption was last Tuesday.
Therefore, it is my understanding that should any Council member wish to make such a Motion to
appeal this Planning Decision it will have to be at the very next Council meeting.
Could you please let me know if this time-sensitive matter will be included on the upcoming
agenda for the Council meeting next week?
Or otherwise please let me know so that members of the community can begin passing the hat round for
donations towards the legal defense (of our ALVa) fund.
I hope to hear from you soon as Time is of the Essence.
Thanks
Colin
4/30/2007
Page 1 of 1
Russ
From: Eric Navickas [ericnavickas@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 15,2007 12:33 PM
To: Colin Swales; Martha Bennett
Cc: John Morrison; Alice Hardesty; Russ Silbiger; David Chapman; Cate Hartzell
Subject: RE: Time is of the essence (appeal of PC decision)
To all,
I am interested in putting this on Tuesday night's agenda for discussion.
This ongoing issue has resulted in contradicting interpretations of Ashland Land Use Ordinances.
In light of these transparent contridactions and and inconsistencies, it is in my opinion the responsibility of
Council to take the initiative to Appeal this Land Use Decision, regardless of outcome.
I am, therefore, formally requesting that this is placed on Tuesday night's agenda for discussion.
Eric Navickas
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 200714:42:16 -0400
From: colinswales@gmail.com
To: bennettm@ashland.or.us
Subject: Time is of the essence (appeal of PC decision)
CC: morrisoj@ashland.or.us; ahardesty88@charter.net; russcity@zintech.org;
davidchapman@ashlandhome.net; cate@mind.net; ericnavickas@hotmail.com
Martha,
(cc. Mayor and Council)
It is essential for an appeal under ALUO 18.108.110 "Appeal to Council" that it is filed within 15 days of the PC
decision adopting the Findings.
In the case of PA# 2006-02354 this PC adoption was last Tuesday.
Therefore, it is my understanding that should any Council member wish to make such a Motion to appeal this
Planning Decision it will have to be at the very next Council meeting.
Could you please let me know if this time-sensitive matter will be included on the upcoming
agenda for the Council meeting next week?
Or otherwise please let me know so that members of the community can begin passing the hat round for
donations towards the legal defense (of our ALUO) fund.
I hope to hear from you soon as Time is of the Essence.
Thanks
Colin
Explore the seven wonders of the world Learn more'
4/30/2007
Page 1 of2
Russ
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From: Colin Swales [colinswales@gmail.com]
Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:13 AM
Martha Bennett
John Morrison; Cate Hartzell; Eric Navickas; David Chapman; katejackson@opendoor.com; Alice
Hardesty; Russ Silbiger; Mike Franell
Subject: Request for GSPC opinion on possible ethics violation
Martha,
cc Council and City Attorney - (Forward as necessary)
I am writing regarding possible ethics violations during proceedings on planning action 2006-02354
The city recently received two letters on ethics from Historic Comissioners.
Quoting in part:
"...1 can imagine the potential for bias or coriflict of interest between members of the same commission...."
Dale Shostrom, chairman of the Historic Commission
''All members detail their ex-parte contacts, and commissioners dutifully excuse themselves from any and all conflicts or
involvement in projects that come before the commission...." Alexander C. Krach, Historic Commissioner.
At the Historic Commission meeting on September 6 2006, Comissioner Giordano joined the meeting
late. Presumably this was because the first item on the agenda was a project for which he was the
planning agent. (co-incidentally this same project was also the only sucessful reversal by
"reconsideration" by the planning comision ofthe three requests for reconsiderations received from Mr.
Girodano during the last two years).
Towards the end ofthat meeting, presumably with Mr. Giordano present, a "pre-app" was heard for Mr.
Kistler's project on North Main and Glenn Street. (PA# 2006- 02354)
... [Kistler} had just found out the front setback is 20 feet instead of 1 0 feet which would severely
impact the ability to use the proposed design. He may need to request a setback variance..... The
majority of the Commissioners said they could support a variance to the setback ifnecessary..."
According to the minutes of the meeting, no declaration of potential or actual conflict of interest was
ever made, nor was their any recusal by any commissioners.
(Mr. Giordano would later represent his client, Mr. Kistler, as Planning Agent before the Planning
Commission on that same Planning Action.)
This was all pointed out by myself during the first public hearing in January on this planning action, and
my assertions have to date neither been rebutted nor denied.
Staff has also been resoundingly silent on the matter.
If after interviewing the staff present at that September Historic Commission meeting, it is found that the
minutes accurately reflect the proceediings, and that Mr. Giordano did in fact voice support for a setback
variance for his client's project, I would respecfully request that this matter, after investigation by
our own legal department, is forwarded to the Oregon Government Standards and Practices
4/3012007
T~-.
Page 2 of2
Commission (GSPC) for an opinion, regarding possible conflict.
In the meantime it would seem that only a de novo public hearing (per written request by 2 citizens) on
appeal BY Council ofPA 20006-02354 will clear the air on this matter.
Colin Swales
Historic Comission minutes 9/6/06 http://ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?
Oisplay= Minutes&AM I 0=2778
Planning Commission minutes 1/9/07 http://ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMIO=2871
Video Planning Commission 1/9/07 (see Hr. 2:29:00> and 3:00:59
>) http://rvtv.roguedatavault.net:554/ramgen/ashland/planning/planO 1-09-07 .rm
4/30/2007
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display= Minutes&AMID=297I
City Council - Minutes
Friday, March 23, 2007
MINUTES FOR THE CONTINUED MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
March 23, 2007
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison reconvened the continued Council meeting of March 20, 2007 at 1:00
p.m.
Councilors Hartzell, Hardesty, Silbiger, Chapman and Navickas were present. Councilor
Jackson was absent.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Request for Council to appeal PA #2006-02354 (as outlined by AMC
18.108.110). Mayor Morrison informed the Council that there was a split vote on this
action when it was before the Planning Commission and two City policies may be in
conflict. He clarified the Council is not making a decision on the merits of the Planning
Action, but rather whether they wish to review this to see if there are conflicting
policies.
City Attorney Mike Franell explained the Council has the authority to call for an
appeal, but generally, this type of action is reserved for issues that are of significant
policy consideration for the City. Mr. Franell noted the applicants and the other parties
involved in the action also have the ability to appeal. He explained this issue involves
a conflict between two City policies. The first is the arterial setback standards and the
other is the historical design standards. The Planning Commission weighed these
issues seriously and determined that the historical design standards took precedence.
Mr. Franell stated if the Council wishes to look at the policy implications involved,
bring them forward, and provide guidance to the Planning Commission, it would be
appropriate for them to bring forward the appeal. Mr. Franell cautioned the Council to
not discuss the merits of this action until there is a full hearing, and to ~mit their
discussion today to whether there is a policy implication significant emlugh to warrant
the Council taking action.
Ex Parte Contact:
Councilor Hartzell noted she is the liaison to the Planning Commission, but did not
attend this meeting or review the meeting materials. She indicated she met with the
Planning Director on site to discuss the policy question she had and how it would
relate to this action. She noted Councilor Chapman was also present at the site visit.
Mr. Franell clarified communications with staff are not necessarily ex parte contact;
however any information gleamed from the site visit would need to be a more detailed
disclosure if this issue is called up for appeal.
Councilor Hardesty stated she spoke with the Planning Director about this issue and
also spoke briefly with Mr. Swales to let him know she had not recf2ived any
information from staff on this issue. She also indicated that she read the Daily Tidings
article on this issue.
Councilor Chapman stated he conducted a site visit and indicated he was on the Tree
Commission when the landscaping for this project came before them.
Councilor Navickas noted he has been involved in the broader issue for some time and
has made comments at Planning Commission meetings in the past, but not in regards
to this specific project. He also noted he accidentally placed a lawn sign on this
property when he was running for office.
Councilor Silbiger stated he read the Daily Tidings article, has driven past the site,
and has received letters from Mr. Swales and one from Councilor Navickas suggesting
an appeal.
Mayor Morrison indicated he has read the staff memos and reviewed the emails from
Mr. Swales. He stated he does not believe there was anything he reviewed that would
have an impact on any decision he would make.
All councilors indicated they had no bias and could make objective decisions.
Councilor Silbiger explained that he would have to leave early and urged the Council
to not make an appeal.
lof2
4/30/2007 11 :09 AM
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=M inutes&AMID=2971
Councilor Silbiger left the meeting at 1: 13 p.m.
Council offered their comments and preferences in regards to this issue. Councilor
Hartzell voiced her interest in making sure they are protecting arterials and ensuring
the City has the space it needs to make future bicycle and pedestrian improvements
on North Main Street. Councilor Navickas commented on integrity in the land use
process and stated when citizens perceive land use decisions that contradict each
other, it is the Council's responsibility to step in and issue a ruling. Councilor
Chapman voiced his preference for a citizen to bring forward an appeal, rather than
the Council. He stated he has not researched the issue enough to know what the
conflict and policies are. Councilor Hardesty also indicated that she does not know
enough about the policies in question and the degree of conflict, but stated that this is
a problem that needs to be solved. Mayor Morrison noted the City is currently in the
process of reviewing the Land Use Ordinance and stated he is reluctant for the Council
to call this up. He added developing good policy and legislation is usually not best
achieved through a judicial or quasi-judicial process.
Mr. Franell clarified there are ordinance provisions that require the design standards
to be applied, and clarified the issue is balancing between which standard is more
important. He stated that Council's role is to set the mechanisms by which that
balance occurs and to have a process where an appointed commission applies the
mechanisms the Council provides. He added that it would be appropriate for the
Council to step in if they feel they need to provide additional guideance to the
Planning Commission in the balancing between standards.
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s that Council appeal PA #2006-02354 for a
hearing. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty voiced support for calling this forward.
Councilor Chapman shared his concern that they are getting dangerously close to
prejudging this. Councilors Hartzell and Navickas clarified their general concerns are
not with this specifiC proposal. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Navickas and
Hartzell, YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-1.
20f2
4/30/2007 11 :09 AM
Ashland Daily Tidings :: Council to rule on contradictory laws :: Ma...
http://www.dailytidings.com/2007 /0326/stories/0326 _ setbackO.php
March 26, 2007
Council to rule on contradictory laws
By Vickie Aldous
Ashland Daily Tidings
The Ashland City Council will try to resolve a contradiction in the city's land-use
rules that has caused confusion on project after project.
In many areas of town, historic design standards call for buildings to be
constructed close to streets, mimicking the look of the downtown. But on arterial
streets, buildings are supposed to be set back by 20 feet to allow for possible
future widening and improvement of those heavily used roads.
Those rules come into conflict on arterial streets where historical design
standards apply.
A City Council majority voted on Friday to call up for review a recent Ashland
Planning Commission ruling that dealt with the controversy. After three meetings,
a narrow planning commission majority gave preference to historic design and
decided a project at the intersection of North Main and Glen Streets should not
have to be set back the full 20 feet.
Counciior Russ Silbiger voted against calling the case up because doing so
requires the council to appeal the decision to itself, muddying the situation.
He said resident Colin Swales is likely to appeal the case, so the council would
have reviewed the issue anyway.
But Councilor Eric Navickas said the council has a responsibility to step in when
land-use rules contradict each other, rather than relying on residents to appeal.
"It's in our best interests to end this controversy one way or another," he said.
Councilor Cate Hartzell argued that the building on North Main Street, the busy
road that leads into
Ashland on the north end, would be too close to the street - standing in the way
of future improvements like bike lanes, park rows and sidewalks. Parks rows are
grassy strips with trees that provide a buffer between some sidewalks and
streets.
She said North Main Street is not safe for bicyclists or pedestrians.
"Is public safety a higher value than historic design? ... If those two weigh
against each other, I'm in the safety camp," Hartzell said.
The planning commission members who were in the majority ruled to allow the
North Main Street building with a 10-foot setback because they felt that plan
suited the surrounding neighborhood better than a plan with a 20-foot setback.
The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission Handbook also
states that setbacks create an inhospitable environment for pedestrians
Some residents have argued that constructing buildings close to streets, with
parking lots in the rear, is more pedestrian-friendly.
In recent years, the setback issue was most fiercely debated for the proposed
Northlight development on the former Copeland Lumber site on Lithia Way. The
planning commission rejected that project in 2006 on the basis that it was too
large and sat too close to the street. In February, the commission approved a
plan to divide the site into seven lots, setting the stage for smaller
1 of I
4/30/2007 11: 12 AM
Speaker Request Form
THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD
ALL INFORM A nON PROVIDED WILL BE MADE A V AILABLE TO THE PUBLIC
1) Complete this form and return it to the City Recorder prior to the discussion of the item yOU wish
to speak about.
2) Speak to the City Council from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount oftime given to you by the Mayor, usually 3 or 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the City Recorder for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the City Recorder for the record if you do not wish to speak.
(Comments can be added to the back of this sheet if necessary)
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Tonight~sMeeting Date 2007May1
Name
Art Bullock
Address (no P.O. Box) 791 Glendower
Information on this form is str.ictly confidential to the fullest extent allowed by
I
(please print)
Agenda topic/item number
Re2ular Meetin2
PA2006-02354 G'ennoil
''',.._;,~~~~''''''~
Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Please indicate the following:
For:
Land Use Public Hearin2
Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
[f you are challenging a member (a city councilor or a planning commissioner) with a contlict of interest
or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk
immediately. The Presiding Officer will address the written challenge with the member. Please be
respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge
when you testifY . er of proceedings.
Written Comme
..-r .8 ~ ~ ~sp~
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland City Council generally invites the
public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time constraints
limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a
proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions
of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful.
and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City OffiCerS{'r _ ~ J
,mploy", 0' th, City of A,hland. pj 0"1
Alleged Bias For John Morrison
art bullock, 2007May1
This document alleges that John Morrison has actual
bias and personal bias against the author, who is a party
in this matter. Under Oregon law, Morrison's bias
requires that he be recused. If he fails to recuse himself
for any reason, council is asked to recuse him by roll call
vote.
Magic words aren't. Assistant city attorney Richard
Appicello has repeatedly told council you can avoid a
finding of actual bias by claiming you're unbiased. He
has failed to produce any statutory authority for this
claim. Under Oregon law, actual bias is a finding of fact.
If Morrison is biased, then no magic words from him or
City's legal department alters that fact. No assertions of
being unbiased, or apologies, or 'making up for it', or
rationalizations, or justifications of the bias, or herbal
potions, alters the fact of the bias. Councilors a.re asked
to not follow Appicello's "magic words" theory without
demonstrated statutory authority for his claim, which
goes against Oregon law.
Evidentiary hearing at LUBA. Council needs to be
aware of the status of bias claims at lUBA. lUBA is an
appeal board and doesn't hear original evidence. It
makes an exception for bias, and will conduct an
evidentiary hearing to determine actual bias, personal
bias, prejudgment bias, etc.. If Morrison is not recused
and this matter goes to lUBA, any party would be
entitled to move for an evidentiary hearing, including
affidavits and deposition testimony, to establish
Morrison's actual bias and required recusal. These
hearings are expensive for all involved.
Evidence for bias is as follows.
1. Personal attack in quasi-judicial hearing.
On Tue 2007 Apr3, during a quasi-judicial hearing on
Schofield! Monte Vista LID, Morrison personally and
viciously attacked me verbally, on camera. It occurred
after I asserted a bias claim, which Morrison refused to
allow, claiming it had to be in writing. After a cou~cilor
asserted I had a legal right to speak and assert bias,
Morrison angrily allowed the testimony, then later
attacked me.
2. Arbitrary time limit for bias testimony.
When Morrison allowed my bias testimony, he
arbitrarily limited it to 3 minutes, denying me the ti~e
required to make the assertions, though I spoke qUickly
without repetition. Morrison used this tactic to prevent the
full testimony required for the claim. To the author's
knowledge, no one has ever been limited to 3 minutes to
make a conflict of interesUex partelbias claim, and
council has no such rule. The 'rule' was made up to stop
me from making a full claim.
3. Denial of right to speak.
When time came for the public hearing on the merits
of the LID decision, Morrison denied me the right to
speak, claiming I had already spoken. In effect, h~
claimed I'd 'used up my public hearing time' by uSing 3
minutes to assert bias. A councilor said I had a right to
speak on the merits in the public hea:ing. indep~ndent of
the bias discussion. Instead of allOWing It, MOITIson
launched into a vicious, angry, and prolonged personal
attack, making false claims and irrelevant claims ~aving
nothing to do with the LID. The hearing was teleVised
live, with several replay broadcasts.
4. Unannounced new procedure.
Morrison's new process was not described in advance
so the parties could prepare. It was implemented
without forewarning or legal basis or explanation at the
time. Morrison never said during the bias discussion that
if I spoke then, I would lose my right to ~peak duri~g the
public hearing on the merits. I wasn't glv~n a chOice ~o
speak during the disclosure period or dunng the pubhc
hearing, and if I had, I would have ~sserted ~uch a
forced choice to be illegal and lacking authonty.
Required disclosures occur before the public hearing.
Morrison used his unannounced decision to deny me all
rights to speak during the public hearing. He then used
the time that I would have spoken to personally attack
me.
5. Justification based on political pressure.
Morrison claimed that he was getting calls 'every day'
to stop me from speaking. Morrison justified his decis!on
to disallow exercising my constitutional right to speak In
a public hearing, based on pressure from unname~
individuals operating behind the scenes to tell MOITIson
to in effect 'shut him up',
6. Second personal attack in the same hearing.
After public hearing closed without my testimon~,
council deliberated. As the vote neared, one councilor
said he was voting NO on this LID on procedural
grounds because Morrison had denied me the right to
speak on the merits. Morrison launc~e? int~ another
personal attack, repeating and magnifYing hiS false
claims and charges.
7. Denied right to rebut
Though Morrison's testimony introduce~ new 'fa~ts'
after the hearing opportunity closed, MOITIson demed me
the right to rebut his false 'facts'. Though opposed by
the LID majority, council followed Morrison's angry
outbursts with a 4-2 vote, without my ever having
opportunity to address the merits of the LID or the false
d;;;;;::;on~~;:~t3Y
~. I
8. Another on-the-spot rule to stop testimony.
In 2006, Morrison's illegally changed meeting
procedures to require the public to disclose, in writing, a
decision maker's bias, conflict of interest, and ex parte
communication. Said rule was specifically targeted at
me, in response to my attempt to legally do so, following
Oregon law, in the Helman Springs Development
planning action.
When I attempted to assert bias, ex parte contact, and
conflict of interest in that planning action, Morrison
invented a new rule that the public, not the
decisionmaker, had to submit the decisionmaker's
disclosure in writing at the hearing, though there was no
time to hand-write the claim and evidence, which he
refused to allow orally.
Acting as council chair, Morrison declared that
henceforth, parties to a quasi-judicial hearing had to
submit bias claims, ex parte claims, and conflict of
interest claims and in advance of the hearing. This is an
illegal requirement with no demonstrated statutory basis.
Under Oregon law, every quasi-judicial decisionmaker
must recuse himself/herself as necessary and to publicly
state the reasons for recusal. If they fail to properiy
disclose or recuse, the public has an opportunity to
request recusal and/or put forward facts in support of
such recusal.
The public's role is strictly responsive. If the
decisionmaker does as the law requires, there is nothing
remaining for the public to do, in advance or at the
hearing. The public's role only begins with the lack of
proper disclosure and recusal. Morrison exceeded his
authority as chair to create an illegal and oppressive
requirement to shift the burden for disclosure from the
decisionmaker to me.
Morrison invented his new rule specifically to prevent
my submission of bias in the Helman Springs
Development Planning Action, after I attempted to
introduce a conflict of interest and bias claim at the
appropriate time. His arbitrary decision rule showed
actual bias.
9. Unilateral disclosure decision.
Morrison implemented this new rule unilateraiiy,
without council discussion or approval. Council, not
mayor, has decision authority over council rules.
Morrison's unilateral actions prevented me from having
any public hearing testimony on the merits of Morrison's
new, illegal rule. Morrison continues to deny the
opportunity of a hearing on the merits for his rule.
10. Surprise procedures.
Morrison implemented this new rule without warning,
using a surprise tactic, knowing that I was going to
respond to the opportunity to address conflict of interest.
He knew this because I had filed some of the relevant
information with Jackson County Circuit Court in the
Nevada Street LID court case, and had attempted to
introduce the same in the Helman Springs Development
case.
Morrison announced his new rule at the meeting where
it had first applied, claiming he would not accept any
verbal testimony, and that charges of ex parte contact,
conflict of interest, and bias had to be written and
submitted to the assistant city attorney rather than the
council. It wasn't possible on the spot to hand-write the
allegations in the time remaining before the
legally-required adjournment time. By this surprise
tactic, Morrison prevented the bias claim from being
asserted.
11. Refusal to disclose COI at evert meeting.
Morrison refused to require councilor Alex Amarotico's
conflict of interest (COI) to be disclosed at every
meeting, or at the start of the session, as required by
Oregon law. 'vVhen I attempted to do so, and to rebut
the claim of a potential conflict of interest, he refused to
allow me to speak, claiming I hadn't submitted
Amarotico's conflict of interest disclosure information in
writing in advance.
12. Attempt to shift blame.
In the Park St Apts planning action, Morrison voted to
approve findings that tried to blame me and another for
City's admitted failure to meet the 120-day deadline.
Morrison, who as mayor is responsible for council's
schedule and Planning Dept working within the law,
scheduled the appeal to council after City claimed the
120 days had expired. I, and another appellant, filed the
appeal in less time than the law allowed. Appicello, who
is supervised by Morrison, wrote the findings to blame
the appeilants, then attempted to use the ensuing court
case to shift the financial responsibility for paying
attorney fees for missing the deadline to me and
another. The findings were false, not based on
substantial evidence in the record, and written to
damage me, and the other appellant. It's City's
responsibility to manage the schedule to finish all
appeals within 120 days. Instead, under Morrison's
direction, this particular planning appiication was delayed
until near the end of the period, and when the expected
appeal occurred, Morrison blamed me for missing the
deadline. In the ensuing writ of mandamus case, under
Morrison's guidance, Appicelio tried to shift the burden
for any attorney fees required as a result of missing the
deadline to be paid by the appellants. That case is still
in circuit court.
13. Handling of alleged improper roles.
In Jan2004, in the Nevada Citizens Panel, Morrison,
then councilor, attended a meeting where I presented a
handout alleging inappropriate roles for Planning
Department, Public Works Dept, and misuse of city
equipment and resources for personal use. Morrison
interrupted me, saying this was a legal matter and that
he would take care of it, then he did nothing about it. As
a result, others and I were targets of repeated verbal
assaults. These verbal assaults during the meeting
escalated to threats of violence outside the meeting. A
complaint to city administrator Gino Grimaldi received no
constructive response. Morrison knew about the verbal
assaults, took responsibility to respond, then failed to
act constructively to stop the improper behavior.
14. A new rule, applied only to me.
In summer and fall 2006, Morrison invented a new rule
that applied only to me. In the few minutes before a
summer council meeting, Morrison saw that I was going
to show a short video clip of the deposition of Nevada
LID project manager Jim Olson. Video showed that
Public Works Director Paula Brown had instructed him to
use cost-sharing percentages that favored her and the
Billings developer who improved her real estate property
inside Nevada LID, and that Olson knew those
percentages to be illegal when she directed him to use
them, yet failed to inform councilor property owners of
that key fact. When Morrison learned I was going to
expose the facts, he invented a new rule, applying only
to me, that I would henceforth not be allowed to use any
audiovisuals in my testimony. He claimed I could speak
and couldn't show any exhibits. He only applied that rule
to me, allowing others to use audiovisual aids to help
their presentation. He prevented me from presenting the
video clip at multiple council meetings, including the
court-ordering findings session on Nevada LID.
15. Failure as appointing authority.
As mayor, Morrison is Paula Brown's boss. She's
required by Oregon law to disclose all conflicts of interest
in Nevada LID, yet Morrison fails to require her to do so.
City admitted in writing, as found by Jackson County
Circuit Court, that Morrison knew of 8 conflicts of interest
for Brown. As her appointing authority, he's required by
law to dispose of her conflicts of interest after disclosure,
and has failed to do so, showing bias and refusal to
follow the law.
16. Allow personal attacks on listserve.
In 2005, lied formation of a community organization
that used civil dialogue to reach consensus on 5
proposed amendments to the Ashland City Charter.
When the community consensus was incompatible with
City's Charter Review Committee's answer, committee
members began personally attacking me and the civil
dialogue group. I met with Morrison and asked him as
mayor to stop the use of tax money for broadcasting
un-civil discourse, filthy language, and personal attacks
on City's web site against me and
AshlandConstitution.org. I printed and gave to him
emaiis from the corporate charter committee, showing
him the filthy language, attribution of motives,
name-calling, and false claims. My requests to Morrison
received no constructive response, and the destructive
comments continued until the corporate committee
stopped meeting in June 2005. This spring, when
council put 2 charter measures on the baUot, the attacks
returned and escalated, personally attacking me again
by name, using tax rnoney to broadcast the attacks on
multiple listserves. Morrison failed to stop continued
verbal abuse coming from members of the corporation,
and directed to me. Instead he poured gas on the fire
during the 2007 Apr3 hearing, claiming I received 'special
treatment' .
17. Summary.
Evidence above shows Morrison has actual bias, with
personal animosity, abuse of power directed to me, and
procedural injustice directed at me. Oregon law requires
a quasi-judicial hearing to have an impartial
decisionmaker, without personal animosity toward a
party or procedural prejudice. Morrison's outbursts,
personal attacks, invention of unfair procedures, surprise
tactics, and violation of the basic constitutional right to
speak during a public hearing provide adequate
evidence that Morrison is personally biased against me.
For more than 3 years, Morrison has shown personal
bias against me. The personal attack outbursts during
the 2007 Apr3 quasi-judicial hearing are the most recent
and visible since they show on video his personal bias
and his willingness to invent rules on the spot to prevent
my testimony. Council should recuse Morrison from this
matter as having personal bias.
Oregon Supreme Court: ..The public
interest in appearance of propriety over
public interest in efficiency is so great in
judicial proceedings that readjudication is
required regardless of whether decisions
were fair when appearance of impropriety
;s present... 1000 Friends of Oregon v.
Wasco County Court, 304 Or. 76, 742 P.2d
39, 1987.
~?Jq-f ? J~
~/llo1 ffr p/ (I.
of voice. Saying nothing, I crossed the street
and moved to another street.
Jackson then came to the street that I was
on. When she arrived, to avoid conflict, I
stopped and waited on the other side of the
street for her to complete her flyer drop. She
continued the verbal harassment. I was on
the other side of the street, houses away.
She would drop her flyers, and as she
returned to the street between each house,
would yell angrily at me across the street,
taunting me, trying to provoke a conflict,
claiming I was going to pick up her flyers,
etc.. Through all her yelling and provocation,
I said nothing, and resumed my work after
she left.
1. Recusal due to personal bias. On Sun 2007 Apr25, I RSVP'd to the host of
Kate Jackson shows personal animosity, a meeting on the ballot measures, who invited
yelling at me repeatedly in public during me to attend the session at his home. When
canvassing, spreading false information, I arrived, he said Kate Jackson told them I
making personal attacks, and working to was following her, though she failed to explain
discredit me. Kate Jackson's personal bias that she arrived on a street where I was
against me means she is not an impartial already canvassing. She said she didn't want
decisionmaker for this planning action, me to speak to the visitors. I was allowed to
because i am a party to the appeal. listen to her many false comments about the
I'm the publisher of a newspaper called charter ballot measures, and wasn't allowed
...Of The People. The most recent edition to speak. She used her fear tactics to stop
reported on the first page, above the fold, that any dissenting voice to her factually incorrect
Kate Jackson was the councilor vvho moved comments. She didn't mention that she had
to put on the ballot a charter that would repeatedly yelled at me on the street, though I
transfer power to sell Lithia Park from the had said nothing.
voters to council. This means that Kate Jackson is apparently working for a PAC
Jackson, recently elected with major financial (Political Action Committee) called
contributions from developers, would have Committee For Responsible Government,
the power to sell part or all of Lithia Park to a which advocates support for one or both
developer if joined by 3 others on council. ballot measures. She is actively using
Kate Jackson has had a vicious personal PAC-paid materials to do her work.
attack on me. She is attacking me in public, After working to prevent the truth about the
including yelling at me on the street while she ballot measures from coming out, Jackson
canvasses to get her charter version passed. proceeded to use taxpayer-paid resources to
On Sat 2007 Apr24, whi.le I distributed my attack me by name on City's Ii stserve , falsely
newspaper to Quiet Village, Jackson came to claiming that I was using fear tactics. She is
the neighborhood. She saw me at an twisting the situation 1800. My newspaper
intersection, and proceeded to yell across the properly reported factual information about
intersection at me with an angry, hostile tone ~~fo1 fk~;;~;te, and ;;;;~ power
Alleged Bias For Kate Jackson
art bullock, 2007May1
This document alleges actual bias for Kate
Jackson and asks that she be recused .
Jackson has repeatedly demonstrated
personal bias against the author, who is a
party in this matter. Jackson has also
demonstrated prejudgment bias, for example,
by laughing at the Ashland Charter and
publicly stating that she ignores it because it's
outdated. Under Oregon law, Jackson's bias
requires that she be recused. If she fails to
recuse herself, the other 5 councilors arerasked to recuse her by roll call vote.
~" I
shift from the voters to her and 3 other council
members.
While relying on the PAC to support her
work, Jackson is now violating the law by
using government resources and City's
listserve to personally attack me with false
information, and advocate for her cause,
using her position in the government and
taxpayer resources for her personal agenda.
She is spreading false rumors and false
information, and acting to prevent me from
factually correcting her repeated
misinformation about the ballot measures she
is campaigning for. She is actively working to
personally attack me in public, to discredit
me, and to use her political power, PAC
material, and taxpayer resources in City
government to attack me and discredit me.
Jackson is not an impartial decisionmaker
for this action, which I asked council to
appeal. Because of her personal bias against
me, she should be recused.
2. Recusal due to prejudgment bias.
Jackson also shows prejudgment bias,
which is separate and cumulative grounds for
recusal. Jackson told the Mountain Meadows
Democrats meeting on the charter
(2007 Apr24) that she ignored the Ashland
Charter because it was out of date, and gave
the group a specific section that she ignored.
She laughed at our charter, claiming it wasn't
a working document.
Ashland Charter requires that Kate
Jackson swear to an oath of office that she
will uphold the Ashland Charter, as well as
the constitutions of State or Oregon and the
United States of America. Yet she maintains,
in public, that she ignores the Ashland
Charter because it's outdated. This is a
violation of her oath of office.
We are a nation of laws. Instead of
laughing at the Ashland Charter, she's
required by oath to uphold it, whether or not
she agrees with it.
Jackson's public position that she ignores
the Ashland Charter because it's outdated is
prejudgment bias because it shows she's
willing to violate her oath of office when it
suits her to ignore the law.
A key issue for Planning Action
2006-02354 (P6-2354) is City's continued
ignoring of the 20' setback requirement in
Ashland Municipal Code. During the public
hearing, Planning Commission (PC) chair
John Fields said that PC had ignored the
legally required setback for decades. Not
years, decades.
I asked council to bring this matter up on its
own appeal in part because of PC's continued
and admitted ignoring of city law. Kate
Jackson's public position that she also
ignores city law is prejudgment bias on
P6-2354 to ignore the 20' setback and
variance requirements, and is thus grounds
for recusal.
3. Summary.
The evidence shows Jackson's actual bias,
personal animosity and personal bias, and
prejudgment bias in her willingness to ignore
city law when she considers it outdated. She
is personally and repeatedly attacking me in
public streets and on City's Iistserve, using
false information. Oregon law requires an
impartial quasi-judicial decisionmaker, without
personal animosity toward a party or
prejudgment bias. Jackson is not impartial.
She should be recused.
Oregon Supreme Court: "The public
interest in appearance of propriety over
public interest in efficiency is so great in
judicial proceedings thatreadjudication is.
required regardless of whether decisions
were fair when appearance of impropriety
is present." 1000 Friends of Oregon v.
Wasco County Court, 304 Or. 76, 742 P.2d
39, 1987.
. . .
o
The People
--
An Independent Voters' Guide To Ballot Measures Changing Ashland's Constitution
this one s a keeper...
Hardcopy No.2
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
~~~f: Power Shift From Mayor,
%%~~. Coun~iI To City' Manager,
Measure 15-76
Charter Amendment
Should Ashland Shift Power
From Elected Mayor And
Council To Unelected '
, ~City Manager?
-
b - What's the major effect of council's
-.\ city manager amendment? Amend-
ment would give an unelected city
~anager the authority to hire and
ire 8 department heads who run key
~ departments doing City's actual
2... work: Police Chief, Fire Chief, and
,,~ Directors of Planning, Public Works,
<::) AFN, Electric Utility, Finance, and
'-..... Human Resources. Their expertise
"'\ ranges widely--Hosler Dam, street
~ paving, fire fighting, sewage treatment,
(A making arrests, AFN, electric substa-
~ions, emergency medical service,etc..
Who ,hires and fires department
heads now? Mayor and 6 coun- .
~ cilors, an elected. Current charter.
requires mayor to make and announce
~prelimin, ary decision. After public. com-
ment, council approves or vetoes by
jority vote, for accountability and
'ransparency. Process allows Citizen
oversight oiJcey ~QDIl8J decisions..
Why is the power to hire and fire
these 8 peOple so important?
Amendment would give an unel~ct-
ed manager power to control what
work actually gets done.
Does recent history show city
administrator is a more stable posi-
tion than mayor? No. In the last 10
years, Ashland's had 3 mayors and 5
administrators. The last 4 administra-
tors averaged 2 1/2 years in the job.
Would amendment put department
heads in the position of having 2
bosses? Yes. Department heads
would continue to ask for and receive
policy direction from council, yet the
only person with power to fire them
would be a manager coordinating their
schedules and budgets.
In practice, how does hiring a
department head actually work?
City just hired 'a new'police chief.
The selection process had possibly
the highest Citizen oversight in
Ashland history. Citizens recom-
mended selection criteria, then wrote
25 interview questions on taxpayers'
issues--panhandling downtown, ,
TASERs, substance abuse, community
policing, 'etc. Police Chief candidates
were interviewed in council chambers,
televised live, public invited, without
prior candidate knowledge of Citizens'
written questions. Without cost, you
can watch this video online. '
After this 2-hour public job interview, a
Citizen straw poll of attendees, which
included Ashland police officers, pre-
ferred Terry Holderness 2-1.
Then, 2 panels of councilors and
Citizens conducted formal job inter-
views.. They presented their evalua-
tions to the mayor, who recommended-
-and council approved--Terry
Holderness as our new police chief.
Would amendment require city
manager to use this or a similar
process? No. City manager could fire
or hire police chief--or other depart-
ment heads--without any involvement
or oversight from Citizens, c~uncil, or
mayor.
What's Broken?
Is this a solution in search of a
problem? Do we have a problem hir-
ing and firing department heads ,
solved by this constitutional
change? No. Despite requests, the
public record shows no current prob-
lems in how Ashland currently hires or
fires department heads that would be
solved by this amendment.
If it's not broken, why fix it? Propo-
nents'
support
is based
on theo-
ry and
business
practice,
not a
solution
to a cur-
rent
problem.
They say
a future
mayor or
council
may not
be pro-
fession-
ai, and
a city
manager
would
be.
The Power To Sell Lithia
Park Is On The Ballot
Measure 15-77
Charter Replacement
Lithia Park is "hereby reserved and
forever dedicated to th~ people of
the city..."
These elegant, moving words in the
Ashland Charter, our city's constitution,
were crossed out by vote of 3 coun-
cilors and the mayor in the March6
council meeting that put council's char:
ter 0
JlII' ,the
'.:.'" . ..... lot.'
'. . ., T'
, cha
j -- pro-
posed
by4
people
gives
the
same
fout -
some
the
power to
sell
Lithia
Park to
develop-
ers.
'For
dec-
ades,
Ash~
land's
charter has prohibited the sale or
lease of Lithia Park. City can't sell or
lease any part of Lithia Park without a
majority vote of the people.
Council's charter would shift the
power to decide Lithia Pa~'s future
from the majority will of the people
to 3 councilors and mayor. '.
Mayor and 3 councilors
deleted these words as
'butdated" and "Obsolete":
Lithia Park is "horoby
roso,"".{od oRd forc't!or
dod,ieatod to tho poop,'o of
tho eity... "
After 3 ad
unCi t e
ark, Kate Jacks ,elected last fall
with major money contributions
from developers, moved to put
councU's charter on the baltot--
WITHOUT the attorney-recommend- ,
ed Lithia Park protection. She
claimed council had talked abouf
enou vid
Chapm . nstead of using
the motion discussion to explain the
power to sell l,.ithia Park, Russ Silbiger
attacked those petitioning Circuit Court
for a fair surnmaryin the Voters'
Pamphlet of council's new powers. He
voted with Jackson and Chapman, a
common 3-vote bloc.
Mayor Morrison broke council's 3-3
tie to force the "council can sell
Lithia Park" .charter onto the ballot.
In 1907, Lithia Park was just an idea. Men wanted a
'development' at the old mill site. Women wanted a park,
so they organized Ashland's Women Civic Improvement
League. shown here building the Plaza.
In 1908, it came to a vote of the people. The men, that is.
Women had no right to vote. Yet, somehow these women
deternlined,the outcome of the 'election, using influence
mechanisms stHI a mystery to modern.poJ.itical science._
100 years later, the issue is back.
And this time, women can vote.
Are Taxpayers Protected?
, Today's charter requires mayor and
councilto live inside Ashland. Does
this amendment require city manag-
er to live here and pay taxes like the
rest of us? No. Amendment's lack of
residency requirement means city man-
ager could live in California and Com-
mute, or live elsewhere in Oregon,
without paying Ashland property taxes.
Would there be any charter limits
on the city manager's authority to
hire and fire? No.
What's an example of the rea/-
, world risks of a city manager with
this power? In Oct 2005, Ashland
administrator ,Gino Grimaldi resigned,
working 6 more months in transiti~n.
Amendment would have empowered
Grimaldi, after resigning, to fire depart-
ment heads. Amendment lacks any
oversight or veto power to stop a man-
ager who's resigned from firing any or
all department heads, including those
with 20+ years of public service.
It's Time To Vote
What are the'major effects 'of vot-
ing YES vs. NO on this amendment?
(1) Voting YES would amend the char-
ter to transfer power to hire and fire 8
department heads from mayor and
council to a city manager. Voting NO
would keep that power vested in mayor
and council. (2) Voting YES would
remove the mayor's role as City's Chief
Executive Officer, without assigning
that role to anyone else: Voting NO
would keep the mayor as City's Chief
E~ecutive Officer.
This measure is numbered M15-76.
Ballots will be mailed about April 28.
Ballot must be received by 8pril,
Tuesday, May 15.
Slipping Power Changes
Below The Radar
The power to sell Lithia Park was
being slipped below the radar until
Feb20, when i told council they were
allegedly violating Oregon's fair ballot
laws by not telling voters a major effect
of council's charter was to give council
the power to sell Lithia Park.
When i disclosed this hidden power to
council, ,some councilors gave me
that "deer-in-the-headlights" look.
Others didn't seem surprised.
One councilor asked city attorney
Mike Franell, on camera, if the pro-
posed charter gave City the right to sell
Lithia Park. He responded .affirmatively,
confirming my testimony without check-
ing. Franell already knew, yet neither'
he nor the other 2 attorneys paid thou-
sands of tax dollars for charter work
had ever informed charter committee or
city council of this key power shift.
For council's next meeting, March 6,
Franell wrote that charter committee
and council had never discussed
this power shift. Frahell recommend~
ed council put back the Lithia Park pro-
tection, writing that state law doesn't
-prohibit the sale of Lithia Park, like
our current charter. .
Three councilors strenuously objected
to putting the proposed charter on the
May 15 ballot in this situation, saying
council's charter still lacked basic pro-
tections for parks, water, and electric
utility, that voters would reject it, too
many last minute changes, ete..
Ashland's Crown Jewel
Lithia Park is sacred ground to many
Ashlanders.. Many who treasure
Lithia Park as Ashland's ~rown je.wel
find nothing 'obsolete' or 'outdated'
about keeping Lithia Park "forever
dedicated (0 the people of the city".
It's Time To Vote
The ball is now in the voters' court.
If you support removing charter
protection for Lithia Park, thus
empowering mayor and 3 councilors
to sell Lithia Park to developers,
you'd vote YES on M15-77.
If you support keeping the current
prohibition on selling or leasing'
Lithia Park, requiring a majority vote
of the people to decide Lithia Park's
future, you'd vote NO on M15-77.
There's More...
Council's charter has many other con-
troversial provisions. Some are cov-
ered in this paper. Others are included
in Voter Education Sessions (see page
3), arid in the online version of this
newspaper, at http:// ,
groups. yahoo.com/group/OfThePeople
Have You Seen Thirst?
A few multinational corporations are
buying water systems worldwide as a
strategic business move to control and
manage water. To see firsthand the
impact of 'water as a commodity' on
cities and Citizens, attend Ashland
Constitution.org's screening of
Thirst, on Sat., M~ 5, 6-8pm at
RVML, 258 A St. Thirst is a widely
acclaimed documentary of water priva-
tization in Cochabamba, Bolivia and
Stockton, CA. The core global issue:
voters have a chance to Voters' Pamphlets was
read-think-discuss. And brought home this month,
since you keep the Voters' when Jackson County
Pamphlet and mail the bal- Circuit Court Judge Philip
lot, you have a hardcopy of Arnold ruled that Measure
anything that's passed. 37 claims were not transfer-
That's why it's a major able because words like
problem that's council's pro- "transferable" weren't in the
posed charter changes law. If you find that hard to
aren't in the Voters' believe, check it yourself--
Pamphlet. No official final Measure 37's full text was in
copy exists anywhere. the Nov 2, 2004, Voters'
Measure 37 example. Pamphlet (Vol 1 ,Pg103-104).
The long-term value of You kept your copy, right?
Measure 15-76
Do My Values Fit Your Law?
How Do My Beliefs Fit
Council's Amendment?
I believe in open, transparent
government--decisions should
be made publicly. Does this
amendment ensure open gov-
ernment? No. It allows a city
manager to make decisions pri-
vately and unilaterally.
Amendment doesn't require man-
ager to consult with or inform any
elected representative. Under this
amendment, public and elected
representatives could learn after'
the fact that a career public ser-
vant had been fired. Amend-ment
doesn't require city manager to
publicly explain the reasons for fir- "
ing or hiring, even after the fact."
I believe in partnership gov-
ernment--e/ected and appointed
public servants should work togeth-
er cooperatively to get the job done.
Does the city manager amendment
require partnership? No. Today's
charter requires partnership.
Amendment removes partnership
requirement and allows manager to
make hirelfire decisions unilaterally.
I believe in the basic business
ptfft'elple that 'leaders pick imple-
menters '--those who set policy
should choose the implementers, to
make sure the job gets done. What
vote would be consistent with this
belief? A NO vote. Under this
amendment, council and mayor would
, still set policy, while removing their
authority to hire and fire 8 department
heads who. implement those policies.
I believe in accountability -- those.
making government decisions
should be directly accountable to
the people. What vote would be
consistent with this belief? A NO
vote. Current elected representatives
hire and fire department heads, and if
the electorate dislikes the decision,
they can recall those who made the
decision. Proposed amendment gives
authority to an appointed public ser-
vant who is not elected, and thus not
directly accountable to the taxpayers.
Voters .
uW.-~~
.'F~~~ . ," , . ~
Council
.~'1.
.<~ .....
~ ,~
...... '.
h'
:,Maror
~~..
. t.
. .
'tWar~...
. ,
I believe city employees should be
protected from city politics. I don't
trust 'politicians' to hire and fire
department heads. What vote would
be consistent with this belief? A
YES vote, if you believe the manag-
er would be above city politics. If
you believe a city manager (hired and
fired by council and mayor) would be
less political and more protective of
department heads, you'd vote YES. If
you believe council and mayor ('politi-
cians') would be more protective of the
people implementing their policy, you'd
vote NO.
I believe government should be
run in a professional manner.
Would this amendment ensure pro-
fessionalism? No. Amendment
changes the title from city administrator
to city manager, without changing the
people involved or specifying profes-
sional procedures. Some say a city
manager, who may be trained in public
administration, would be more profes-
sional than elected representatives.
However, amendment has no proce-
dural or performance requirements to
ensure professionalism.
Pamphlet
Power
The Voters' Pamphlet puts
the law in your hands.
Literally.
Except this time.
Last fall, Ashland voters
approved a charter amend-
ment requiring a future
real estate transfer tax to
be approved by voters.
Amendment's full text was
in the Voters' Pamphlet.
Length doesn't matter. In
2004, Oregon Constitution
was changed by Measure
36, 1 sentence long--in the
Voters' Pamphlet.
The same pamphlet had
the full text of Measure 33,
which took 7 pages and 13
columns of fine print.
Full text in the Voters'
Pamphlet is critical for
voter preparation and fol-
lowup. Voters' Pamphlets
are mailed in advance, so
:-(..
Measure 15-77
The Power To Sell
Ashland's Water To
Corporations
Council's proposed charter grants
council the power to sell Ashland's
water to corporations without any char-
ter restrictions on quantity or purpose.
City attorney Mike Franefl repeatedly
wrote and told council (e.g., see
2006Dec19 video) that the current
charter restricts City's power to sell
water to corporations. Ashland's char-
ter uses the word "inhabitants", which
Franell wanted to change to "resi-
dents". He explained tnat, under the
law, only human beings can "inhabit".
Corporations "reside" (they have an
address). By changing the word
"inhabitants" to "reSidents", the 3 coun-
cilors and mayor who voted to put this
power on the ballot would be empow-
ered to sell Ashland's water to any cor-
poration without charter restrictions on
quantity or purpose. .
"Inhabitants" Or "Residents"
Changing from "inhabitants" to "resi-
dents" aoesn't sound like a big deal.
The words sound like synonyms.
Yet the legal effect from this one-word
change is profound, a classic example
why charters are changed with the
utmost care. Small, seemingly insignif-
icant, wording changes can read to
major interpretation differences.
Corporate ownership of water recent-
ly hit close to home, when McCloud,
CA, who didn't have our protections,
contracted to allow Nestle's to draw a
half-billion gallons of water per year for
99 years, for bottled water. Inhabitants
are spending thousands of dollars in a
big court case to get their water back
from a resident.
Measure 15-76
City Manager--What Does Research Say?
City manager approach isn't new. politicians', '1 moved here from a city
Ashland considered it in 1970 and said with a city manager, and it worked
NO. Cities like Rome, New York tried it there'. Citizen comments AGAINST
and returned to a city administrator the proposal included: 'don't believe
approach. What does the research in one-person rule', 'no accountability
say about city manager 'model'? in manager's job', 'it's working now,
Does national research show city leave it alone', 'council and mayor run
manager cities have lower taxes? No. the city, they're the ones who should
Does national research show city pick department heads', 'letting one
manager cities have person fire
better service? No. department heads
What does nation- is undemocratic',
al research show 'where's the
about the effect of checks and bal-
city manager on ances?', 'who's
council? That behind this?
>30% of the time, some small group
council becomes a trying to control
'token symbol'. the govern-
What does the ment?', 'we voted
local research show? on this already and
Ashland Constitu- said NO, why are
tion.org survey of we voting on it
over 400 Ashland- again?', 'city
ers found 82% administrator is a
opposed a city revolving-door job
manager choosing with people here
department heads. today and gone
What reasons did tomorrow', 'these
Ashlanders give for Ash/andConstitution.org's sur- city managers
their opinion about vey of over 400 Ash/anaers want to build an
city manager power? found 82% opposed to a city empire of staff, so
Citizen comments manager hiring and firing don't be surprised
FOR the proposal department heads. if taxes skyrocket', .
included: 'council's 'this is just like
a mess, a manager couldn't do any the federal government, taking
worse', 'we need professionals run- power from the people and giving it
ning the government, not to bureaucrats'.
... Of The People
Page 2
Is water a human right, or a com-
moditr to be bought and sold in the
globa marketplace? City attorney
maintained that water is a commodi-
ty. Charter committee chair John
Enders argued that City should be
empowered to sell Ashland's water
outside city limits for revenue.
Another Hidden Power
In March, 2005, i discovered in the
committee's draft charter the hidden
power to sell Ashland's water to corpo-
rations. The entire water protection .
language had been removed. Instead
of fucusing on the major issue of who
owns the water--and the broader pic-
ture of 'selling the commons'--charter
committee was preoccupied with fine-
tuning the City Band. After i disclosed
the hidden power to sell the water,and
AshlandConstitution.org began drafting
its own amendment, cnarter commit-
tee, and later council, put part of the
water protections back, with revisions.
Franell proposed 7 versions of water
protection langua~e, all allowing coun-
cil to sell Ashland s water to a corpora-
tions for bottled water. Council's ballot
version granted the power by changing
"inhabitants" to "residents".
If you want to ALTER the charter to
allow a council foursome to sell
Ashland's water to corporations for bot-
tled water, you'd vote YES on M15-77. ,.#.
If you want to KEEP the current water>'
protection language, which stops coun-
cil from selling Ashland's water for bot-
tled water, you'd vote NO on M15-77.
Losing The Right For A
Majority Vote On Utilities
After my FAQ (Frequently Asked
Questions) flyers describing council's . 1
new powers were copied and emailed -
all over town, City used tax money to
hire former city attorney Paul Nolte to
respond to my FAQ. Nolte's promotion
r.iece on city's web site was called an -'.
FAQ', though it had no questions. It
did, however, have many false state-
ments and personal opinions that City
called facts. For example, Nolte falsely.'
claimed water protection lan~uage was .
"repeated verbatim". It wasn t, as
described above and below. See http://
groups.yahoo.com/group/OfThePeople .
for more examples.
In addition to changing "inhabitants",
the first part of the water protection ' '.'
sentence has been removed. This part,
specified who the water was for, and
required a majority vote of the people
. for other utility: services. Think AFN.
The right of Ashland voters to decide
utility services was removed in coun-
cil's charter, then covered up in a factu-
ally incorrect, false reassurance 'FAQ'
paid by tax dollars.
If you want to GIVE UP the right for a
majority vote on utility services, you'd
vote YES on M 15-7T.
If you want to KEEP the right for a
majority vote on utility services, you'd
vote NO on M15-77.
~-
What's A Charter?
The Ashland City Charter is the most
important document in city government.
Ashland Charter is our constitution.
It creates our rights. .
It defines City responsibilities.
1t limits government power.
Ashland Charter created a municipal
corporation called "City of Ashland".
It defined limited powers for that cor-
poration to serve Ashland inhabitants.
It defined voter rights. And taxpayer
rights. And property rights--even for
property owners living in other states
and countries.
We're not talking boring bylaws.
We're talking the foundation for
Ashland self-government.
We're talking about a unique constitu-
tion that codified Ashland's special
heritage. Most cities have 3 branches
of government. Ashland has 4. City
recorder's office is a Citizen oversight
branch,not beholden to other branches,
elected by the people, and accountable
to voters. The 'Show Us The Law' arti-
cle explains why that's important.
Our current charter has many unique-
nesses and rarities. Lithia Park protec-
tion. An independent parks commis-
sion. Electing a city judge. Permanent
protection for our beloved City Band.
Ashland's specialness didn't happen
by accident. It happened because
wise generations before us knew how
to build a city. From the ground up.
With a firm foundation. Based on the
majority will. Protected in a charter.
That only We The People can change.
These ballot measures, from mayor
and 3 councilors, remove Citizen
rights, decrease City's responsibili-
ties, and expand City's power.
i found no examples in council's char-
ter where voters, or taxpayers, or prop-
erty owners gained rights. i found
many examples where they lost rights.
i found no examples where City lost
power. i found many examples where
City gained power. With less account-
ability. And less transparency.
For example, Ashland Charter
removes any councilor convicted of a
felony. Council's charter allows a
convicted felon to remain councilor.
Plus, unlike the Ashland Charter,
council's charter allows a councilor
to remain after destroying public
records.
If you believe Ashland City -Charter is
'outdated' and 'obsolete', and council's
proposals are improvements, you'd
vote YES on M15-76 and M15-77.
If you believe the foundation and
heritage codified in the Ashland City
Charter is still sound, you'd vote NO on
M15-76 and M15-77.
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/OfI'hePeople
Measure 15-76
Buckley, Bates, Gilmour, Au Coin, Golden:
Resounding NO On City Manager Proposal
The Voters' Pamphlet.has a don't-
miss 'Argument' from the above 5 indi-
viduals AGAINST City's proposed man-
ager amendment. It's online at http://
groups.yahoo.com/group/OfThePeople
State Representative Peter Buckley,
State Senator Dr. Alan
Bates, Jackson
County Commissioner
Dr. Dave Gilmour, for-
mer US Congress
Rewesentative Les
AuCoin, and former
Jackson County
Commissioner Jeff
Golden urged Ashland to vote NO on
the city manager amendment. Why?
Don't Un-Balance The Power
Buckley-Bates-Gilmour -AuCoin-
Golden disagreed with giving unilateral
decision power to a 'city manager' by
pointing out the imJ)ortance of main-
taining a balance of power. "The inher-
ent friction between council, mayor and
administrator brings about better deci-
sions and creates a city government
more readily responsive 10 the leader-
ship of the electorate. "
Proponents have argued this tension
is 'inefficient' and that a city manager
acting unilaterally could get things done
faster. Buckley et al. argued that
requiring multiple parties to work
together produces better decisions.
A Collaborative Administrator,
Not A Powerful City Manager
Buckley et al. disagreed with propo-
nents' claim that giving a city adminis-
trator more power would attract better
candidates. 'The Mayor/ Administrator
form...attract[S] candiaates who value
community involvement and collabora-
tive government which includes the
mayor, council, city commissions, and
the community in equal measure."
Don't Shift
Power From
Voters
Buckley, Bates,
Gilmour, Au Coin,
and Golden have all
been elected by thou-
sands of votes. They know firsthand
about government responsive to the
people. "Changing Ashland from
mayor/ administrator to council/ manag-
er form of government is a significant
shift of power away from the electorate
and over to an appointed official. "
Looking For Love In All The
Wrong Places
Proponents sayan unelected city
manager is a source of leadership.
Buckley et al. argued that the source is
"the leadership of the electorate. ".
FrYing Pan To The Fire
Some see city manager as filling a
leadership void in Ashrand's current
lilovernment. Buckley et al. had a
Jumping from the f'}lng pan to the ~re"
resl?onse: "A mayor s peitormance IS
up for voter review every four years or
sooner by recall. Of greater concern
should be an appointed Manager, insu-
lated from the voters, with pol11ical
leanings divergent from Ashland's. "
..
Measure 15-77
Council's Charter Alters Property Rights
Council uses an "Local Improvement
District" (Ll.D.) to put liens on homes
to pay for 'street improvements', even if
the neighborhood doesn't want them.
The last 3 LIDs have all been
opposed by the neighborhood majority.
Last year, Plaza St neighbors sus-
pended their 'improvement' by collect-
ing signatures of 2/3 of property own-
ers scheduled for liens on their homes.
Council's charter empowers council
to change that threshold to 100%.
On Apr2, Council directed staff to use
LIDs to pave all remaining 10.42 miles
of unpaved alleys and streets. All are
Measure 15-76
A Short Course In Public
Administration
If you want to empower council to set
the voting threshold, you'd vote YES.
If you want to keep current property
rights to suspend LIDs, you'd vote NO.
setting decisions. An administrator implements deci-
sions of others. In Ashland, mayor and council set
direction. Administrator carries out that direction.
What does a city administrator actually do?
Slhe coordinates budgets and schedules. City of
Ashland is a $100 million corporation, with complex,
multimillion dollar projects like AFN and wastewater
treatment plant. City administrator ensures each
department gets the job done within council's budget.
A city manager would do the same basic job.
If an administrator and manager both coordinate
schedules and budgets, what's the difference?
(1) Manager would unilaterally hire and fire 8
department heads; current administrator only rec-
ommends hiringlfiring to mayor and council. (2)
Manager would function without executive officer
oversight from mayor; current administrator is
subordinate to mayor as CEO. (3) Manager would
be insulated from pressure from council and
mayor on personnel decisions; current adminis-
trator is not.
in neighborhoods opposed to the
paving. If you live on, or near enough
to, an unpaved alley or street, there'll
be a lien on your home to pay for this
paving. Paving is costly. The last LID
had a lien over $20,000.
AshlandConstitution.org's survey
reported 94% of those surveyed want-
ed to require majority support before
putting liens on people's homes.
City manager amendment goes to the heart of
American government, the principle of 'balance of
power'. American governments at all levels have
been designed with multiple branches acting as a
check and balance against each other. Ashland has
successfully used its current design for 70+ years
City Manager proponents rely heavily on their theo-
ry of how public administration should work. Here's
some background about the so-called "strong mayor"
vs. "weak mayor" approach to city government.
A Rose By Any Other Name--
What DO Those Titles Mean?
What's the 'strong mayor' model? Mayor is
head of the executive branch and has Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) authority, including the
power to hire and fire department heads with
council approval. Department heads report to a city
administrator, who coordinates their schedules and
budgets. Ashland uses the strong mayor model.
What's the 'weak mayor' model? Mayor is head
of the executive branch, yet has no executive officer
authority. Department heads are hired and fired by a
city manager appointed by mayor and council.
Does changing from 'strong mayor" to 'weak
mayor' affect checks and balances? Yes. It shifts
power from legislative to executive branch. Council
(legislative) would lose veto power for appointments.
What's the difference between an executive and
an administrator? An executive makes direction-
Ballot Measure Summary Checklist
All Of Government In 2 Words:Who Decides?
Council's ballot measures change decision authority. The key question: WHO
DECIDES? Here a checklist of major changes in these power-shift packages.
To shift decision power to the proposed authority, vote YES on the measure.
To keep decision power where it is today, vote NO on poth measures.
Measure 15-76 City Manager Amendment
ToAdoptThis, ToKeepThis,
Vote Yes Vote No
City Manager Mayor,Council
Nobody Mayor
City Manager Mayor
5 Councilors Not Applicable
Who Should Decide To...
Hire and fire 8 key department heads
Make CEO (Chief Executive Officer) decisions
Provide oversight supervision of city employees
Remove a councilor for 'indirect coercion'"
Measure 15-77 Council's Replacement Charter
ToAdoptThis, ToKeepThis,
Vote Yes Vote No
Council Voters
Council Voters
Council Voters
Council Voters
Council Voters
Council Voters
Council Voters
Council Voters
Who Should Decide To...
Sell or lease Lithia Park
Sell City water to corporations without charter
restrictions on quantity or purpose (bottled water)
Set the threshold % required for property owners
to suspend liens on neighborhood homes
Define the role of the Police Chief
Determine new utility services
If a convicted felon can remain a councilor
Set council's salaries and fringe benefits ("perks")
Set salaries for judge, recorder (alters balance of
power for Ashland's 4 branches of government)
Voter Education Sessions
Wed Apr 25, 7-9pm Council Chambers, 1175 E MainSt
Televised Live On RVT\I, Channel 9
Replays On Channels 9, 14
Sponsored by AshlandConstitution.org
Presentation And Dialogue On 2 Ballot Measures
Granting City of Ashland...
The Power To Sell Lithia Park To Developers
The Power To Sell Ashland Water For Bottled Water
The Power To Alter Property Rights In An LID
The Power For Council To Set Its Own Salary, Benefits
The Power For An Unelected Mgr To Appoint Dept Heads
More Voter Education Sessions, with handouts and Q&A:
SOU Stevenson Union, Room 330 Hardwired Bldg, 340 A St
Info: MediaCollective@sou.edu. AshlandConstitution@yahoo.com
Mon Apr 30 6:30-8pm Sun Apr 29 1 :30-3pm
Mon May 7 6:.30-8pm Sun May 6 1 :30-3pm
Mon May14 6:30-8pm
At the Unitarian Center, 87 4th Street
Sponsor: WILPF, Women's Inti League For Peace & Freedom
Info: 488-3642, 488-9286.
Fri May 3 1-3pm Charter Water: Losing Charter Protections.
Sun May13 2-4pm The Real Meaning Of Mother's Day. Plus:
The Women Who Sav.ed Lithia Park From Developers in 1908
f
Sat, May 5, 6-8pm At Risk: Ashland's Water. RVML, 258 A St
Screening of Thirst, documentary on water privatization
For updates, join: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrrhePeople
Does the city manager approach follow federal
and state practices? No. U.S. President, for exam-
ple, chooses the cabinet ('leaders pick implementers'
principle). Ashland Charter uses this standard
approach, requiring mayor, head of the executive
branch (like the President) to select department
heads (like the cabinet), with council's approval.
If council and mayor set City's policy direction,
shouldn't they be the ones to hire and fire depart-
ment heads to carry out that policy? Yes, if you
follow the basic principle that "leaders pick
implementers". That's the reason Ashland's mayor
and council have had authority to hire and fire depart-
ment heads for> 70 years.
Would amendment increase costs? Yes. 'City
manager' title pays about $15,000 more (plus over
40% fringe benefits) than 'city administrator' title, so
budget costs would increase.
Who's In Charge Here?
Would there be any charter limits, or checks and
balances, on the city manager's authority to hire
and fire? No. City manager's authority would be
unilateral. Neither mayor nor council nor community
would have oversight or veto power.
To me, council and mayor are making a lot of
bad decisions, so why not let a city manager
make the executive decisions? Amendment
doesn't authorize city manager to set city policy
or make executive decisions except for the decision
to hirelfire department heads. By charter and state
law, council and mayor still have ultimate policy
responsibility, council as the legislative branch, mayor
as head of the executive branch. With or without the
amendment, the buck stops with council and mayor. .
Amendment's Impact
Would this amendment make a city manager
City's chief executive? No. City would have no
CEO. Amendment removes mayor as CEO without
replacement. City manager would be "Chief
Administrative Officer", and would continue to imple-
ment policy decisions of council and mayor.
Does amendment authorize city manager to set
Ashland's direction? No. Ashland Charter vests'
policy authority in council and mayor, with or without
this amendment. Oregon law prevents council from
delegating legislative authority to any other party.
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/OjThePeople
Page 3
...Of The People
. . ~ Message To The Spiritual Community
This artl~le IS f~r th~ values voter. Many passionate about Lithia Park, It' 1" T V t
If you stnve to live life based on core our water, etc., say the would never S . .Ime o. 0 e , .
val~es and personal integrity, this arti- (again) speak to counc~ because coun- P~litlcal p~ndlt~ say ~me(lcans vote
cle IS for you. cil doesn't listen or hon . th' I the/( ~allet. !hls hasn t been my
As~land. has. an active spiritual com- The contrast betwee~r ne~~t~~~e~l_ expenen?e with As~l,an?'s spiritual
munlty, with diverse beliefs, cere- itics and positive values has led r community. When It s time to decide,
monies, and practices. This communi- deep disconnect between Ashla ; a values voters don't ask "How much
ty is a vibrant, vital key to Ashland's spiritual integrity and the pOlitiC~1 s m?ne~ is in th(s for me?" They ask "/s
cultu~e, economy, an.d specialness. process used by those in ower. thIs .aIJgned ~/th my core values?"
Yet It has not been mtegral to This disconnect has in lar ~ art led Th!s ballot !S about more than money.
Ashland's self-government. to these 2 ballot mea g p This ballot IS about Ashland's future.
Ashland's diverse spiritual community sures. .It'~ a sad day to see the power to sell
shares one commonality: 'We don't Th S I . Llthla Pa~k on an Ashland ballot.
get involved in city politics.' e 0 utlon Is Integrity From Along with the power to sell Ashland's
While presenting council's 2 ballot The Spiritual Community water to corporations for bottled water.
measures to over 100 values voters Who's responsible for this situation? It's embarrassing to be in a county
i've seen and felt this community's ' Ultimately, we are. We The People th~t c1o~ed all its public libraries.
shock and dismay at this ballot. are the ultimate check and balance. It s painful to watch the flag lowered
L?w-integrity government only per- on the now-closed Ashland Public
SIStS when the high-integrity com- Library, with a police officer escorting
munity doesn't set the standards. out reluctant children trying to save
Governments don't fix themselves. their books.
And corporate media no longer pro- Yet that's where we are.
teet democracy. Instead, they feed the
flames of disrespect by adding vicious
attacks and anonymous name-calling.
The integrity to change government
won't come from government or media.
It will come from a high integrity
community setting standards and a
respectful tone of self-governance.
Recent history shows that when the
community brings values-based integri-
ty to government, things change.
Grandmothers & Friends In Green.
This spiritual group was founded on a
deep gratitude for Ashland's water.
Their gatherings are blessings in Lithia
Park. When they arrived in council
chambers last summer with 1100 sig-
natures collected in 1 month to protect
Ashland's water, we saw a noticeable
shift in council's tone and orientation
toward the watershed.
First Nations Day. Another example
occurred last fall, when Native
Americans asked council to approve
their permit--already rejected by City
staff--for a 3-block parade to dedicate
the extraordinary totem pole statue
welcoming all to Ashland's downtown.
Many individuals, some of whom had
never been in council chambers, spoke
from the heart about their values the
painful history of Native America~s,
and their beloved hometown.
When they spoke their truth to gov-
ernment, the energy in council cham-
bers changed dramatically. Normal
win-I?se dynamics were replaced by a
genuine searching for positive solutions
grounded in values. It was not possi-
ble for 'politics as usual' to exist in
the ~~ace created and sustained by
a critical mass of spiritually ground-
ed individuals speaking from the
heart.
r"" - - - - - - - - - - - - - -tfioseW-fio:9o~~~-f$r'-QWltiillioqi;;.e,eat"jr -"" - - - - - - - - - -.."
:ln~~~~,~~~/~~d ~;~. 't{/,qPJ:1Q~~qtbeballot!~arf!~!!fI;chl;f(tlt~p c;ouncirs
:1,)o'!fJr;.......~C?#.Il'J~.'~$~ld if .' ..saJ;>p~()ve~!t,!ounc!1 ViC?qJ(ld~(;l~rf#.the election null and
:'1PJd.~"h'a~!,~ot~agal'1~t. cOI,ITl,?I(,. ....J'd tbcf# votf#rs~decis;otJheld.Th;s .estabJIshfJd
:oLlr!LI~fJ'1tl,"JI(ed 9ovf#rnlnf#nt'charter.Councll,stlllwqf1{iffR tQ Ulcrease their power:
:Pt!$bc'd6~llIe'1dmentsontoanother1}.~llot.. . . ~
: Ash(a"d votf#(l down .a" 6.ain$ndments.
: .And...rf#placedthe cOl"lI1cilors:
Measures 15-76,15-77
Show Us The Law!
Ballot Measures' Text Isn't In
The Voters' Pamphlet
Ashland voters expect the full text of
any proposed charter or charter
amendment to be in the Voters'
Pamphlet, so there's no doubt about
what they're voting on.
City didn't submit the official final
ballot measure text for the replace-
ment charter (M15-77) or charter
ame~dment.(M15-76) to the county
elections officer or city recorder. City
only submitted a measure summary,
alleged in circuit court to be biased.
Ashland voters are being asked to
vote on a replacement charter and
city manager amendment without
the text of either measure being in
the Voters' Pamphlet.
There's No Official Final
Copy Of Ballot Measure Text
The official final copy of these
ballot measures doesn't exist.
On Tue, Apr17, i told council that
Ashland was being asked to vote on 2
ballot measures with no official text. i
asked council to submit the official
final copy to city recorder Barbara
Christensen for storage in the docu-
ment vault to prevent any more
changes. Council didn't address it.
After the meeting, Christensen said
that legal and administration depart-
ments have changed the text several
times since Council approved the bal-
lot measures [on Mar6], and that
.i'sometimes she gets a copy. [These
12 departments benefit from these bal-
lot measures.]
I Christensen confirmed there's no
'official final copy of either ballot
measure. She confirmed there's no
guarantee the ballot measure text
won't change tomorrow or next
week on City's web site.
Or that she'll receive a copy.
In fact, there's no guarantee the text
won't change after the election.
If you've downloaded the ballot
measure text, your version may no
longer be on the ballot. And there's
no easy way to reconcile the versions.
Council didn't discuss my request to
p~ovide an audit trail of all changes
since the March15 filing deadline.
We don't know who's changing it,
what's b.eing changed, when, or why.
How ironic that the text of both ballot
measures is not transparent, when the
measures themselves reduce
accountability and transparency.
The power to sell Lithia Park to devel-
opers-- that's unthinkable. Lithia Park
is sacred ground.
T~e power to sell our water to corpo-
ratIOns for bottled water, like McCloud?
I never thought that'd happen here.
What do you mean there's no official
copy of the measures in the Voters'
Pamphlet or filed with City Recorder?
How could we have come to this?
This isn't Ashland. This is surreal.
What's happening?
The Problem Is The Process
The corporation know[1 as City of
Ashland has about 200 paid employees
and about 200 unpaid volunteers serv-
ing on commissions and boards.
These individuals contribute their life
energy as public servants, and as
members of the corporation created by
the Ashland Charter.
Unfortunately, their energies are
expended in a wasteful process that'd
be unacceptable if the spiritual commu-
nity set the standards for conduct.
The tone has been set at the top,
by mayor and council, who use ad
hominem attacks, literally cursing and
scre~r:ning in council chambers, using
u~-clvlllanguage, personally attac;king
dlss.enters, and attributing negative
motives to those who disagree.
City is using tax money and its
web site to promote council's char-
ter by using false information and
personal opinions claimed to be.
facts. This allegedly violates state
laws that prohibit sp.ending tax money
to support or oppose a ballot measure.
City is using tax dollars to make per-
sonal attacks and call people names
on City's emaillistserves.
. City's attacks have successfully driv-
en away many in Ashland's spiritual
community, who strive to live in person-
al truth and peace, avoiding conflicts.
Was this news new to you? Many who 'read
the papers' to 'keep up' on local news didn't see
these power shifts coming, though planned for
months. You've been misinformed.
Local media are part of the problem.
They've failed their role in a democracy--to
educate voters, expose the hidden truth about
government, and empower informed choice.
Instead of being a check and balance on growing
government power, they've misinformed, mis-
quoted, and misled the people.
...Of The People is part of the solution. It
provides accurate City government information
and empowers choice. Government and publi~
servant accountability, without personal attacks.
A regular newspaper published online and in
hard copy, ...Of The People is distributed without
cost to every Ashland neighborhood. With copies
at newsstands, grocery stores, coffee shops, and
SOU Library, this free newspaper reaches
every interested Ashland voter and taxpayer.
The circulation is 3 times the size of the not-
quite-daily, which is owned by Dow Jones, and
based in New York City.
....Of The People
Last Saturday, while i explained the
ballot in the Plaza, a visitor approached
me. "You just closed your public
library," she screamed, "And now you
put the power to sell Lithia Park on the
ballot! What kind of people are you?"
Taken aback by her question, i didn't
know what to say. Still don't.
This ballot doesn't sound like the
people of Ashland.
It doesn't reflect the Ashland we know.
To values voters, this ballot is surreal.
It reflects a deep disconnect between
city politics and community integrity.
The May 15, 2007 ballot marks a
low point in Ashland history. Maybe
we'll turn the corner after this,
awake to a new reality. We'll only
turn the corner if we find a way for val-
ues voters to govern their city with the
same integrity that governs their dinner a
table.
The proper role of the spiritual
community is not pressuring the
government. Or lobbying council. Or
wasting life energy on city politics.
The proper role is to decide.
Values voters are not 'input'.
Values voters make the decision.
As a sovereign community.
On ballot measures.
Two of which are on this ballot.
Ashland City Council has no power to
alter the document that created it.
Ashland's Charter can only be altered
by majority vote of the people.
Council proposed.
Community decides.
It's time for values voters to decide
Ashland's future.
Then work together to bring a high-
er integrity to self-governance.
At Risk--Ashland's Water
You're the other part of the solution. History
teaches us that government power expansion .
won't end with this election. To stay informed, join
http://groups. yahoo.com/grou p/OfThePeople
With this paper, you can become part of
high-integrity self-government. You can find
out what's really going on in Ashland govern-
ment, without the name-calling and un-civil lan-
guage. You can help write and pass ballot meas-
ures serving public interests instead of special
interests. Those joining the paper receive bite-
size updates weekly. You make the decisions.
Your voice on local issues can now reach all of
Ashland. Email your letter to the editor to
OfThePeople@yahoogroups.com
Citizen journalism relies on grassroots energy
and the collective wisdom of We The People.
So does democracy.
Art Bullock, Publisher & Editor, ...Of The People
OfThePeopleEditor@yahoo.com
Or dial GUV-DEMOcracy
That's 488-3366
Page 4
http.'/ / groups.yahoo. com/ group/ OfThePeople
Speaker Request Form
THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD
ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WILL BE MADE A V AILABLE TO THE PUBLIC
I) Complete this form and return it to the City Recorder prior to the discussion of the item yOU wish
to speak about.
2) Speak to the City Council from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Mayor, usually 3 or 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the City Recorder for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the City Recorder for the record if you do not wish to speak.
(Comments can be added to the back of this sheet if necessary)
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Tonight~sMeeting Date
:;z..
Name /f4~ /l4~s
(please print)
Address (no P.O. Box) ?~ ~N,t/~p' Rt/e' SO-
.4N/~.o
Phone
Email
Agenda topic/item numbe~.L.fl
Re2ular Meetin2
,/ J\t?(J~RL DF Pf.l za-Jo- OZ>~
Please indicat~e following:
For:
;
Against: K
Topic for public forum (non agenda item) ,
Land Use Public Hearin2
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (a city councilor or a planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest
or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk
immediately. The Presiding Officer will address the written challenge with the member. Please be
respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge
when you testify duri normal order of proceedings.
Written Commen s/Challenge:
L1 s ,4 )fA~tL
,
~
OJ::.tue P;(~ItL -M;>;
/~e;P ---'
(?e--
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland City Council generally invites the
public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time constraints
limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a
proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions
of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful.
and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakerJ do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Ofr;heJl~ lot 3
emPloyees or the City of Ashland. r~ ()-
This is to request either (2) councilors, (councilors Hartzell and Navickas),
recuse themselves for bias or for the council to vote for reconsideration of
the motion to appeal P A2006-02354, And to add into the record for this
action the attached DVD, or at least the audio portion of this DVD. My
reasoning is as follows:
The reason for the appeal was stated by the mayor at the start of the meeting,
(approx 1:58 into the DVD) and this was "to look at two policies which may
be in conflict" This direction was also affirmed by the city attorney, (approx
3:40 into the meeting), and to "stay out of the merits of the case". As the
meeting progressed, (approx 13:35 into the DVD) councilor Hartzell started
stating the needs for more clearance for transportation on North Main Street
which clearly is one of the merits of the case as well as statements on "to see
that we have what we need for bike and ped on No. Main", and (at 22:02) a
statement that "we don't meet state standards" and a "a project does not go
in out there that encroaches on one side of the street. And "don't put in
buildings that you can't undo". These are not statements that address a
conflict in policy but address preference of one policy over the other. The
inference is that the setback policy is for safety and that it should take
priority. At 26 minutes, "... even with the historic thing, is that really in fact
what's going on..." "... I'm not convinced of that because I haven't looked
at the packet." This is questioning the basic decision on the premise that the
historic policy is of no value, based on something that happened on East
Main Street several years ago.
At 29 minutes, councilor Navickas stated that he felt the 20 ft setback being
municipal code, took priority over the historic design standards. This is
another statement of preference of one ordinance over another and not just a
discussion of conflicting ordinances.
These statements bring into question the ability of these two councilors to be
impartial in this land use appeal and at a minimum should step down on this
hearing
;Z/l t' 3
5I/~ 7 rI
J 1u.te f\Jlo-r r'S J. A
149 M,~ f (UAt /t1K...
lfS(JiUltf oi ~7 5), ()
~- '".
., ":\
< \.
. r:~~;:~) J
i
" ... V.u.y
~ Jt)'
T___
.
\
~/U) \ n
~AtIl ~ dt-~'J7/ZJ
North Main
N
A
Legend
rtt',~~_
20' Buffer of North Main Sidewalk (not property line)
Sidewalk
Taxlots
100
50
o
100 Feet
Ir I
'Sery S
treet
1;1 - I ""0 I
ZC) I
I Oel
I ~r'l1
I
, :J:< '
~z en I~~I en ~ ... . 0
!! ~ I z
Pp ~ / II P1Z ~en
T~' , !! ~ ~~ I ZlEg ai~ I~
~~ c , Z~I 00 CD
-0. ~ ~~z
~~ ~ / I ~~ I~ ~a I~: EI~o ~I
I iZ_
(1)% , tg- I~ . ,
~ I ~51 ...~ .~ i ~~~ i~ Ig
~XI
'i'f ~o , f'I'I % / :z:~ ~~ -~
-_ ~c I ,.,~ I ~ Sii A~ ~~
00 Z Z ~
o 0 0 / d~/ c .~
Ie:: ~ ~ ~~~ ~~
. ;-" j~ / -<, ~ ZZ
e ~i ~e..
:tg . .. I ~ I~
e.. (,I 0 . ~ 40J - I~
, ~~ '/ ~ Ie..
9~ S .a I I '" ~
T , i ~1n
~. I g! .s
tre . , ~ 'en
I 0
et I g en
I
, P1Z ~ ~
. .
--
J PP~
Gh" c
~. Ii ~
u.~ z
~ C
-m ~
~
T
'i'f ~o
-_ ~c
00 P1Z
. 0 0
IE I
~. ~~
28 . ..
(;i e.. ~ d
I~
~
.
P1 Z en
. . ~
pp~
CUI c
e~ ~
28 ~
.- ~
~
T
Glenn Street
'i'f ~g "'Z ~
-- ~ . .
00 Z --
o 0 0 pp~
~~ j~
~: c
UI...,.g """" C
c:;~ icr ~:... z
1- c:
'XI Ulc
- I~ ~
-
(II ~z
+
8 .
';f ~a
-_ !;c
Pp ",~
""01
~~ ~~
e....., . "
-C) ..
....... i ·
.M
I~
Jt
!! Ig
PPI~
~!
40:,.. I
(,I-
Ce .
~~
i;
!!!/
~
-
.
!! 10
PPI~
;:tUl
eN I
..0
~N
:~ .
~~
;I~
!! ~~
00
~~II
N~ f!i
:~ .~
~;v
xi
",
XI
.30'
I\J
~
:
OJ
'i'f ~a
- _ !;c
PP~~
~~ j~
~i . ..
iSm ~d
~~
C)
~.
.
'.- . . ~1
i. CltY.Of A.S. hla:.d ~
P~anning Exhibit 7
Exhibit tt-1..7,'" 'lOfJ
'P'#~D~-~~
~,[~~ _..~:~:~_._J
MONUMENT A TION SURVEY
ROGUE VALLEY HIGHWAY (NORTH MAIN STREET)
AT MAPLE STREET SECTION
NE1/4 AND SE1/4, SECTION 5, T.39S., R.1E., W.M.
Aoel r\ UCI lU~1 r\ I ("\ An
@ ti ~
2 $1 0
i i-< i Q)
pi Ci) ("\ i
.N at ow :Q 0 &\ I'
Supplement C
PA2006-02354
No. Main & Glenn Street
Council Appeal
Additional Information Submitted
5=2-2007 E-mail from Colin Swales to Staff (8: 12 a.m.)
5-1-2007 E-mail from Colin Swales to Staff & Council (10:29 a.m.)
4-19-2007 E-mail from David Stalheim to Colin Swales (4:22 p.m.)
-- - II ...
City l)f AshlaM J
I Planning EXhib,t.
ExhitJit #-12:- ZOO 7
I p~:~;~t]T
L~~tatf~;
Page 1 of 4
David Stalheim - Missing from Councll Packet #1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Colin Swales" <colinswaleS@gmai1.com>
"Barbara Christensen" <barbarac@ashland.or.us>
5/1/2007 6:20 AM
Missing from Council Packet # 1
Barbara,
This information (#1) was deemed not to be included in the info from the Planning dept. for the Council Packet
and David Stalheim asked me to send it to you directly.
Please could you email it to all Council Members.
Thank you.
Colin
***********************************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Swales [mailto: colinswales(Qlgmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 8: 12 AM
Subject: Fwd: reconsideration of N. Main & Glenn PA 2006-02354
FYI see below
David, Maria,( cc others)
Herewith: as requested
Feel free to forward as necessary
Colin
******************************************************************************************
Request for Planning Commission to reconsider preliminary decision on P A# 2006-02354
This request is an adjunct to that submitted by Mr. Bullock and lays out some of the "essential facts" that the writer feels
were missing from the public hearing process and are being brought to the attention of the Planning Commission chair as
grounds for a reconsideration of the Commission's prior decision (so as to avoid the necessity of an appeal to Council to
protect the integrity of our current Land Use Law.)
It Is also noted that under Robert's Rules, adopted by the Planning Commission, any of the five members who
previously voted for approval, also have the right, for any reason, to make a motion to reconsider the prior
decision.
Oregon Land Use law has long recognized the principle of "clear and objective" approval criteria where at all possible for
land Use actions. Sometimes the decision maker is given the discretion to apply subjective criteria such as "design
guidelines" to complement these. Such is the case in this application. The clear and objective setback requirements (20
ft.) must be weighed against the subjective opinion regarding historic setbacks of nearby existing buildings. The clearly
stated need "To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard
width... " - ALUO 18.68.050 Special Setback Requirements must be weighed against the need to maintain the historic
neighborhood.
· Historic District Setback Standard IV-C-4) Maintain the historic far;ade lines of streetscapes by locating front
walls of new buildings in the same plans as the facades of adjacent buildings. Avoid violating the existing
setback pattern by placing new buildings in front or behind the historic far;ade line.
Historic Setbacks
Although the burden is upon the applicant to show compliance with these standards it was Staff who wanted to abrogate
the setback requirement as the applicant verbally stated he did not need one and designed a building in compliance.
Staff Exhibit 0 (Hersey St. to Coolidge St. ) show the existing building footprints with respect to the required 20 ft.
setback. However, it failed to note which buildings in fact are "historic" and which are merely more recent non-
conforming structures.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM
5/1/2007
Page 2 of4
Ashland's Cultural Resource Inventory prepared by Kay Atwood in 1988-89 only lists one building along that entire block
- The 1910 George Trefren House (Myrtlewood Manor). Although at that time it was merely listed as historically
"compatible".(This is the lowest ranking - being nether primary contributing nor secondary to the Skidmore-Academy
historic district.) This building has since been remodeled and is now considered contributing) The front yard setback
of this building is about 35 ft.
It is also interesting to note that its planform (if one ignores the later front porch addition) is wider than deep. This Is
contrary to the assertions of the advisory Historic Commission that cites no examples.
George Kramer's more recent (August 2000) update of Kay's initial inventory added two other buildings to the list.
I have already submitted evidence that the more recent front addition to the nearby Manor Motel post-dates the historic
motor court buildings, so I will ignore the non-conforming setback of this structure.
The other building added is the one adjacent to the subject property. - the 1910 Beaver A.M. Rental at 488 Main
Street.-" A two story facing gable volume..with large paned windows, reflect the conversion of the property to
commercial Use"
Like the nearby Trefren House, this one was similarly overlooked by both the applicant and Staff when considering
historic setbacks.. It sits on a similar, but slightly smaller lot to the subject property, and does not have the benefit of side
access. Far from being a "hot-dog stand" as suggested by the Planning Director, it has long been used as income-
producing property - for nearly 100 years. It Is currently setback 22 ft. from the sidewalk.
The only other building (This one cited by the applicant) is the one directly opposite at 493 N. Main Street. This home
was only recently moved to this long-vacant parcel from the applicant's other project at N.Main/Grant street (Butler
Condos and offices). Being a single-family home it was never reviewed in public. But anyway, due to its corner lot
configuration - and R-2 zoning it only required a 10' side yard setback along the arterial frontage (Council later
interpreted to prevent this anomaly occurring in future - but alas only in the downtown area) . All R-2 front setbacks ( as
opposite along the west side of North Main) are required to have a 20 ft setback, regardless of the arterial placement.
This is because they are in the HISTORIC district. ( less setbacks required elsewhere in town in non-historic districts. Per
R-2 ALUO 18.24.040 General regulations R-2
Other Alternatives not considered.
Rather than seek a variance, the applicant had in fact a number of other options if he wished to encroach into the
required 20 ft setback. These were not explored.
1 AlUO 18.68.110 Front Yard-General Exception.
There is a provision in our ALUO for an averaging of any adjacent, possibly non-conforming front yards This was
previously used In the Deluca project on East Main to encroach Into the required setback.
2 Exception to Historic Design Standards.
This provision in our code could be used to reduce the setback to less than that of the other aforementioned
historic and/or adjacent buildings in the block.
3. AlUO 18.108.170 legislative amendments
The applicant could initiate a change In our AlUO to change or eliminate the need for a special setback.
4. The applicant could walt until the Planning Commission or Council might decide on its own Initiative
(under AlUO 18.108.170 ) to change or eliminate the need for a special setback.
lack of Difficulty building on Site
While Staff (NOT applicant) was at pains to point out the "unique and unusual" circumstances creating
difficulty of developing the site (slope, lot depth, 'hot-dog stand" etc.) they failed to mention the facts
surround!n Its osltlve characteristics:
a) No solar setback restrictions due to N boundary being Glenn ROW
b) Corner lot provides easy side access to rear of lot for parking.
c) Slope of lot allows walk-out (or drive-in) basement and possible under-floor parking or under cantilevered building at
rear.
d) E-1 zoning allows the most flexible possible uses of property from commercial through to residential, travellers
accomodations etc.
e) Kistler lot benefits from adjacent lot providing further shared access easement.
f) Lot is vacant so not encumbered by strict "historic district" demolition ordinance
file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM
5/1/2007
Page 3 of 4
Prior Legal Opinion
Our City Legal Department has rules previously on both the fact that setback ordinance is not in conflict with other
requirements.
see Reeder memo http://pine.ashland.or.us/pipermail/council/attachments/20050527/81623ff9/attachment-000 1.dot
May 27. 2005
". We must assume that omitting C-1 from the special setbacks requirements was purposeful.... We must look at the
special setback requirements of 18.68.050 like an "overlay" ordinance that applies to every zoning district except C-1-
D.... The specific policy of 18.68.050 is that at least 20-foot setbacks for a/l arterials throughout the City, except in C-1-D
are needed to protect other more important city interests. .... ... We must assume that the drafters of the ordinance
intended Section 18.68.050 to be applicable to every part of the city, except for, and only except for, the C-1-D zoning
district. Therefore, there is no room for interpreting each ordinance as conflicting. "
Also Richard Appicello, In answering Commissioner Dotterrer's specific questioning gave a verbal opinion as to
Variance interpretation
Nov 14. 2006 PC meeting at about 1 :56:00 hrs. http://rvtv.roguedatavault.net:554/ramgen/ashland/planning/plan11-14_
06.rm .... The personal desires of the applicant can cause self-created hardship.....,
This opinion is not the same as that offered by Planning Staff during the public hearing on this application.
This is not Downtown.
In their Staff Report, Staff gave diagrams taken from ODOT's guide
Main Street... When a Highway Runs Through It: A Handbook for Oregon Communities
http://www . contextsensitivesol utions. org/content/read i ng/main-street/resou rces/ma in-street -when-a-highway /
This booklet (and staff testimony) deals mainly with downtowns and the misleading cross-sections advocating narrow
streets relate to such commercial main streets. In these areas there is low vehicular speed, curbside parking, wide
sidewalks and retail traffic. This is distinctly different from an employment/residential zone with 2-way faster 4-lane
traffic, narrow sidewalks. The writer feels the Commissioners were in fact mislead about this and urge the Commission
to read the aforementioned document in its entirety.
Street Standards
As North Main Street is clearly non-conforming with respect to Ashland's adopted Street Standards, then the fact is that the applicant
needs to conform (or request an exception) with respect to sidewalk width, lack of park rows, bikelanes etc. along the property
frontage.
Unique and Unusual?
In the Deluca project on East Main the Findings made the interpretation that every lot situated within an Historic District was
consequently "unique and unusual".( This interpretation was broadened in the 180 Clear CreekDrive PAs 2003-023. and 2006-
00223 made the assertion that ANY commercial building should look like the downtown plaza buildings) However this was re-
interpreted in the Lang case that merely being in an historic district did not make it unique for the purposes of a variance.
Testimony from the chair at the continued hearing on PA 2006 -2354 argued that EVERY lot could in fact be considered "unique
and unusual".
The writer feels that this is an incorrect fact with regards to Variance criteria, and that legal guidance needs to be provided to the
Commission on factual prior interpretations and Oregon case law regards this new assertion.
Conclusion
The above list does not deal with perceived procedural errors and is not at all exhaustive due to lack of time.
But the writer feels that in the light of these new essential facts, if they are presented to the entire Commission, and with the
benefit of guidance from the City's Legal StafT, it would allow the Planning Commission sufficient reason to reconsider their
previous approval decision.
Respectfully submitted
Colin Swales
file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 0000 1.HTM
5/1/2007
Page 4 of 4
13/2/07
file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW} OOOOI.HTM
51112007
Page 1 of2
David Stalheim - P A 2006-02354 - measurements and precedents?
-,
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
"Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmai1.com>
"Barbara Christensen" <barbarac@ashland.or.us>
5/1/2007 10:29 AM
PA 2006-02354 - measurements and precedents?
"David Stalheim" <stalheid@ashland.or.us>, "Richard Apicello" <appicelr@ashland.or.us>;
"Martha Bennett" <bennettm@ashland.or.us>
Barbara,
Please forward to Counci1.(please reply to confirm )
****************************************************************************************
Mayor and Council,
(sent via Barbara, Christensen,City Recorder)
As the Council called up the PC 5-4 decision to approve P A 2006-02354 last March, I had hoped that this
would provide sufficient opportunity to get relevant information to you in plenty of time.
I did specifically ask the Community Development Director on April 19 if I should re-submit anything
already provided to Staff but was led to believe that everything already submitted would be sent to you. Sadly
this was not to be the case so I have provided copies of 2 previous submissions for Barbara to forward to you.
I apologize therefore that this again is so last minute.
I would like to deal here with the latest "Council Communication" CC P A Appeal, Kistler dated May 1.
[http://www.asWand.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=10160 ]
As the official minutes of the Planing Commission meetings are necessarily abbreviated, I will refer to the
video records of the previous PC meetings and would like you to review them as well as enter them and this
email into the "Record"
ONLINE STREAMING VIDEOS
Jan 9.2007 http://rvtv.roguedatavault.net:554/ramgen/asWand/planning/planOl-09-07.rm (Regular meeting
public hearing)
Feb 13. 2007 http://rvtv.roguedatavault.net:554/ramgen/asWand/planning/plan02-13-07 .rm (continued
hearing)
March 13 2007 http://rvtv.roguedatavault.net:554/ramgenlasWand/planning/plan03-13-07 .rm (Findings
adoption)
At the Jan 9. meeting Senior Planner Maria Harris [at 2: 15:20J informed the PC that the adjacent historic
property (south) was setback "about 14ft". This was also repeated by the Applicant Ray Kistler at: 2:30:00.
during his testimony.
In the latest Memo, under "PRECEDENT CASES" David Stalheim states "the property to the south has a
setback of approximately 20ft.
Is it "about 14 ft". or "approximately 20 ft."?
(My site measurements indicate it is 22 ft exactly from the back of sidewalk - and Staff was so informed last
March)
David also states that "... The opposite corner on Glenn and Main Street has an historic home with a setback
of approximately 5 ft.. "
file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 0000 I.HTM
5/1/2007
Page 2 of2
I sent the following to Staff last March after conducting site measurements "...#508 N. Main seems to be the
Victorian residence shown on map. (not True Earth Medical as stated) which is in fact now only
setback 14 ft. due to the fact that the street was widened to 5 lanes at that point, thus reducing the
"historic" setback. ...."
(This info was also sent to Staff last March. Also see historic Sanborn map showing setbacks on page 112
of .pdfCouncil packet - 113 hard copy, and online at http://www.ashland.or.uslFiles/Oct 1949 sheet5.pdf)
And why does David even quote such precedent cases when at the February meeting in response to
Commissioner Stromberg's specific question about variances setting precedents, [1 :04.17], firstly Bill
Molnar [1:05:47] and then David Stalheim [1:07:15] both state that granting such a variance would not set a
precedent. ?
respectfully submitted
Colin Swales
file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM
5/112007
Page 1 of2
David Stalheim - Re: 02354 Appeal Packet.
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
cc:
David Stalheim
Colin Swales
4/19/2007 4:22 PM
Re: 02354 Appeal Packet.
Martha Bennett; Richard Appicello
I am making a distinction between what the PC had in the record and new information. I am receiving new
information from others that is specifically identified as being part of the consideration of the appeal. If you
want to identify specifically what information that you provided in the reconsideration request that you want us
to send up, I'd be glad to do that. Sue has those items separated, but I would need the list from you so that
we can be clear on what you want submitted as part of the new record being developed before the City Council.
David Stalheim, Director
Department of Community Development
City of Ashland
541-552-2043
email: stalheid@ashland.or.us
>>> "Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmail.com> 4/19/20074:13:45 PM >>>
David,
(cc Sue, Martha, Richard)
I do not need hard copy but please ask Sue to send me the electronic .pdf copy as soon as it is ready.
As you are obviously aware, you excluded my prior submittals regarding reconsideration request from the
previous "Record" and only you and the PC chair (and Legal Dept.) were made privy to that information. Will it
now be included in the Council packet or should I resubmit it?
I also later sent additional essential facts regarding prior interpretations by PC and Ciouncil that were never
even shared with the PC chair. Will that information be included, or should I re-submit it?
As you know I endeavor to get everything to the Staff as soon as possible as I am acutely aware that time is of
the essence, especially as this appeal was not scheduled until next month.
As for the (possible) ethics violation, it would appear from the Record (that I reference copiously in my GSPC
opinion request - resent yesterday) that the majority opinion from the Historic Commission - recommending
ignoring the arterial setback requirements - also probably included the applicant's Planning Agent, who happens
to be a sitting member of the Historic Commission.
Will these same recommendations again be forwarded to Council?
If this ethics matter is not in your bailiwick, then who has this responsibility? I already asked (twice) the City
Administrator (copied to Legal Department, and again they are copied on this) and they are similarly silent.
I appreciate that we are all very busy on other matters, and I too can also only spare a limited amount of time
on this important matter, especially as I am doing this on behalf of what I perceive to be the city's best
interests, without compensation.
Please let me know what I can do to help.
Colin
file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM
5/1/2007
Page 2 of2
On 4/19/07, David stalheim <stalheid@)ashland.or.us> wrote:
Colin - the packet will be available as always on the city's web site. We are working to get the Planning
Commission record put together before the usual time to provide the council with additional time to review
the previous record. My goal is to have the existing record put together by next week Wednesday. We'll
look into having it scanned and available electronically at the same time, but I am not going to make hard
copies of this information except by following the city's public records request process. If an electronic copy
suffices, I'll ask Sue to send that to you when complete. All other information will be available to the public
through the city's web page when the agenda and information is posted.
As for the ethics violation, you need to address that issue with others. I am not aware of any requirement
for me to investigate ethics violations, and from your email, I don't even know what specific violations have
occurred or what you suggest to be the "cure". I am quite busy with other matters, including having to
respond to this appeal.
David Stalheim, Director
Department of Community Development
City of Ashland
541-552-2043
email: stalheid(Ci)ashland.or.us
>>> "Colin Swales" <colinswales(Ci)gmail.com> 4/19/2007 11:32:03 AM >>>
David,
Could you please let me have a copy of all the information that will be included in the Council Packet for
their appeal of PA# 2006-02354.
I realize that this is "de novo"and therefore not necessarily just limited to the PC public hearing "Record", so
I would be interested to know about Staff Memos, as well as other citizen submitals that will be included.
That will give me time to provide Barbara Christensen and yourself with any further information that I feel
would help in time for inclusion before the Council packet is finalized.
Also, as indicated yesterday a timely opinion on the possible ethics violation would be appreciated so that
this problem can hopefully be "cured" at or before this new public hearing.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Do not hesitate to get in touch if you need any clarification on this.
Colin
file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM
5/1/2007
Supplement B
(Revised)
PA2006-02354
No. Main & Glenn Street
CouncH Appeal
EX PARTE CONTACT
DISCLOSURES
3-14-2007 E-mail from Colin Swales to Council (11:18 a.m.)
3-19-2007 E-mail from Colin Swales to Council (3:43 p.m.)
3-22-2007 E-mail from Colin Swales to Council (9: 13 a.m.)
?---...-
Ie" lib. &a
~ Ay of Ash/aile
J Pla.nrli/lY. EXfib,t
. ~
1 t:'xhlbit #...1 "l.Oo 7
..;~ ,~iifJ~. -.:. ~2ka
i . ~a _, ~__Staff 4A~
-"-~'-'-.~..,_... ~l'
.....~. -....~'~..."'.,...---....~
3-14-2007 E-MAIL FROM SWALES
Page 1 of2
David Stalheim - Request for Council to Appeal P A# 2006-02354
is'''';,:. ,-,,".*"4+ ,,>;;,+~-,,";-~ "',,,,:- '! ,-;,. .",if.'..J"4<~~:>-i'~".}7lJ'1';".:.t,''-,:;op'/.;v-;~,~m::w:tt.t~C':~:V.lI'''>;~";~'"i """'j"';lII".j:IilO;:!lli";"JtI;,,.,,;.~.~'~~1t:'fa,'\l:'l8'-~"'~.~~'ll';;''!!4~id''~J'';
From:
To:
"Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmail.com>
"John Morrison" <morrisoj@ashland.or.us>, "Cate Hartzell" <cate@mind.net>,
<katejackson@opendoor.com>, "Eric Navickas" <ericnavickas@hotmail.com>, "Russ
Silbiger" <russcity@zintech.org>, "David Chapman" <davidchapman@ashlandhome.net>,
"Alice Hardesty" <ahardesty88@charter.net>
3114/200711:18AM
Request for Council to Appeal P A# 2006-02354
"David Stalheim" <stalheid@ashland.or.us>, "Richard Apicello" <appicelr@ashland.or.us>,
"Martha Bennett" <bennettm@ashland.or.us>, "Barbara Christensen"
<barbarac@ashland.or.us>, "Mike Franell" <franellm@ashland.or.us>
Date:
Subject:
CC:
Mayor and Council,
(cc Martha, David, Richard, Mike, Barbara)
F or the Record
- P A# 2006-02354 N. Main St./Glenn
Request for Site Review approval to construct a two-story office building located on the vacant parcel at the southeast comer
of the intersection ofN. Main St. and Glenn St. A Variance is requested to allow a lO-foot front yard setback where a 20-
foot front yard for properties abutting arterial streets is required. An Exception to the Street Standards is required to provide
a curbside sidewalk on Glenn St;
As you are aware, you, as our elected representatives have the final word on the
implementation and interpretation of our Municipal Code.
Back in 2000 there were two landmark planning actions, one with the City itself as
Applicants (2000-039) followed quickly by another with the City as Property Owner (2000-
074).
In adopting the detailed and extensive "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" for both
these actions, the City declared multiple provisions of our Land Use Ordinances and
Comprehensive Plan to be "ambiguous" and under the authority invested in Council they
proceeded to specifically interpret in writing these alleged ambiguities.
Last night the Planning Commission finalized their approval decision by adopting the
Findings for Planning Action 2006-02354 at North Main Street and Glenn Street.
In doing so, it is my opinion, that the PC re-interpreted (countermanded) the aforementioned
Council decisions and prior interpretations, especially as it relates to our Site Design and
Use Standards with regard to Historic District design standards. And in doing so, they
ignored ( i.e. approved a Variance to) the required Special Setbacks along arterial streets that
Council has also explicitly ruled on recently. [ ALUO 18.68.050 ]
I have provided voluminous detailed information to both Planning and Legal Staff who had
hitherto seemed perhaps unaware of your prior interpretations on these matters.
(Regrettably, there is no electronic database of such interpretations, and one must rely on
file:/ /C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 0000 1.HTM
4/26/2007
Page 2 of2
institutional and citizen memory, and old hard-copy files)
Sadly the bulk of this important, essential, factual, new information was deemed by Staff not
to be shared with the Commissioners last night.
It is vitally important that such interpretations (and re-interpretations) are not used in
planning decisions in an arbitrary and capricious manner
Therefore I would ask you to contact City Planning Staff and your Legal Counsel on this
matter and I respectfully request that you appeal this decision, under the authority
granted to you, at the earliest opportunity by scheduling a de novo public hearing. Doing so
would then protect the integrity of our land use laws and establish your own final authority
on these matters.
In order to avoid further ex-parte contact it would be best for you to communicate with me
on this matter via Staff.
Respectfull y
Colin Swales
file://C :\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\ T emp\GW} 0000 I .HTM
4/26/2007
3-19-2007 E-MAIL FROM SWALES
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Martha Bennett
David Stalheim
4/26/2007 3: 12:56 PM
Fwd: ADJACENT is not ambiguous...
And this?
>>> "Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmail.com> 03/19/07 3:43 PM >>>
Mayor and Council,
(cc Planning Commission, Martha),
I had hoped that somebody on Staff would respect my wish to share with you
all the following information with respect to the arterial setback issue as
it relates to a recent planning application on North Main & Glenn Street.
Sadly it was decided to withold this information (even from the PC chair),
and therefore I am reluctantly obligated to send it myself so that you can
be fully informed prior to your meeting tomorrow.( re PA# 2006-02354 )
Colin Swales
************************************
To David Stalheim, Director, Ashland Community Development Dept.
David,
(cc Richard Appicello, Mike Franell, Susan Yates, Maria Harris, Bill
Molnar)
*Please forward to PC (and if necessary the Council for their own
determination regarding Mr. Bullock's submitted request for them to appeal
this preliminary decision should it be finalized by PC; 3 attachments) *
I am obviously disappointed that you say in your Recent 3/8/07 Memo to the
Planning Commissioners that the PC chair *"**is not likely to allow
reconsideration of the decision" *(for *PA# 2006-02354*) following our
recent request.
I am also disappointed that this request is not even mentioned on the
upcoming PC agenda and that all the Findings adoptions have also (I think
for the first time ever) been bumped to the very end of the meeting.
Firstly, for the Record, let me start by giving a brief overview of all the
City's recent prior Reconsideration requests.(it would seem all involve Land
Use Actions), and how they hQve been dealt with by the City. The last couple
of years have been *very* busy in this regard!
1.* PA #2004-150 (Unitarian Church) *
*Staff Memo 5/17/05*
*" ....**The applicant's representative, Tom Giordano, will be present at
the May 17th Council meeting. During Public Forum he will request that this
item be place on the agenda and that the Council reconsider their motion on
this action." htto:l/www.ashland.or.us/Paae.aso?NavID=8509*
**
*Council Meeting 5/17/05*
htto:l/www.ashland.or.us/Aqendas .aso?Disolav=Minutes&AM ID=2195
*PUBLlC FORUM
Tom Giordano/Requested the Council to reconsider the vote taken on May 3,
205 regarding the Unitarian Church appeal. Mr. Giordano stated that
according to AMC 2.04.120, the Council could reconsider their vote. He
explained that the applicant was not given the opportunity to provide input
or rebuttal .... *
*...Councilor Jackson motion to place this issue on agenda. Motion denied
due to lack of second. *
**
*2. PA#2005-01674 (11 First Street) 11/8/05 *
htto://www.ashland.or.us/Aaendas .aso?Disolav=Minutes&AM 10=2456
*"...Fields, as guided by the City Attorney, has concluded this action
should be reconsidered and continued at next month's meeting because of an
error in the ordinance interpretation. .....He added that the action was
approved by the Commission, but due the vision clearance problem, it will
undoubtedly be appealed to the Council and they will be forced to deny it. .."
*
**
*......TOM GIORDANO... His hope is that the Commission could approve the
project tonight .... He reminded the Commissioners that the Historic
Commission recommended retaining the Planning Commission's approval. ...... *
**
**
12/12/05 (continued meeting)
htto:/ /www.ashland.or.us/Aaendas.aso?Disolav=Minutes&AM 10=2484
*Unanimouslyapproved.*
**
*3. PA #2005-00084 (Northlight Project) 11/8/05 *
*.. Reconsideration*
*Fields decided not to exercise his power to ask for a reconsideration of
this action because he does not believe any new information has emerged..."
*
**
*4. PA #2006-01548, (1651 Ashland Street) 10/10/06 Initial testimony to
Hearings Board. *
*http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas .asp?Display=Minutes&AM 10=2838
*<htto://www.ashland.or.us/Aaendas .aso?Disolav=Minutes&AMID=2838>
*TOM GIORDANO, 2635 Takelma Way, is the agent & architect for the project.
Giordano reiterated that only two affordable units are required. ... Because
of the construction costs, interest rates and slower markets, the applicant
is concerned about getting some return on the units. "...Giordano said it
will cost $225,000 to build each of the two units..." *
**
*Reconsideration request - (1651 Ashland Street) **11/14/06 *
*http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas .asp?Display=Minutes&AM 10=2859 *
**
*MORRIS RE-OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING*
* *
*NEW ESSENTIAL FACT (?): *
* "....The housing market has taken a sharp decline in the last year. They
are showing about a $50,000 decrease in projected income per unit.
**
Hearings Board did not reverse their previous decision however, but adopted
the Findings as presented
Now it would seem that of the two that were actually "reconsidered", the
only one that actually resulted in a reversal of the decision was the First
Street application where it was found that Staff had provided inaccurate
information regarding the ALUO provisions.
*Therefore, in further support of my written request for reconsideration, I
would request that you also bring the following new essential facts (with
attachments) to the attention of the PC (or the Council should they chose to
appeal on their own authority as requested by Mr. Bullock) as I feel that
they (and the Historic Comission) may have been mislead about the SDUS for
Historic Districts especially IV-C-4. *
*Let's go back to 2000....*
When I testified orally at the public hearing on Planning Action #2000-039
back on May 9.2000 [attachment #1] I stated
Swales:*"..* *.the 134-page document (applicant's Findings, Conclusions and
Exhibits) sets a very unusual and scary precedent for anyone who wants to
take the time to skirt the planning process... Swales feels this application
by the city makes an unfortunate precedent when followed closely on the
heels of this will be both the fire station and Oregon Shakespeare Theater ".
*{emphasis added]
Local reporter (now Councilor) Russ Silbiger also testifying in opposition
added *"... The Commission has a moral and ethical obligation to follow its
own policies..."*
**
Our erstwhile Planning Director countered *"...* *Staff has asked Gardiner
that the Commission adopt the applicant's Findings along with the
Conditions. McLaughlin said Staff would prepare a cover that would adopt
the Findings and the decision of the Planning Commission ..... **McLaughlin
replied to Swales' comment about the Findings setting a scary
precedent. McLaughlin
argued it does not set a precedent. It brings us into an area of land use
that is common throughout the State of Oregon. We have been rather immune
to it here. This type of application is common in many other cities. If
the language is not expressly clear, then you have to start interpreting it
in order to make it fit what you are thinking..." * [emphasis added]
"...[Craig] *Stone addressed Swales' remarks. As McLaughlin pointed out,
all ordinances have some portions that are ambiguous. The City is required
to interpret its ordinance. Stone has suggested interpretations he
believes are appropriate..."*
**
In my written rebuttal [attachment #3] to the City's own "Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law" for PA# 2000-039, I pointed out that the City had
cited at least NINE "ambiguities" in our land use ordinances (which
presumably prompted Mr. McLaughlin's comments above.)
One of the "interpretations" (Page 30 Criteria 19 of applicants Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law (incorporated by reference into the adopted
"Findings" of the PC's decision was that" *adjacent*" means "*next to or
contiguous*". I objected at the time to this very narrow interpretation of *
adjacent* (see attachment #2 and #3).
Now these new interpretation by Staff and the PC were never passed on to
Council as the PC's decision wasn't appealed further.
However, following quickly on the heels of that planning action came The OSF
theatre and parking structure -*PA# 2000-074* (Applicant Oregon Shakespeare
Festival; Property Owner: City of Ashland)
These voluminous findings pointed out equally as many, if not more,
"ambiguities" and the Council upon adoption obediently memorialized into law
many novel "interpretations" of our ALUO, forever removing such alleged
ambiguities for all time. (or until re-interpretation by another Council
such as in the Bemis decision and its subsequent unsuccessful appeal by the
applicant to the OR Supreme Court)
However for the purposes of PA # 2006-02354 I want to concentrate on the
interpretation of oft-used word "*adjacent*" as used throughout our Land Use
code.
*Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law PA 2000-074* (attachment #3 )_
extract -
* *
*Criterion 3 Page 19*
*.....the City Council interprets the ambiguous term "adjacent properties" to
mean a lot or parcel that is touching [the subject property]......
*
*Criterion 18 Pg 32. *
*.....the City Council interprets the term "adjacent" to mean a lot or parcel
that is touching the subject property. Based upon the City of Ashland
Com prehensive
Plan Map and Zoning Map, there are no adjacent lots or parcels which are
planned or zoned differently than the subject property, which is planned
Downtown and zoned C-i-D. While parcels across South Pioneer and Hargadine
Streets are in residential zones, these are not adjacent to the subject
property because they do not touch the subject property....... *
**
*Criterion 28 Page 45*
* *
*.....Conclusions of Law: Consistent with its interpretation of the term ..
adjacent" under Criterion 18, the City Council interprets the term"
adjacent" with respect to "residential dwellings" to mean a lot or parcel
(which is occupied by a residential dwelling) that is touching the subject
property. Based upon the site photographs and aerial photograph at
Record p. 226 - 229 and 251, there are no residential dwellings which are
located adjacent to the subject property. .."*
* *
*and then comes the final clincher:*
* *
*In reaching this conclusion the City Council interprets the ambiguous term
"adjacent properties" to mean a lot or parcel that is touching [the subject
property].reaching this conclusion the City Council interprets the ambiguous
term" adjacent properties" to mean a lot or parcel that is touching [the
subject property].
Page 74/75
*
*2 Ordinance Term Definitions Some *
*opponents argued that the term adjacent cannot be interpreted to mean
touching and the term screened cannot be interpreted only to require
intervening vegetation between the parking structure and lands which are
residentially zoned The City Council concludes that the term adjacent is not
defined in the ALUO Based upon the testimony of applicant according to
Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged 2no Ed adjacent used
as an adjective means lying near or close to something bordering upon The
Council finds that the dictionary definition itself is ambiguous as to
whether it means touching lying near or close to something does not mean
touching while bordering upon does The City is entitled to interpret its
ordinance and the City Council and Planning Commission must routinely make
interpretations of the ALUO to carry out its duties and the Council believes
that it has clear authority to interpret its own **ordinance*
*In Clark **v Jackson County 313 Or 508 515 836 P2d 710 1992 the Oregon
Supreme Court held thatlnreviewing a local government's land use decision
the Land Use Board of Appeals LUBA is to affirm the local government's
interpretation of its own ordinance that is part of an acknowledged
comprehensive plan unless LUBA determines that the local government's
interpretation is inconsistent with express language of the ordinance or its
apparent purpose or policy LUBA lacks authority to substitute its own
interpretation of the ordinance unless the local government's interpretation
was inconsistent with that ordinance including its context Moreover ORS 197
8291 requires LUBA to affirm the decisions of local government unless they
are clearly wrong ORS 197 829 Board to affirm certain local government **
interpretations*
*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 *
*The **City Council concludes that its interpretations of the terms
adjacentand screened are consistent with the express language and
purpose of the
Ashland Comprehensive Plan and relevant local land use regulations
underlying policies that provide the basis for the plan and land use
regulations and with relevant state statutes land use goals and rules that
are implemented by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and related local land use
regulations. *
Now, while I still consider these Findings to be one of the most egregious
travesties of our Land Use Code, it is nevertheless now the prevailing
"interpretation" of said Laws by those that write them - our elected City
Council.
Also it should be noted that 2 planning commissioners, Fields (now chair)
and Morris, both who voted to approve this PA 2000-074 ( PC minutes 8/8/00 "
*Briggs casting the only dissenting vote*" and adopt the Findings, also
voted to approve PA# 2006-02354. (Another Commissioner at that time Kistler,
recused himself from the Library discussion and decision 2000-039 , as he
was also part of the Library's architectural design team.
*Now, how does all this relate to the recent approval of PA#2006-02354* ?
Well it would seem that those who voted to approve used the excuse that
compliance with *nearby* setbacks of other properties (Le.* "in the
vicinity *- Findings") along North Main required the applicant's property to
match random, cherry-picked other non-conforming setbacks along the street.
But the SDUS does not mention properties that are "in the vicinity" in this
context.
Site Design and Use Standards - Historic District Standards
*IV-C-4*
*Maintain the historic facade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls
of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings.
Avoid violating the existing setback pattern by placing new buildings in
front of or behind the historic facade line. *
As I have pointed out, (and supported by prior Council interpretations)
there is only one building *adjacent* to the applicant's proposal that also
has a front facade on North Main Street. (we are not here talking about *
rear* facades as in the Lang PA# 2006-69)
**
*Facade* definition:
1. (Architecture). a. the front of a building, esp. an imposing or
decorative one. b. any side of a building facing a public way or space and
finished accordingly.
Therefore to comply with the SDUS IV-C-4 *H**istoric Design guidelines* the
required front setback for the Kistler property has to be approximately 22
ft also.
*Conclusion*
Council's interpretation stands in glaring contradiction of Staff's own new
interpretation of "adjacent" contained in the proposed Findings:* "The
positive benefits of the proposal are maintaining the historic facade
line......The Historic District Design Standards require historic facade
lines to be maintained by locating front walls of new buildings in the same
plane as the facades of adjacent buildings.... As a result, the proposed
building setback 20 feet from N. Main St. will stand out from the historic
facade line....." [emphasis added].*
**
In fact, Council interprets the historic *facade* line setback (i.e. "same
plane") of *adjacent* historic building(s) to be 22 feet.
respectfully submitted
Colin Swales
*'The past isn't dead. It isn't even past.'* - William Faulkner
*[Please feel free to forward as necessary]*
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
MAY 9, 2000
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair Mike Gardiner at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Alex
Amarotico, Mike Morris, Russ Chapman, John Fields, Chris Hearn, Marilyn Briggs, and Ray Kistler. Kerry KenCairn
was absent. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Maria Harris and Sue Yates.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Chapman moved to approve the Minutes of the March 14, 2000 Hearings Board. Fields seconded the motion and
the Minutes were approved. Chapman moved to approve the Minutes and Findings of the April 11 , 2000 Hearings
Board. The motion was seconded and the Minutes were approved. Fields moved to approve the Minutes of March
14,2000 Regular Meeting. Chapman seconded the motion and the Minutes were approved. Chapman moved to
approve the Minutes and Findings of the April 11, 2000 Regular Meeting. The motion was seconded the Minutes
were approved. Fields moved to approve the Minutes of the April 25, 2000 Study Session. The motion was
seconded and the Minutes were approved.
PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak.
TYPE II PLANNING ACTION
PLANNING ACTION 2000-039
REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT (MULTI-FAMILY TO DOWNTOWN
COMMERCIAL, ZONE CHANGE (R-2 TO C-1-D) AND SITE DESIGN AND USE REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 17,000 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING CITY OF ASHLAND
PUBLIC LIBRARY LOCATED AT 410 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD. APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST
TO AMEND THE LAND USE ORDINANCE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT IN A
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT WHEN ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
All Commissioners made site visits. Fields and Briggs noted they were both members of the library design
committee. Kistler stated he was a member of the design team and stepped down from the hearing.
Clarification: McLaughlin said a memo from Colin Swales has been distributed to each member. Swales is formally
asking for postponement of the hearing based on public notice requirements not being met. McLaughlin reviewed
the issue with the City Attorney. Swales said the mailed notice failed to mention a demolition permit was necessary
for this project. McLaughlin explained the demolition is a building permit process, not a land use process and not
subject to Planning Commission review or decision. Therefore, it was not further noticed. Swales has also
contended the posted notice was misleading, including a diagram of the site plan on the property which referenced
diagonal parking along Gresham Street. McLaughlin further explained the purpose of the posted notice is to make
sure the public is aware of the proposal that is happening on the property and an opportunity to participate in the
process. McLaughlin did not recommend postponing the hearing. The City Attorney supports this position. The
Commission chose not to act on Swales' request.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar referenced the applicable criteria - Site Design and Use Review (18.72.070), Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment and Zone Change (18.108.060), legislative action (18.108.170) and stated the applicable criteria and
standards have been mailed to the affected property owners within 200 feet of the property.
Molnar referenced the Staff Report chronology of events leading up to the formal application.
Site Review Reauest - The site is about. 75 acre in size. The historic Carnegie building sits atop the property with a
floor level anywhere from 15 to 20 feet above Siskiyou Boulevard. Thirteen existing parking spaces are behind the
building with three head-in spaces designated for staff. The 17,000 sq. ft. addition being proposed would bring the
total square footage to just over 24,000 sq. ft. It is proposed to be two stories in height and attached to the existing
Carnegie building on the east side.
Part of the application involves the removal of an approximately 2,000 sq. ft. addition added to the rear of the
Carnegie structure in the early 1950's. Changes in the site improvements, along with the addition, include a
reconfiguration of the off-street parking. Thirteen head-in parking spaces are proposed off the alley to the rear of
the building. The applicant has agreed to stipulate that within six months of approval of the project, they would
pursue a public process to identify other options for accommodating additional on-street parking around the
perimeter of the project, primarily along Gresham Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. This might include an additional
five to 11 on-street parking spaces.
Early in the process it became evident that this property was unique among other downtown properties based on
topography, the steepness and grade from Siskiyou to the floor level of the Carnegie building, as well as the
architecture of the Carnegie building itself. It is much different than the main street storefront buildings seen in
downtown Ashland. The design was predicated on trying to be compatible with the existing Carnegie structure and
not other downtown buildings along Main Street that the current downtown standards strive to emulate. Staff is
supportive of that design direction and that the overall design is compatible with the Carnegie building without trying
to duplicate or replicate the historic architecture.
Molnar noted that currently there is extensive coverage of mature trees and shrubs on the property. The
landscaping plan identifies approximately 25 trees that will be removed from the site in order to accommodate the
building footprint and other site improvements. There are several notable large trees that will be retained and
incorporated into the project. In the past, tree retention has required a balancing between the building design and
other site improvements such as parking and walkways with a reasonable retention of existing trees on the property.
Staff feels the overall project design, given the need to accommodate an additional large floor area, walkway and off-
street parking, does a good job of balancing the myriad of design standards that apply to this project.
Zone Chanqe Request - The property is currently under a multi-family zoning designation (R-2). The request is to
change the zoning to a downtown commercial zoning (C-1-D). A public library use is not specifically identified as a
permitted use or a conditional use in a multi-family zoning district. A case could be made that it is similar to other
conditional uses allowed in the R-2 zone such as public halls and lodges. However, a stricter interpretation could be
a non-conforming use. It is difficult to expand a non-conforming use in a multi-family zone. The purpose of the
applicant's request is to make the proposed or existing land use outright permitted and consistent with the
underlying zoning for the property.
One or more of four conditions have to be met to justify a zone change, which are outlined in the application. The
first is to show a public need, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. The application points out that the public
services element of the Comp Plan has a goal of providing public facilities in an efficient manner to accommodate
the needs, not only now, but the future needs of an increasing population. The applicants believe the zone change
allowing for the expansion of the library will fulfill that condition. Secondly, a zone change can be approved in order
to adjust to new conditions. The applicant notes that based on population growth and changes in the technology
and information age that we live in, that just the existing square footage of the library at 9,000 square feet can no
longer meet the needs of a community of over 19,000. Thirdly, the zone change would advance the public welfare
of the community by providing a modern public library facility that can be used by the entire community, especially
giving access to those with limited economic resources.
Text Amendment - By process, the Commission is required to render or forward a recommendation onto the City
Council because this is a legislative action and the Council is the final approval authority. The current ordinance
says where commercial property abuts a residential district, a setback of ten feet per story is required along a side
or rear yard. The proposed amendment is to allow for a ten-foot side yard, regardless of the number of stories.
Staff believes the Land Use Ordinance covers this idea by offering the power to the Commission or Council to
amend plans under the Site Review Chapter, to increase the setback up to 20 feet if they feel it is warranted. It
allows for discretion on a case-by-case basis, depending on the adjoining land use. Molnar explained in Ashland's
ASHlAND PlANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
May 17, 2000
2
multi-family zone, many different land uses are allowed such as professional office, traveler's accommodations, or
limited retail. All of these might have certain site improvements that are not normally seen in a strict residential
atmosphere such as a parking area or larger access driveways. This text amendment would automatically allow ten
feet but in cases where there is an existing residence, under the "Power to Amend Plans", it would allow the
Commission or Council to increase that up to 20 feet to provide the adequate light, air and space normally afforded
through the purposes of the setback requirements. The side yard setback in this application shows about 10 1/2
feet from the adjacent professional office building to the east.
Based on the information in the application, Staff concludes there is sufficient information for the Planning
Commission to find the proposal meets all aspects of the application. The design is compatible and strict
application of all the downtown standards, specifically setbacks and building to property lines, would result in
probably more destruction to the physical topography of the property. The applicants have chosen a compatible
approach by choosing a design that is more compatible with the Carnegie building and allowing for the addition to
step back from the building to maintain the Carnegie building at the forefront. Staff also believes the zone change is
justified because of the need to provide for public facilities for now and in the future. The changes to the text
amendment would still not relinquish the ability by the Staff Advisor, Commission or Council to require up to 20 feet
if there was a residence on the adjacent property.
Twelve Conditions are attached.
Briggs referred to the letter from Shirley Roberts, ODOT and expressed a concern that the zone change to C-1-D be
for the library only and that no commercial building can go up on this library property. McLaughlin said a Condition
could be added.
Chapman asked about Condition 9. McLaughlin said there is some potential for additional parking on Gresham and
Siskiyou and would be reviewed in the next six months. It is a public right-of-way issue that would probably be
handled through Traffic Safety and City Council.
PUBLIC HEARING
CRAIG STONE, Craig Stone and Associates, Ltd., 708 Cardley Avenue, Medford, OR 97504, is representing the
applicant, the City of Ashland. He and his client are operating under a power of attorney executed by the City
Administrator. Stone introduced Greg Scoles, Assistant City Administrator and representatives from SERA
Architects, Peter Meijer, Project Manager and John Echlin, Project Designer (123 NW Second Avenue, Suite 202,
Portland, OR 97209).
Echlin said they were given this site to work with by the City Council. They were not asked to evaluate other sites.
The challenges faced were how to restore the 100 year old Carnegie library and how to respectfully defer the design
of the new addition to the existing building. There are other design themes such as respect for the environment,
sustainability, consideration of materials used, etc. Echlin explained the public participation process and input for
design ideas and options. They have continued working with the groups. They have met with the Historic
Commission and Tree Commission to get their input as well. The design process has been validated by the support
received in the community and through the double majority public vote in November.
They have reduced the amount of the footprint to be as efficient as possible on the site and building within the
existing parking lot, thereby reducing the impact to the site. They are also restoring the existing open space in front
of the building and in front of the existing Carnegie Library to something like its original design intent. They said the
building will stand on its own on the hillside within a park-like setting. They are introducing a new entry into the
library off Siskiyou Boulevard, reflecting the civic nature of Siskiyou and the importance of the public face along
Siskiyou. They are taking advantage of the public alleyway in the rear to provide customer parking and a rear public
entry. The main level of the library is identical with the existing main level of the Carnegie Library.
Stone said he prepared Findings of Fact and Conclusions and 12 other exhibits to be included in the record. They
made a number of stipulations and believe they have been included as Conditions. The Conditions are acceptable
to his client. Condition 1 says all proposals of the applicant be Conditions of approval. Their intent was that all
stipulations of the applicant be made Conditions of approval. Condition 11 talks about a public transit shelter being
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
May 17,2000
3
designed in accordance with the city design criteria. The applicant's architect voiced concern that they would like to
do a bus shelter that was architecturally compatible with the historic Carnegie Library and the new library addition.
McLaughlin said they accept the stipulations but he wants to make sure the other parts of the proposal will look as it
does in the application. Stone did not objection to that clarification. He said the transit shelter request for
architectural compatibility would be acceptable.
Chapman asked if the applicant is agreeable to the recommendations of the Tree Commission. They will review a
copy and discuss later.
CHARLES RYBERG, 373 Vista Street, felt it was for the public good that the zoning be changed to C-1-D due to the
enormous stamp of approval given this project by the voters.
BILL ASHWORTH, 201 Gresham, said he is the Reference Librarian at the Ashland Public Library. He agreed with
Ryberg's comments. It is definitely time to make a change in the Comprehensive Plan for the good of the
community.
BENJAMIN SAWYER, 846 Hillview Drive, said he favors the location of the present library and the library expansion
because of its public transportation accessibility and accessible location to the general public. We need to look for
more non-automobile ways of mobility.
DIANE SCHAEFFER, 583 S. Mountain Avenue, Board Member, Friends of the Library, said she believes the
proposal promotes the Comprehensive Plan goals and specifically, the Ashland Downtown Plan. The Downtown
Plan states that we value access, and appeal to both local residents and tourists. She favors changing the zoning.
MARY CLARK, 288 Wimer, said she noticed a lot of trees and bushes would be removed and not much more
parking. In spite of this, the citizens of Ashland still voted for the library expansion.
JAN L1PPEN-HOL T2, 671 Morton, supports the plan and retention of its present location.
BOB WILSON, 410 Siskiyou Boulevard, Ashland Librarian, said the library staff is excited the community
understood the need for a modern library and they will be able to offer library services that the community deserves.
He is happy to see the new building will enhance the Carnegies' historical qualities.
AMY BLOSSOM, 140 Susan Lane, Records Librarian, agreed with Wilson. They have worked very hard with the
architects to get a library the community deserves.
BETH TOWNER, 1120 Oak Knoll Drive, Board Member, Friends of the Library, stated she is here to reiterate the
efforts of the Friends of the Library and the architects have put into the plan. Public input was sought throughout the
process.
MARY MAST AIN, 227 Granite Street, Board Member, Ashland Friends of the Library spoke. She noted that 25
trees will be removed and 33 new trees planted in appropriate places. The recommendations of the Ashland Tree
Commission need to be heeded in the library project. She spoke today to Donn Todt and Bryan Nelson, members
of the Tree Commission. She said Nelson thought a Tree Commissioner should check out the 25 endangered trees
before they are removed. The new trees should be a minimum three inch caliper. Nelson has recommended larger
stature solar-friendly trees be chosen to be planted and the existing elms on Gresham Street be retained. He wants
manufactured soil mix to be used in future changes to promote fast and healthy growth. Todt said the library
grounds must have large canopy trees planted for ecological benefits--better natural heat and cold control in the
library. He does not disapprove of the flowering pear trees to be planted along Siskiyou Boulevard. However, the
chosen "Chanticleer" variety does not have as much variety as the "Aristocrat" and, therefore, would be a better a
selection.
TREVA TUMBLESON, 655 Leonard Street, said the Jackson County Library system needs to remain a system. Get
out the Vote!!
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
May 17, 2000
4
BARBARA RYBERG, 373 Vista Street, said she has been involved with the Friends of the Library. She explained
the history of the project and the public input that took place. She believes the library is an anchor to downtown.
L YN GODSEY, 1273 Quincy, Board Member, Friends of the Library, explained as the planning process developed, if
they were to get more library space, they would have to give up parking. Also, they realized some trees would have
to be lost.
COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, handed out a 12-page document that was entered into the record. Swales
stated the 134-page document (applicant's Findings, Conclusions and Exhibits) sets a very unusual and scary
precedent for anyone who wants to take the time to skirt the planning process. He finds it disappointing that
Jackson County can't spare the time or the money to fix the roof or waterproof the basement. How are they going to
find the funds to do it on a library four times the size? Swales does not see a free public library as an anchor to a
commercial district. As you approach the library on Siskiyou and the vista opens up with the mountains to the left,
what you see on the right is a magnificent building. It is the gateway to the residential Hargadine/Siskiyou R-2
zoned Historic District which is accentuated by the mature trees and the building itself which has a residential use to
the people who live here, not to the tourists who inhabit the commercial zone.
Swales was disappointed at the Tree Commission meeting. The Chair was not aware of some important design
elements. The landscaping plan came in only a week ago. The stairs going up to the Carnegie front door will be
blocked and not even used. Huge trees will be taken out as well as all the mature trees along Siskiyou Boulevard
and Gresham Street.
Swales feels this application by the city makes an unfortunate precedent when followed closely on the heels of this
will be both the fire station and Oregon Shakespeare Theater. Both will include trees, parking and C-1-D use.
Swales had ideas for two other sites that were never considered. He does not believe the public process was given
enough consideration.
He also thinks the alleyway is too narrow for a two-way drive. He said the neighbors are concerned. He does not
believe the new addition is compatible at all and will dominate the existing Carnegie.
RUSS SILBIGER, 562 Ray Lane, referred to page 11 of the applicant's Findings. Does the Planning Commission
accept that the City, as applicant, does not have to file its own intention? The Commission has a moral and ethical
obligation to follow its own policies. Policy VII-I: When the Findings say the library is commercial use, it is wrong by
definition. It will not provide for any more employment nor will including this property in C-1-D alleviate the
applicant's intention that we need more C-1-D. Policy VIII-13: The Historic Commission failed to support this
application. This is a historic building in a historic district. The Commission should give much weight to the Historic
Commission's failure to approve.
Silbiger referred to Page 13, the goal to provide public utilities services and facilities. The library's own survey
stated the greatest need is parking. Seventy-five percent of the survey said parking was needed. Dealing with the
needs that are already met before the needs that are not met is not orderly or efficient. The destruction of the vast
majority of existing vegetation is hardly environmentally sensitive. Page 13 also starts a long list of almost a dozen
statements that the City claims its own rules or definitions are ambiguous.
Page 17, Goal 9, Silbiger said the definition of commercial says libraries are not permitted in the downtown.
Page 18, Goal 12: The building will clearly create parking and traffic difficulties, with the only entrance being an
alley with the cars backing up in and out of limited parking spaces. This is not orderly, safe or convenient.
Silbiger referred to Page 29, Criteria 18-1) with reference to protected walkways. He does not see this on the plan.
He sees people having to walk behind cars in order to get to the library. He believes this is dangerous.
Page 30, Criteria 19: There is no screening between the parking and residential zone.
Every one of the exceptions the applicants ask for (starting on page 52) is not met based on the Historic
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
May 17, 2000
5
Commission's failure to approve the application.
DENNIS DONAHUE, 54 Gresham Street, said he also owns the property at 48 Gresham Street which is across the
alley from the library. He and his wife are in favor of the renovation of the Carnegie and an addition and expansion,
however, he is opposed to the size and scope of the current proposal. It is much too large for the existing site and
the impact on the historic neighborhood is too great.
They object to reducing the side yard setback. They have not seen any compelling evidence in the Staff Report to
justify a setback reduction for a multiple story building and they believe it sets a bad precedent for future
applications. They question changing the zoning from R-2 to C-1-D. The library is not identified in a commercial or
C-1-D zone, however, without too much stretch, a library would be allowed in an R-2 zone as a conditional use. The
guidelines would be different which would scale down the size and make it more compatible with the site.
With reference to the Site Design and Use Standards, they believe the impact of removing 25 mature, healthy trees,
is just too great for the site. The head-in parking spaces go right up to the retaining curb. Once it was discovered
the spaces were intended for compact cars, the spaces were lengthened and widened, thus going right up to the
retaining wall. Chapter 18.72.060 Q requires parking to be dealt with at this stage. It is not being dealt with but will
be six months down the road. From that standpoint, it appears to be an incomplete application.
TERRY SKIBBY, 611 Beach Street, Historic Commission Liaison and Vice Chair, asked the Commissioners to
review the minutes and the Commissioner's comments of the May 3,2000 meeting. There was a tie vote on this
action. Common concerns were design questions about the front door, metal siding, and that the bays be more
substantial than cosmetic.
Skibby made a personal comment. He believes there is a strong public need for the expansion of the library in this
location.
CRAIG WRIGHT, 25 Gresham, stated he is a little disappointed how stratified this issue has become. No one is
being asked to sacrifice parking from his or her home except for him. His only parking is in front of his house. He
would like to make sure the zone change is not some end run around safe, wise travel in front of his home.
Staff ResDonse - McLaughlin replied to Swales' comment about the Findings setting a scary precedent.
McLaughlin argued it does not set a precedent. It brings us into an area of land use that is common throughout the
State of Oregon. We have been rather immune to it here. This type of application is common in many other cities.
If the language is not expressly clear, then you have to start interpreting it in order to make it fit what you are
thinking.
Rebuttal - Stone went through the Tree Commission recommendations. With regard to the Red Maple, his client
has no objection to that recommendation as long as the tree is healthy. The second item talks about the Elm trees
along Gresham Street while at the same time encouraging the underground placement of utilities. Those two items
may be mutually exclusive. With regard to the structural soils to be used, Stone is not exactly sure what "structural
soil" is. Before agreeing to it, they would like to know what it is. Stone said they are going to prepare a revised
landscape plan. They would like the Commission to direct the applicant to take the recommendations into
consideration during preparation of the revised landscaping plan. With regard to tagging the trees, he would like an
arbiter in the event the Tree Commission and applicant's landscape architect disagree over the potential removal of
trees. They would like the arbiter to be either the Planning Director or the Commission in the event there is a
disagreement.
Stone said Briggs comment about ODOT's letter where they have no objections as long as the site is used
perpetually for a library, can be addressed with a Condition that the Commission would attach to the approval or
require the property be deed restricted.
Stone addressed Swales' remarks. As McLaughlin pOinted out, all ordinances have some portions that are
ambiguous. The City is required to interpret its ordinance. Stone has suggested interpretations he believes are
appropriate. Alternate sites for the library are not a criteria of approval. The alley is 22 feet wide and does
accommodate two-way traffic.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
May 17,2000
6
Tree removal is simply a compromise. The City Council and a bond measure dictated the size of the building.
Where do you put the new addition? You don't want to make it more prominent so you put it back and when you do
that, you push it toward the rear property line. Where trees fall within that location, they are a casualty that is
unavoidable. Trees are being replaced in numbers that are greater than what is being taken out.
Case law has been very clear on addressing every goal and policy. The courts have said the requirement is to
ascertain, based upon the language and context of each goal and policy, whether it was intended to function as an
approval criteria for the land use permit being considered. They went through each goal and policy, and the ones
that they believed were pertinent they cited.
Briggs asked the architects about the Historic Commission's three recommendations: 1) metal siding, 2) leave the
Carnegie entrance as is, 3) the base be more substantial than more cosmetic. Echlin said they have not developed
alternative plans. They will take into consideration the Historic Commission's recommendations. The use of metal
siding on a portion of the building is an attempt to unify the sides of the building with the zinc roof. The front door of
the Carnegie is designed so it could revert back to an entrance at some point in time. Meijer said they never meant
to state the Carnegie did not have a base. The way the Carnegie is designed, it does rest on a base. Echlin said
the base coincides with the floor line. It emphasizes that there is a main floor. There is a Ipwer floor of less
importance. They have tried to harmonize the floor of the addition with the existing main level of the library and the
lower level by putting the addition upon a base similar so the building is at the same elevation as the base.
Briggs questioned if there would be room for a sidewalk in front of the parking. Echlin said it is not wide enough to
create a sidewalk due to the site constraints.
Briggs liked the idea of green and sustainable aspects of the project such as collecting rainwater in a cistern and
gray water. She would ask Staff and Council that all buildings in the future collect rain and gray water and
encourage retrofitting.
Chapman asked about the vertical windows on the Carnegie versus the boxier look of the windows in the new
addition. Echlin said the existing windows were meant to give a view of the valley. They have tried to create window
bays so the view of the valley can be enjoyed from the addition.
Gardiner wondered if the parking spaces meet the city's specifications. Stone said they do. The protected, raised
walkway as noted in Criteria 18 is for 50 or more spaces.
Briggs asked if the fountain could recycle water by re-plumbing it. Stone said they want to repair it and make it
operable. It is still unclear whether the Health Department will allow recycled water.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Staff has asked Gardiner that the Commission adopt the applicant's Findings along with the Conditions. McLaughlin
said Staff would prepare a cover that would adopt the Findings and the decision of the Planning Commission and
attach all the Conditions.
Hearn said Stone proposed some additional conditions during rebuttal that were directed to the Tree Commission
recommendations. McLaughlin said the Tree Commission's recommendations could give guidance to the landscape
architect that is preparing the revised plan. The Tree Commission is looking for ways to work with the applicants to
get the best design project. With regard to tree removal, Stone was asking for an arbiter. McLaughlin thought this
would be a rare situation and if the Commission were comfortable with it, he would take on the role of making the
final decision. If he felt uncomfortable, he would bring it back to the Commission. The following wording is to be
added to Condition 6: That the applicant submit a revised landscape plan based on the recommendations of the
Tree Commission, reviewed by the Tree Commission and with approval by the Staff Advisor.
Fields said it seems like it would be simple enough not to change the ordinance now and he would have no problem
reviewing a variance. He does not know if this needs to be adopted right now. The zone change is a big issue. He
sees nothing in the criteria that makes it more C-1-D that R-2. Parking seems to be the main reason for the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
May 17,2000
7
n' I
advantage of having it commercial. We are doing a civic building that needs parking and we are going to let
downtown absorb it. His assumption is that since we are building this great facility, there will be more people using
it. If this were a commercial project, Systems Development Charges would be picked up for additional parking.
Another issue with Fields is the entry. Building code by definition says all entrances need to be treated as exits. We
have had this same discussion about blocking off fake entrances in the Historic District in commercial buildings.
We want the entrances to be real entrances that remain open. The city is faced with this historic building with an
historic entrance oriented to the downtown with no parking and so we expect people to walk into the building past
the historic entrance. If this was not the city but another use, how would he vote on it?
Amarotico is concerned about the land use ordinance text amendment involving the setback. What happens when
it doesn't come before the Commission? Is it a Staff decision? McLaughlin said any new buildings or conditional
uses would come before the Commission. You can just about count on one hand where this applies in the city.
Rarely does a commercial zone abut a residential zone. Staff would probably be looking more to protect the
residential zones.
Morris agrees with Fields in that he does not like changing the ordinance unilaterally for this one condition regarding
the sideyard setback. If there is no walkway to the alley, is there an emergency exit to the alley?
Hearn said we are dealing with a document that has to be flexible. This is a unique circumstance. The way it is
being addressed is as good as we can hope. He is respectful of the concerns of the neighbors, but it ends up being
difficult to please everyone.
Chapman said because of the prominence, permanence, and importance, we'd better get it right. He is encouraged
that Briggs is feeling this is a good civic building and good design. He is comfortable passing the setback
requirement. With regard to the zone change and relating to the parking, he said this is space constrained area.
He is a little defensive that somehow we should be compelled to give up square footage just because we want to
have space for more cars. This is a good opportunity for this community to show itself that we can use alternative
means of transportation and the zone change is appropriate.
Briggs wants to make absolutely sure the condition of the zone change is for the library use only. That might be a
second sentence in Condition 1. McLaughlin said that the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change
would be only approved for the use of the site as a library. This is not a concern of Fields.
A motion was made and seconded to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m. The motion carried.
McLaughlin noted that the property could be developed with a 35 foot high building six feet from the property line in
R-2. McLaughlin said he and Molnar have never had to implement the ten-foot sideyard setback for a building in the
13 years they have been with the city. He explained to the Commission that this project is different. Part of the
duties is they are keepers of the public interest. The public interest has been represented in several different ways
through the Council, voters, and the charrette process.
Hearn moved to approve PA2000-039 and adopt the Findings with the attached 12 conditions and recommend the
amendment to the Council. Briggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
May 17,2000
8
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND
STATE OF OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS FOR
A CONDI11ONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE )
PLAN REVIEW TO PERIIT CONSTRUCTION )
OF A NEW PERFORMING ARTS THEATRE, )
AN OFF-STREET PARKING STRUCTURE )
AND APPURTENANCES ON LAND IN )
DOWNTOWN ASHLAND LOCATED NORTH )
OF HARGADlNE STREET AND EAST OF )
SOUTH PIONEER STREET )
)
Oregon Shakespeare Festival: Applicant )
RNAL ORDER
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
NATURE OF THE APPLICATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Summary of Decision
The applications are approved for the reasons set forth below and are made subject to
compliance with all of the conditions that are enumerated in Section VI and which are
incorporated and made a part of this approval.
B. Nature and Scope of Applications
These applications sought approval for a new 344-seat indoor theatre, a parking structure,
site improvements and appurtenances. The new facilities are proposed in near proximity to
applicant's other theatres and facilities which are located west and across South Pioneer
Street from the subject property. The review of the applications by the City Council on
appeal from the Planning Commission produce the following results:
· Approve with conditions an application for Site Design and Use pursuant to Ashland
Land Ordinance (ALVO) Chapter 18.72 and relevant provisions of the City of Ashland
Site Design and Use Standards for a new theatre, parking structure, site improvements
and appurtenances, and
· Approve with conditions an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) pursuant to
ALUO Chapter 18.104 to enable the theatre building to exceed a height of 40 (but less
than 55) feet above the established mean grade. See. Record p. 192 (Drawing A1.0) for
calculations of mean grade.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
PIIge 1
Planning Action 2000-07,.
CIty of Ashland, Oregon
Applicant's plans were prepared by Thomas Hacker and Associates, Architects, Inc. and these
are bound in a set at Record p. 173 - 214. Applicant's plans and drawings contained
numerous sheets that are identified on the qovcr sheet References to applicant's plans in this
document include the drawing sheet number and Record page numher(s) on which the
drawing(s) appear.
C. Procedural Background
· JUDe 9, 2000: The subject land use applications were submitted by applicant Oregon
Shakespeare Festival ("OSF' or "applicant") and received by the City of Ashland Planning
Department. The applications were deemed complete by the City on the date first
submitted.
· July 5, 2000: The applications were considered by the Ashland Historic Conunission,
which tendered its written recommendations to the Planning Commission.
· July 6, 2000: The applications were considered by the Ashland Tree Commission, which
tendered its written recommendations to the Ashland Planning Commission ("Planning
Commission").
· July 11, 2000: Following public notice in accordance with the ALVO and law, a public
hearing was convened before the Planning Commission during which it accepted evidence
and argument. Prior to closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission considered
requests by applicant and some opponents and acted to close the public hearing but leave
the record open for seven days for all parties to submit additional evidence and argument
and an additional seven days for applicant to submit its written rebuttal. At the end of the
fourteen day period, the record was closed.
· Augu.t 8, 2000: Following closure of the record, the Planning Commission met in regular
session and voted in the majority to approve the applications with conditions.
· September 5, 2000: Opponents Colin Swales and Philip C. Lang filed an appeal of the
Planning Commission's approval of the applications.
· September 13, 2000: Applicant through its attorney 10hn R. Hassen, moved to dismiss the
appeal based upon a failure to comply with Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.108.110.
· October 3,2000: The City Council considered applicant's motion to dismiss the appeal
and ruled to allow the appeal to proceed. The City Council signed a final order denying
applicant's motion to dismiss the appeal to the City Council on October 17,2000.
· Oetober 17, 2000: Following public notice in accordance with the ALVa and law, a
public hearing Was convened before the City Council to consider the appeal of the
applications. During the public hearing the City Council accepted evidence and argument
and at the conclusion of public testimony, there being no requests to either leave the
Flndlnge of Fact and ConclusIons of Law
Page 2
Planning Action 2000.074
City of Ashland, Oregon
record open or continue the hearing, the public hearing and record were both closed, The
matter is now properly before the Ci~ COttrtci1 fot final disposition.
II
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
The record before the City Council consisted of 305 consecutively numbered pages and full-
size drawings of the plans shown on Record p. 174 through 214. The record made before the
Planning Commission was forwarded to the Council with the appeal and is incorporated as
part of the record for this proceeding. Also before the City Council were full-size color plans
that, in some instances, differed from the plans shown on Record p. 174 through 214. The
City Council has resolved any conflicts between these drawings in favor of the more up-to-
date (but full-size) drawings in Record p. 174 through 214. The record also includes the oral
testimony received by the Ashland Planning Commission during its proceedings and oral
testimony presented to the City Council. While the City Council carefully considered all
evidence in the record, it has relied primarily (but not exclusively) upon the following in
support of its approval of the subject applications for Conditional Use Permit and Site
Design and Use Review:
Table 1
Evidence In Support of Application Approvals
Source: Record 01 Ashland Planning AclIon 2000-07.
103 - 172
173 -214
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Applicant OSP's propoted tlndinp of&ct llIld conclusions of law, demotl8ll'lling how it
believes the applicatiOlU comply with the IIlPlicable subltantive criteria of the Ashland
Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) and Alhland Site DesillD and Use Standards (Ashland Site
Desi md Use Standards III hereinbelow enumerated.
Pro' eel Plans which include the foil . :
Civil
Site Surve llIld T i<: M
C1.0 Gradin llIld EroUOD Control - Lower Level
CI.1 and Erosion Control- Level
e1.2 Site UtiI' Plan
CI.3 Standard Details
Luella
LO.l
LO.2
L1.0
LZ.O
LZ.I
L2.2
L3.0
lA.O
U.I
L5.0
LS.l
I Each of the plans listed in Record p. 173 - 214 are included in the record lIS full-size plans.
Finding. of Faet and Conc:lu.lon. of Law
Page 3
Planning ActIon 2000..074
City of Ashland. Oregon
191 2 LS.2 Details
2 Ardllledunl
192 2 Al.a Code AnalySis
193 2 A2.0 B~nt~el~oorP~
194 2 A2.1 Lower ~el Floor Plan
195 2 A2.2 Main Level Floor P~
]96 2 A2.3 Upper Level Floor Plan
197 2 A2A Roof Plan
198 2 AJ.I Exterior Elevations
199 ~ AJ.2 Exterior Elevations
200 2 A4.1 Building Sections
201 2 A4.2 Building Sections
202 2 A4.3 Building Sections
203 2 AU Wall Sections
204 2 A4.5 Wall Sections
205 2 A4.6 Wall Sections
206 2 A4.7 Wall Sections
207 2 AP2.1 Parkillll StructUre - Lower ~el
208 2 AP2.2 Putting Structure - Middle ~I
209 2 AP2.3 Parking Structure - UDDer Level
210 2 AP3.1 Exterior Elevations
21] 2 AP3.2 Exterior Elevations
2 ElectrkaI
212 2 E1.0 Site P~ - Electrical
2 LIPtiDIl
213 2 AL1.0 Lower ~e] - Site Lighting Plan
214 2 ALl.I l]ppcr ~I . Site Lighting P~
216.218 3 Letter Ii'om llI'Oiect arehitect Thomas Hacker and Associates Arcbitects. Inc.
220 . 222 4 Letter ftom llI'Oiect landsc_ architect Walker' Macy
224 5 Memorandum from project civil ClIgineer Harper HoufReghelli5, Inc. to and signed by
Ashlllllt! Public Works Director Paula Brown
226 . 229 6 Photolll'8lllul and Photo Key MlI1)
231 7 Jackson CClIIIly Assessor Plat Map with the boundaries of the subiect oro~ denoted
233 . 249 8 Lighting schedule for outdoor lighting which aIsc iIIl1i1rates die adopted historic light
standard and flxture in uae throu~l!IIout downtown Ashland
251 9 Aerial deoictinl buildinp and buildinll heillbts within the slIITOunding area.
253 . 254 ]0 Plan . . 11aza. courtyard and hardscape areas within the subject property
256 - 257 11 CompIetllld appli<:ation forms and power of attorney duly executed by applicant Oregon
S' Festival Executive Director, Paul NicholllOn
47.58 N/A Applicant's rebuttal contained in a letter dated July 25. 2000
99.102 N/A Photol!l'llDbs of llPDIicant's architecturallsite model
]04 N/A Penpectjve ilIustntion oflheatre i'oot elevation and courtyard
III
RELEVANT SUBSTANnve APPROVAL CRITERIA
The City Council has deterrn4ted that the below relevant substantive criteria constitute all of
those which are prerequisite to approving the subject Conditional Use Pennit and Site Design
and Use land use applications. The below standards and criteria of the City of Ashland Site
Design and Use Sta1ldards are cited by heading reference only. A verbatim recitation of all
the relevant standards and criteria in the Site Design and Use Standards are contained in
Section V wherein each relevant standard or criterion (or groups of standards and criteria) are
followed by the conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions of the City Council. The
Findings of Feet and Conclusion. of Law
Page 4
PllII1nlng ActIon 2000..(174
City of Ashland, Oregon
conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions are based upon the findings of fact in Section IV
and the evidence in Section II.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18)
ALUO Chapter 104, CoudJti08aJ UIe PermltJ
ALUO 18.104.* Approval Criteria.
A conditional use pennit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or Cllll be made to
confurm through the imposilion of conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. That the use would be in confot!llllnce with all slandards within the 7.oning district in which the use is proposed 10
be located, and in confonnance with relevant C.ompn:henslve Plan policies that are not implemented by any City.
Slate, or Federal law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City fal:ilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development,
electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate lTllDsporlation can and will be provided to and through the subject
propeny.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when
compared to the developmenl of the subject 101 with Ihe targtt use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the
proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impect area shall be considered in
relation to the target use of the 7,One:
I. Similarity in scale, bulk. and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on lWTOunding stteets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use
are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation o( dust. odors, or.other environmental pollutanlli.
5. Generation o(noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjllCellt properties lIS envisioned in the C.ompn:hensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be rele\1Ult by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use,
ALUO 18.104.010 DeftuItlOllS.
The following are definitions for use in this chapter.
A. "11QIIct Am" - That area which is immediately surrounding a Ule, and which may be ~ed by it. All land
which is widlin the applicable notice area for a use Is included in the impact area. In addition, any lot beyond the
notice area, if the hearing authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use, is also included in
the impact area.
B. "T....et Use" . The basic permitted use in the zone, as defined below.
C.I-D. The general retail commercial uses listed in 18.32.0208., developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to
area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of L8w
Pages
Planning ActIon ~74
City of Ashland, Oregon
SITE REVIEW
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMe) Chapter 18)
ALUO Cbapter 12 Site Desip and Use Standards
ALUO 18.12.010 Criteria for Approvlll.
The following criteria sha1I be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this
Chapter .
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development,
electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate aanspol1Btion can and will be provided to and through the subject
propeny. All improvements in the street right-of-way lilall comply with the Street Standards in Chaprer 18.88,
Perfonnance Standards Options. (Ord.2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999)
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
SECTION U: APPROVAL STANDARDS AND POUCIES
II-A. ORDINANCE LANDSCAPL"iG REQUlREMENTS
/I-C-!. BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS
II-C-Ia) Orientation and Scale
II-C-I b) Streetscape
II-C.lc) Landacaping
II-C.ld) Parking
II-C.le) Designated Creek Protection
II-C.lf) Noise and Glare
II-C.lg) E~pan8ions of Existing Sile& and Buildings
1I-C-2. DETAIL SITE REVIEW
1I-C-2a) Orientation and Scale
1I-C.2b) Streetscape
/I-C.2c) P8JtIng If. On-Site Circulation
II-C-2d) Buffering and Sc=ing
1I-C-2e) Lightina
II-C.2f) Building Materials
U-C-3. ADDmONAL STANDARDS FOR LARGE SCALE PROJECTS
1I-C-3a) Orientation and Scale
1I-C-3b) Public Space&
II-C.3<:) Transit Amenities
1I-C-3d) Rec~ling
II-D. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENlNG STANDARDS
II.D-I) Screening at Required Yards
11-0-2) Screening Abutting Property Lines
11-1>-3) Landscape Standards
II-D-4) Residential Screening
11-0-5) Hedge Screening
11-0.0) Other Screening
n-E. STREET TREE STANDARDS
II-E-') Location fot Street Trees
_._----_.._---_.~-_.,._._-
F1ndll\GS of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 6
Planning ActIon 2000.()74
City of Ashland. Oregon
1I-E-2) Spacing, Placement, and Pnming of Street Trees
II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees
11-&4) Reconrnended Street Trees
SECTIOI'\ m: WATER CONSERVING LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES AND POLICIES
· Genera1l11ld Miscellaneous
· Plants
· Irrigation
. Topography
Landscape plans are required thai include, In addition to the standard plan requirements, the following:
SECTION VI: DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES
VI-A) Height
VI -8} Setbaclc
VI-q Width
VI-D} Openings
VI.E) Honzontal Rh)thms
VI -F) Vertical Rhythms
VI-G) RoofFonns
VI-H) Materials
VI-I Awnings, Marquees or Simlar Pedestrian Shelters
VI -J) Other
VI-K) Exception to Standards
SECTION VI: DOWNTOWN ASHLAND AREA STANDARDS
Approval Criteria for DoWlltoWll Area Development
IV
FINDINGS OF FACT
The City Council reaches the following facts and finds them to be true with respect to this
matter. The findings of fact are supported by the evidence contained in Record p. 103 - 257
and Record p. 47 - 58. Where the facts were in dispute, the City CotUlcil has resolved them as
follows:
1. Property DescripdoD; Ownenhip: The record ownership and legal description of the
subject property as defined in the records of the Jackson County Assessor is set forth in
the below Table 2. The shape and configuration of the property is as shown on the
Assessor's Plat Map at Record p. 231.
Findings of Fact and Concluelons of Law
Page 7
Planning ActIon ~74
City of Ashland, Oregon
'I
i
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
City of Ashland. Oregon
._-~_.~---_.~-..
Applicant is required to adjust the bOUndaries of the subject property as necessary to
observe required setbacks and to prevent buildings from straddling property lines or
encroaching upon setback areas. Lot line adjustments are ministerial acts and the council
concludes applicant can and will meet all requirements for such adjustment.
3. Comprehensive Plan Designadon and Zonine District: The subject property is
designated Downtown on the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map. The property is
within a Retail Commercial (C-J) zoning district and is subject to the City's DowntOWll
Overlay District (D), making the overall zoning designation of the property C-J-D. The
property is within Ashland's downtown Historic District.
4. Nature and Operation of the Proposed Theatre Use: Theatre patrons will travel to the
subject property by automobile, bicycle or on foot. Automobile parking is located in the
parking structure adjacent to the theatre building as depicted in applicant's plans at
Record p. 173 - 214. There are other parking opportunities throughout Ashland's
downtown. Those riding bicycles may park and secure them at the bicycle parking area
that is depicted on Drawing Sheet L2.0 at Record p. 183. Patrons may purchase tickets at
the box office adjoining the plaza/courtyard surrounded by the applicant's Elizabethan
Theatre and Angus Bowmer Theatre. Patrons will assemble in the plaza/courtyard areas
located on the subject property before entering the building to view performances. A
pedestrian route, located along the northern edge of the property, extends from the new
entry plaza on South Pioneer Street to the north-south alley off Hargadine Street,
providing a direct link between the new theatre and the parking structure. The pedestrian
route will be well-lit and wheelchair accessible in accordance with the requirements of
the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). See, Drawing Sheets U.O, U.l and L2.2 at
Record p. 183 185. The pedestrian route connects to the public sidewalk along South
Pioneer Street and other public ways, including the alley stairs rising up from Main
Street. Public sidewalks located upon the subject property are linked to existing
sidewalks throughout downtown Ashland. The plaza/courtyard areas will also permit
patrons to go outside during breaks in the performances. Following performances,
patrons will exit the facility and proceed to vehicle and bicycle parking areas or to final
destinations on foot. .
5. Public FaclUtfes, Serviees a.d UtiUtfes: As shown on Drawing Sheets C1.2 and El.O at
Record p. 178 and 212 the subject property is served with a full and complete range or
urban public facilities and services, including municipal water, sanitary sewer service,
mwlicipaJ electrical service, natural gas, underground urban stonn drainage and
transportation facilities which accommodate the movement of motorized vehicles,
bicycles and pedestrians to and through the subject property. This conclusion of fact is
based upon interviews that applicant's consulting civil engineer, Chuck Harper (Harper,
Houf, Righellis, Inc.) and its consulting urban planner, Craig Stone (Craig A. Stone &
Associates, Ltd.) had with Ashland Public Works Director, Paula Brown on May 16,
2000 and June 2, 2000, respectively. A memorandum from engineer Harper to and
signed by Ashland Public Works Director Brown (Record p. 224) further evidences the
existence and adequacy of the municipal infrastructure.
findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 0
Planning ActIon 2000-074
City 01 A8I1land, Oregon
By its own calculations and based upon: 1) applicant's 1999 parking survey of its patrons
and 2) that after construction of the new theatre, applicant has no expectation that the
Black Swan Theatre will continue to be used for performances, applicant testified that the
new theatre will result in an increased parking demand for only nineteen additional
vehicles - thirty-eight additional daily vehicle trips. Applicant's calculations are based
upon a consideration of patrons that walk, bicycle, shuttle, or arrive in groups to the
theatres, the average 2.8 persons per passenger vehicle and the projected increase in
theatre capacity if the subject theatre is constructed. Moreover, theatre performances
begin at 1 :30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. in contrast to peak hour travel periods which are
typically from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m, Based upon existing
traffic loading, the slight increases in vehicular traffic that will be produced by the
proposed theatre and fact that perfonnances do not occur during peak hours, Ashland
Public Works Director, Paula Brown, expressed her opinion to applicant's agent, Craig
Stone, that there is adequate street capacity and that transportation is available and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
6. Existing Laud Use of the Subject Property: The subject property is largely occupied by
a surface parking lot. There are existing trees within the parking lot and on other portions
of the property. Existing parking lot trees and other trees located on portions of the
property intended for theatre and plaza improvements are intended to be removed.
Elements of the property to be demolished are depicted on Drawing Sheet Ll.O at Record
p.182.
7. Characteristics of the Subject Property and Proposed Theatre Use:
A. Scale: The proposed theatre building has a gross floor area of 33,000 square feet
and a footprint consisting of 12,730 square feet. Adjacent Carpenter Hall has
footprint of3,775 square feet and a 1,225 square foot basement.
B. B.Jk and Lot Coverage: based upon Table 3 in the fmdings of fact, the City Council
concludes that the project has a floor area ratio of .46 because 46% of the property
is occupied by buildings in proportion to the amounts occupied by plaza area,
hardscape and landscaping.
C. Building Height: Precise building height computations are contained in Drawing
Sheet A1.0 at Record p. 192. These demonstrate that the new theatre buildirtg will
be 45.20 feet above the established mean grade at its highest elevation which is the
roof of the fly tower. Without the fly tower, the building is 38.20 feet tall (as
calculated using the formula prescribed in the ALUO). ALUO 18.32.050(B)
provides that structures which are greater than 40 but less than 55 feet in height are
pennitted as a conditional use. While some opponents seemed to argue that the
building height was not appropriately or accurately calculated, the City Council
concludes that the calculations on Drawing Sheet Al.O (Record p. 192) are
FIndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 10
Planning ActIon 2000-074
City of Ashland. Oregon
appropriate and accurate and have been verified by the Ashland Planning
Department.
D. Deslin Elements: The following design elements are graphically depicted in the
various drawing sheets contained in applicant's plans in Record p. 173 - 214:
· Architecture and Materials of Construction
· Overall Site Planning and Streetscapes
· Building Setbacks
· Building Width
· Building Openings
· Horizontal Rhythms of Buildings
· Vertical Rhythms of Buildings
· Roof Forms
· Awnings and Marquees
· Proposed Landscaping and Irrigation
· Building Orientation
· Off-Street Parking
· On-Site Circulation
· Buffering and Screening
· Lighting
· Public Spaces
8. Cbaractertstks or SarroUDdlne PoteDdaJ Impact Area: The physical characteristics of
the surrounding potential impact are graphically depicted in photographs. See, Record p.
226 - 229. The heights of buildings in the surrounding area is shown at on the map at
Record p. 251.
9. Recycling: Applicant operates a remote recycling center for all Oregon Shakespeare
Festival facilities. The recycling center is located on land within the Ashland downtown
area on property situated adjacent to applicant's production building and the Cabaret
Theatre. Materials to be recycled are transported to the recycling center where they are
sorted and properly recycled.
10. Design Process: Applicant Oregon Shakespeare Festival's Executive Director, Paul
Nicholson, testified as follows with respect to the design process it has undertaken to date
in the development of the new theatre:
The desiSJIS incorporated in this application are the result of a great deal of collaborative effurt, 1101
only between Festival staff and the architect but aJso with many members of the Ashland COIUmJIlity.
The Festival bas been involved in discussions with ueighbors, perfonning arts groups, the City
Findings of Fact and ConclU8lons of Law
Page 11
Planning ActIon 2000-074
City of Ashland, Oregon
COlll\Cil, a special historic preservation group and several members of the Ashland Historic
Commission,
In addition to these meetings, the Feruvat il1vited many local patrons and members to three public
meetings about the new theatre design. In addition, it participated in a call-in TV program and
invited the public to a design presentation by the architect
This new design takes into account a great many of the suggestions, reconnnendations and concerns
expressed by these groups.
We particularly hope that the Planning Commission recognizes the following design elements:
.
The new theatre is built as low as possible, and constructed to be buried into the hillside. The
average height of the wall along Hargadine Street is 13 feet with the roof rising gradually behind
it. With the exception of the fly tower (which is 45 feet tall) the building is 38 feet above the
average mean grade. This is well below the 55 foot height alIo....11ble with a Conditional Use
Permit.
.
We have focnaed on trying to make the building companble not only with downtown but also
with the nearby residential areas. The roof will be a daIt gray ~ition tile and the building
will have a cladding that incorporates both brick and polished face block to provide a natural
and solid structure. There will also be a significant amount of natural wood to soften the
building's appearance.
.
The original design incorporated a fly loft that was nine feet above the ridge line of the roof.
After talking with neighbors and others, we decided to reduce the height of the fly loft by six
feet, even though this compromises theatre operations to some extent.
.
When we first started talking with our architect, Thomas Hacker & Associates, we stated that we
wanted a theatre building that would retlect the edgy, challenging and sometimes dangerous
work that will be on its stage. One of the elements that Thom chose to convey a sense of
mystery was a large steel and wood screen near the front of the building. After discussions with
the Historic Coumission, we have decided to eliminate the screen.
.
The enlIance to the new theatre is clearly delineated through the use of columna and trellis work,
a feature that was encouraged by the Historic Commission.
.
In front of the new theatre will he a beautifully landscaped brick courtyard that will invite
patroos and visitors to sit and relax, while tying the new theatre to the brick courtyard between
the Elizabethan and Angus Bowmer Theatres. For the first time the Festival will have an
integrated theatrical campus.
.
The wall bordering the alley to the parking structure has been designed to be broken up into a
series of three vertical panels with the middle one being somewhat recessed. In addition, a
pedestrian- friendly trellis will be constructed with beaches and lighting to encourage pedestrians
to linger and inspect the display cases that willliDe the wall.
.
Between the thealre and Hargadine Street We will create a landscaped lawn area with paths and
benches, and a grove of appropriate shade trees.
.
The top level of the new parking structure will be at the Hargadine Street elevation, with two
floors below that providing parking for a total of approximately 140 vehicles. The stnJcture will
be weUlit with a great deal of natural light coming in from three sides.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 12
PllIIIfllng ActIon 2000..074
Clty of Ashland, Oregon
· The entire area behind Starbucks, Fortmillers and the Varsity Theater properties will be
upgraded with walkways, benches, bike racks and trees,
v
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Ashland City Council reaches the following conclusions of law under each of the
relevant substantive criteria. The conclusions of law are preceded by the criterion or criteria
to which they relate and are supported by findings of fact as set forth in Section IV herein
above and by the evidence as enumerated in Section II:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT Mill ZONE CHANGE
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18)
AL VO Chapter 104 CoadltieuI Vse Permits
ALVO 18.104.05t Approval Criteria
A conditional use pennit &ball be granted if the approval authority findi that the proposed use conforms, or cm be made to
confonn through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria.
Criterion 1
A. That the use would be in confonnance wilh all standards within the wning disuict in which the use is proposed to be
located, and in COnfo11lllllCe with relevant Comprehensive Pial policies that are not implemented by any City, State. or
F oderal Jaw or program.
Conclusion. of Law: The requirements of Criterion I begin with a prerequisite that all plan
map and zone changes must be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. In. Bennett v.
City of Dallas, 17 Or LUBA 450, ajJ'd 96 Or App 645 (1989), the court held that approval
criteria requiring compliance with a comprehensive plan does not automatically transform all
comprehensive plan goals and policies into decisional criteria. The court further held that a
. determination of whether particular plan policies are approval criteria must be based on the
language used in the policies and the context in which the policies appear. The City Council
concludes that only the following policies of the comprehensive plan may be properly
construed as independent and relevant approval criteria under the court's holding in Bennett,
supra:
PoUcy .1.2: The Historic Comnission shall nJlke recommendations to Ibe City Council and Planning Commission on
the alteration or di......ition of lIlru"",""" ailes, or neighbOfboods within the areas of hiltOric interest within
the City.
(ImplemcDtod by AMC Chapter 2.24 - Ashland Historic Cotmlission)
PoIky Vm-12: Require, where possible. that the original vegetation be retained and require the ptopagation of new
vegetation if it is removod.
(Implemented by Chapters 18.72 (Site Review); 18.88 (Perfonnance Standards); 18.80 (SubdiviSIons)
poncy VUI-13: Require street trees in all new n:sidential, conunercial and industrial developments.
(Implemented by C1tapter 18.72 (Site Review)
Flndlnga of Faet and Conclualona of Law
Page 13
Planning ActIon 2000.074
City of Ashland, Oregon
rollcy XI-5(d): All applications for new buildings shall include the following information: . . . .
(Implemented by Chapter 18.72 (Site Rev~)
rollcy XI-4(b): All new structures tmdergoing the City's site review procedure sball be reviewed by tbe Energy
Conservation Coordinaror. The Energy Coordinator shall advise the developers ofal] new construction and
cost-effective methods of energy conservation.
(Implemented by Chapters 18.72 (Site ReVIew)
The City Council concludes as follows with respect to the above plan policies which it deems
to function as approval criteria:
· For Policy 1-2, it is concluded that the Historic Commission appropriately tendered its
recommendations to the Planning Commission concerning the alteration of the site as
proposed in these applications.
· For Policy VID-12, the City Council recognizes that this policy is specifically
implemented by Chapter 18.72 (Site Review). As explained in Miller v. City of Ashland,
17 Or LUBA 147, 162 (1988) and Murphy v. City of Ashland, 19 Or LUBA 182, 199
(1990) plan policies which the plan states are specifically implemented through particular
sections of the city's land use ordinance, do not constitute independent approval
standards for land use actions. The City Council concludes that the scope and nature of
the project prevents the retention of vegetation located within the subject property project
area. However, the City Council also concludes that the proposed plans provide for the
installation of substantial and appropriate new landscape vegetation as the same are
depicted on Drawing Sheets L2.0 through L5.2 at Record p. 183 - 191. The City
Cowlcil has previously interpreted the requirements of the Site Review chapter as it
pertains to existing vegetation and landscaping . That interpretation is set forth in
Freedom v. City of Ashland, LUBA No. 99-030 (October 29, 1999). The City Council
confirms the interpretation set forth in that case which is: the Site Review Chapter "does
not require that all existing trees and shrubs be saved, but that efforts be made to save
existing healthy trees and shrubs." An applicant need only strike a reasonable balance
between the building site design requirements and retention of the site's significant
natural features. We conclude the applicant has struck that reasonable balance as more
fully set forth below. Moreover, the City Council concludes, based upon these findings of
fact and conclusions of law, that all requirements for site design review pursuant to
ALUO 18.72 and consistent with the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards, have been
satisfied.
· For PoUcy VIII-13, The City Council concludes that existing street trees have been
preserved where possible. While three street trees are proposed to be removed in order to
provide access to the new parking structure, a grove of 19 trees has been added just north
of the Hargadine Street sidewalk. Criterion 32 (IT-E-2-a) permits variation to required
spacing for specific site limitations such as driveway approaches. The City Council
approves an exception to other requirements of the city related to street trees because the
City Council believes and concludes that. in this instance, it is more desirable to retain
existing street trees than to have the existing ones removed to enable the standards to be
FIndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
P.,4
Planning ActIon 2000-074
city of Ashland, Oregon
---~--"~.,~---
more completely met.2 See, Exception I in Criterion 50 as contained in Section V of this
docwnent. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council concludes that the application is
consistent with Policy Vill-33
· For Policy XI-4(a), the City Council concludes that the information required by the
policy has been provided by applicant.
· For PoUcy XI-4(b), the City Council concludes that the proposed structure has been
appropriately reviewed by the Ashland Energy Conservation Coordinator whose
comments have been incorporated into the record of this proceeding and that he has
advised the applicant of all new construction and cost-effective methods of energy
conservation,
· Conclusion: During the proceedings, some opponents raised various plan goals, policies
and excerpts from the plan text in asserting violations of the Ashland Comprehensive
Plan, The City Council has carefully reviewed all provisions of the plan that were alleged
to be violated by the application and it concludes that none of the provisions cited by
opponents either function as approval criteria or are violated by applicant's proposal.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the all relevant goals and policies of the
comprehensive plan which. by their language and context, function as decisional criteria
for the subject conditional use permit application.
...........................
Criterion 2
B. ThaI adequate capacity of City liIcilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity,
urban stonn drainage, and adequate lransportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact, Drawing Sheets C1.2 and EI.O at
Record p. 178 and 212, and the memorandum at Record p. 225 , the City Council concludes
that City facilities (including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development,
electricity, urban storm drainage, and transportation) have adequate capacity and can and will
be provided to and through the subject property. Therefore, the City Council concludes that
the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 2.
...........................
Criterion 3
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability oflhe impllC1 area wilen compared
to the development of the subject lot with the larget use of the zone. When evaluating the elT.ea of lite proposed use
on the impact area, the following l8ctors of livability of the i~, area shall be considered in relation 10 the larget use
of the zone:
Z While applicant sought to retain all street trees, it will be necessaty to remove three trees to accommodate
vehicular access to the parlcing structure and vehicular access for service vehicles to the theatre.
Findings of Fact and Conclu.lon. of Law
Page 15
Planning ActIon 2000.074
CJtyofAshland.Onlgon
J. Simtlarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of tIaffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are
considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties IS envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found 10 he relevant by the Hearing AuthOrity for review of the proposed use.
ALUO 18.104..020 DefIDltIoft..
The following are definitions for use in this chapter.
A. "I_pact A..... - That area which is immediately surroW1ding a use, and whieh II1IY be impacted by it. All land
whieh i. within the applicable notice area for a use is included in the impacl area. In addition, any lot beyond the
notice area, if the hearing authority find. that it may be malerially affected by the proposed use, is also included
in the impact area.
B. "T....et Use" . The basic permitted use in the zone, IS defined helow.
C-I. The general retail commercial uses listed in 18.32.020 B., developed at an intensity of .35 gross tloor to area
ratio, complying with all ordinanl>!' requirements.
ColD. The general retail commercial U5eS listed in J 8.32.020 B., developed at an Intenoity of 1.00 gross tloor to
area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements.
· Conclusions of Law: Theatres are a pennitted use in the C-I-D zoning district. A
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required to pennit the new theatre building to exceed a
height of 40 feet.3 Arguably, the additional building height which necessitates a CUP is
not even a use in the ordinary sense of the tenn, and this might serve to make nearly all
subparts of Criterion 3 wholly inapplicable. However, the City Council concludes that
based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 3, that the
conditional use permit will have no greater adverse material effect on the liveability of
the impact area than the "target use of the zone", which the ordinance defines in ALUO
18.104.020(8) as a general retail commercial use developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross
floor to area ratio (FAR). Applicant asserted that the additional 5.2 feet in building
height will not produce, in comparison. a greater impact than a retail commercial use on
the subject property. For the purposes of these findings, the Council finds that the impact
extends no farther than the notice area. While the impact area can extend beyond the
notice area as provided in the definition, the council finds that no lot beyond the notice
area will be materially affected by the proposed use.
3 ALua 18.32.050(B) provides that stnlctures which are greater than 40 but less than 55 feet in height are
pennitted as a couditionalllie. The proposed theatre building's fly lOwer is 45.20 feet above the established
mean grade; other than the fly tower, the building is 38.20 feet tall
FIndings of FIICt and Conclualona of Law
Pag818
Planning ActIon 2000..074
City of Ashland. Oregon
Another way to view the conditional use, is that it is merely a larger version of the
permitted theatre use. Under this reasoning, the entire theatre is treated as a conditional
use, under which it is required to be compared to the "target use". Pursuant to ALua
18.104.020(B)(5), the target use for land in the C-I-D zone is: "[t]he general retail
commercial uses listed in 18.32.020(8), developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to
area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements." ALUa 18.32.020(B) lists the
following retail uses:
Stores, shops and offices supplying conunodities or perfonning services. such as a department store, antique
shop, artists supply store, and including a regional shopping center or element of such center, such as a ~or
deparlll1elll store.
The City Council concludes that theater!; are a typical use found in shopping centers,
especially regional shopping centers (and, as asserted by applicant, this is the case with
southern Oregon's regional shopping center-the Rogue Valley Mall). Under the above
ALUa 18.32.020(B), an element of a regional shopping center can be used as a target use
for purposes of comparison under ALUa 18.104.050(C) and 18.104.020(8)(5). The
whole point of the target use is to provide a typical baseline permitted use to compare
impacts with the proposed conditional use. Typically, the conditional use will be
completely different from a permitted ''target use". However, in this instance, because
the conditional use permit is triggered by an increase in the height of a permitted use, the
most logical way to establish the baseline target use is to use the proposed use (which is a
permitted use minus the additional height added, in this instance, by the flytower). In
other words, the Council finds it unnecessary to invent a hypothetical baseline target use
in this instance, when there is an actual, detailed, hands on baseline target use available.
What applicant has argued and what the Council concludes, is that the proposed theatre
(which would be 45.2 feet in height) will have no greater adverse material effect on the
livability of the impact area when compared to the target use - a theatre having a height
of only 40 feet (or if, as permissible for comparison, the theatre were developed at a floor
to area ratio (FAR) of 1.00 rather than its proposed FAR of 0.35). Here, the flytower
adds no additional seating and adds only slightly to the overall scale and bulk of the
theatre and far less in those terms than a "baseline" theatre having a 1.00 FAR. In all
other ways required by ALUa 18.104.050(C), the impacts produced by the proposed
theatre ar~ significantly less than would be produced by a larger "baseline" target use
theatre developed to a 1.00 FAR.
Alternatively, the City Council concludes that if by using a more literal interpretation of
the ordinance, the target use was a shopping center (at a 1.00 FAR) - a use listed among
those in ALua 18.32.02O(B) - and it was compared to the proposed 33,000 square foot
theatre in ways required by ALUa 18.104.050(C), the proposed theatre would also have
fewer adverse material effects upon the livability of the impact area. To undertake this
comparison requires the Council to assume that a hypothetical shopping center would
occupy an area roughly 200 by 340 feet (a 68,000 square foot footprint) and would have
--~_._~------~--~-
Findings of Fact and ConelUSIoM of Law
Page 17
Planning Action 2000.074
City of Ashland. Oregon
two levels - 136,000 square feet.4 However, based upon the explanation in Footnote 4,
the Council will assume a shopping center having only 120,000 square feet. With these
assumptions, the following c{}nclusions of the Council flow from a comparison of the
theatre with a 120,000 square foot shopping center under the seven factors set forth in
18.104.050(C):
I. A 2-level shopping center, even in two separate buildings, will have a similar 40-
foot building height. However, it will produce a much larger scale building than
the proposed theatre and will have far greater bulk and coverage than the
proposed buildings.
2. As to traffic generation (as testified to by applicant at Record p. 50) according to
the source reference, Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers
(lTE), 6111 Edition), shopping centers - ITE Code 820 - produce traffic at the
rate of 42.92 average weekday trips (AnT) per each 1,000 square feet. At that
rate, a shopping center having 120,000 square feet would produce 5,150 ADT.~
In comparison, the proposed 344-seat theatre will have 1 or 2 perfolDlances per
day at 1:30 p.m. (or 2:00 p.m.) and 8:00 p.m. (or 8:30 p.m.). Even making absurd
assumptions for factors that affect theatre traffic - that every theatre patron will
drive to the theatre in a separate vehicle; that every seat is filled for all
perfolDl8Dces; and, that there are 50 perfolDlers and staff that each produce 4 trips
per day - the new theatre would produce only 1,576 ADT.6 In fact, traffic
produced by the theatre will be considerably less and, in comparison, there is a far
lesser impact with the theatre than a shopping center. Moreover, the same
conclusion holds even if the shopping center is assumed to consist of two single-
story buildings, each of which would have a footprint of less than the maximum
45,000 square feet.
3. As to architectural compatibility with the impact area, it must be assumed that if a
shopping center were to occupy th. property, that it would be architecturally
· A footprint of 68,000 square feet is not exactly a 1.00 FAR because minima1 setbacks from historic Carpenter
Hall have been assumed. Further, it is recognized that the total footprint of 68,000 square feet would likely be
accommodated in two structures, each not eXC<<ding a 45,000 square foot footprint, and likely involving two
story construction. Moreover, while the comparison requires a 1.00 FAR, there are conflicting prOvisions of the
ALUO which requires public plaza space that have !lOt been factored into this example. While plaza space
might have to be factored into an actual shopping center, the ordiwmce does !lOt requize plaza space for the
purpose of comparison under Criterion 3. Additionally, even if plaza space in amounts required by the ALUO
and Site Design and Use Standards were factored into the comparison, the Council believes that the results of
the comparison would be significam:ly di1Jerent or substantially enough to reverse its overall conclusion of
compliance with Criterion 3.
l 120 x 42.92.. 5,150
6 If each of the 344 seats is filled twice daily and each seat produces one trip to the theatre and 011 trip leaving,
the theatre will produce 1,376 ADT. When 4 trips for each of 50 staff is added (200 trips), the total become
1,576ADT.
Flndlngll of F8ct 8nd ConclulIlons of l.8w
Page 18
PllIIVIlng ActIon 2000.074
City of Ashland, Oregon
-~~--~---~--~~-
compatible with abutting properties and the sUITOWlding area as required by
various standards and criteria in the Ashland Site Design and Vse Guidelines,
However, given the nature of uses in the impact area and the absence of other
shopping centers, the same would be less compatible than the proposed theatre (of
which there are two or more within the impact area). It is more likely that a
theatre can be made architecturally compatible (and produce fewer adverse
affects) in this impact area than a shopping center.
4. As to air quality, dust, odors and other environmental pollutants, there would be
no appreciable difference between the proposed theatre and a shopping center
other than air contaminant discharges from automobiles, as these would be greater
for a shopping center that produces appreciably more traffic.
5. Regarding the generation of noise, light and glare, there would also be no
appreciable difference between the proposed theatre and a shopping center.
While it might seem that a theatre, by its nature, would produce greater levels of
noise, the enclosed nature of the building and its design (as explained by
applicant's architect during the public hearing) will ensure that all noise is
contained within the enclosed building.
. 6. Regarding the development of adjacent properties, based upon the record, neither
the proposed theatre nor a shopping center would prevent the development of any
adjacent property because, as evidenced by the photographs (and photo key map)
at Record p. 226 - 229 and the aerial photograph at Record p. 251, all of the
adjacent properties are presently developed with uses consistent with and
envisioned by the comprehensive plan. In reaching this conclusion, the City
COWlcil interprets the ambiguous term "adjacent properties" to mean a lot or
parcel that is touching [the subject property].
7. As to item 7 - ALVa inI8.104.050(C)(7) - no other factors have been foWld
relevant by the City Council (or Planning Commission) in reviewing the proposed
applications.
The City Council concludes in sUllU11aly, that the proposed theatre will have no greater
adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the
development of the subject property with the target use of the zone (a shopping center)lpursuant to the seven factors of liveability in ALVa inl8.1 04.050(C).
The City Council also concludes:
· The impact area - that is, the area which is immediately surrounding the subject
property - is the area consisting of parcels which abut and which are located
immediately across South Pioneer and Hargadine streets from the subject property,
including property on which other facilities owned by applicant (including the
Elizabethan Theatre) are located. (See Impact Area Definition)
Findings of Fact and ConclusloM of Law
Page 19
Planning ActIon 2OO0~7.
City of Ashland. Oregon
· Regarding C(I) above, and based upon the aerial photograph which depicts the proposed
theatre and denotes the height of it and some other nearby buildings at Record p. 251, the
proposed building height of 45 feet (for the theatre fly tower) willl10t serve to make it
the tallest (nor will it be the shortest) building in the immediate surrounding area.
Moreover, based upon the evidence in Record p. 173 - 214 (applicant's plans and
drawings), 226 - 229 (photographs and photo key map) and 251 (aerial photograph with
building heights), the fly tower will also not cause the new theatre to differ in scale, bulk
and coverage from other buildings in the surrounding area with which the City Council
finds there to be similarity. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council also concludes
that based on scale, bulk and coverage, the proposed conditional use pennit will produce
no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to
the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone - general retail
commercial uses listed in ALVO 18.32.020(B) developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross
floor to area ratio and which comply with all ordinance requirements.
· Regarding C(2) above, the City Council concludes that the additional height of the
building does not produce any material effect on the generation of traffic and its effects
on surrounding streets and that no causal relationship exists, in this instance, between
building height and traffic (as a factor of livability) because the additional height needed
for the fly tower will not increase the seating capacity of the building.
· Regarding C(3) above, the City Council incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and
conclusions of law for Criterion 5 through 51 and concludes, that the additional height of
the building needed to accommodate the fly tower, is architecturally compatible with the
surrounding impact area and will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability
of the impact area in comparison to the development of the subject property with the
potential retail commercial uses, which are identified in Criterion 3 as the target use for
the C-I-D zone.
· Regarding C(4) and C(5) above, the City Council concludes thattheadditional height of
the building does not produce any material effect on air quality and the generation of
dust, odors, other environmental pollutants or the generation of noise, light, and glare and
that no causal relationship exists, in this instance, between building height and these
factors of livability because the additional height needed for the fly tower will not
increase the production of air contaminant discharges, dust, odors, noise, light, glare or
any other environmental pollutants.
· Regarding C(6) above and based upon the record, the City Council concludes that the
additional height of the building to accommodate the fly tower, will not prevent the
development of any adjacent property because, as evidenced by the photographs and key
map and aerial photograph (Record p. 226 - 229 and 251) all of the adjacent properties
are presently developed with uses consistent with and envisioned in the comprehensive
plan. In reaching this conclusion, the City Council interprets the teon "adjacent
properties" to mean a lot or parcel that is touching the subject property. However, the
Findings of FIICt and Conclusions of lIIw
Pege 20
Planning ActIon 2000.074
City of Ashland, Oregon
City Council also finds and concludes that the building height will also not prevent the
development of property within the impact area. This is because all impact area parcels
are also presently developed with uses consistent with and envisioned in the
comprehensive plan.
· Regarding C(7) above, the City Council, functioning as the Hearing Authority for review
of the proposed Conditional Use Permit, concludes that there are no other factors it finds
to be relevant under Criterion 3. While some opponents argued that view blockage is a
factor under Criterion 3, the City Council had determined otherwise, although it has
considered this objection below under the heading Other Objections.
· During the proceedings, some opponents argued that the applicant had not properly
identified the impact area for the conditional use permit and had not adequately defined
the neighborhood characteristics or the potential impacts thereto. ALUO 18.]04.020 sets
forth definitions which it states are to be used in ALUO Chapter 18.104, and defines the
term impact area as follows:
"lnIpact Area" . That area which is immediately SUITOWlding a use, and whicb may be impactod by it Altland
which is within the applicable notice area for a use is included in the impact area. In addition, lilY lot beyond
the notice area, if the hearing authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use, is also
included in the impact area.
The characteristics of the "neighborhood" are not required to be determined. The
characteristics of the "impact area" (as set forth in the Section N Findings of Fact) are
evidenced by photographs in Record p. 226 - 229 and the aerial photograph at Record p.
251. As previously noted. the impact area for this proposal does not extend beyond the
notice area.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3 because
the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the
impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of
the C-I-D zone based upon the seven factors of livability set forth ill Criterion 3.
Therefore, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent in all respects
with Criterion 3.
...........................
SITE REVIEW
Ashland Land Use OrdinanCf} (Ashland Municipal Code fAMC) Chapter 18)
ALVO Chapter 7% Site DeIIln and Use Studardo
AL UO 18.7%.078 Criteria (or Apprvval.
The following criteria sball be used to approve or deny III application:
FIndIngs of Fact and Conclualons of Law
Page 21
Planning ActIon 2000-074
City of Ashland, Oregoo
Criterion 4
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
Conclusions of Law: The City Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact
and conclusions of law for Criteria I through 51 which addresses and finds compliance with
all relevant substantive standards and criteria in ALUa 18.72 (Site Design and Use
Standards) and all other applicable ordinances of the City of Ashland. Based thereupon, the
City Cmmcil concludes that the site review application is consistent with Criterion 4 because
all applicable ordinances of the City of Ashland and all requirements of the Site Review
Chapter and have been or will be met through required compliance with the conditions which
have been imposed by the Commission.
...........................
Criterion 5
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this
Chapter.
Conclusions of Law: The City Council incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and
conclusions of law for Criterion 7 through 52 which address and find compliance with all
relevant substantive standards and criteria in the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
which have been adopted by the City Council for the purpose of implementing ALUa 18.72
(Site Design and Use Standards). Based thereupon, the City Council concludes that the
applications are consistent with Criterion 5.
...........................
Criterion 6
D. That adequate capecity of City facilities for water. sewer, paved access to and through !be development, electricity,
urban storm draillage. and adequate II'lIIIsportation can and will be provided to and.through the subject property. All
improvemenrs in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88. Perfonnance
Standards Options. (Qrd. 2655,1991; On! 2836 86,1999)
Concl.sioDS of Law: The City Council incorporates and adopts the findings of fact and
conclusions of law for Criterion 2 and concludes, that the application is consistent with
Criterion 6 which is nearly identical to Criterion 2. With respect to improvements within the
rights-of-way of adjacent South Pioneer and Hargadine Streets, the City Council concludes,
based upon applicant's plans and drawings at Record p. 173 - 214, that all contemplated
improvements are consistent with the municipal street standards, as set forth in ALVa
Chapter 18.88.
...........................
---------------"-
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 22
Planning Action 2000-474
City of Ashland. Oregon
Ashland Site Des/gn and USe Sblndards
CITY OF ASHLAND
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECrION U
APPROVAL STANDARDS AND POLICIES
Criterion 7
II-A. ORDINANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
The following percentages of landscapins are required for all properties falling under the Site Design and Use Standards.
Zoae
R-I-3.5
R-2
R-3
C-I
C-I-D
B-1
M-I
0/0 LandscaplaC
45%
35%
25%
]5%
10%
15%,
10%
These percentages are the minimum required. At times, more landscaping is required to meet the needs of other sections of
the Site Review Ordinance, such as lCTCCI1ing of plII'king areas. landscaping of setback areas, and providing usable outdoor
space. In general, all areas w1uch are not used for bUilding or perking areas are required to be laodscaped. You should also
be aware that. as a condition of approval of your project, you will be required to submit a site and species specific 18lldscape
plan to the Planning Division for Staff Advisor approval.
Conclusions of Law: The City Council interprets the tenn landscaping to mean all portions
of a site not occupied by buildings, off-street parking or hardscape and which include all
areas devoted to living plants and other natural features. Based upon the findings of fact,
16% of the site is devoted to plaza/courtyard and 15% of the site is devoted to living
landscape. Based on Drawing Sheets LO.2, L4.0 and L4.1 at Record p. 181, 187 and 188 and
the findings of fact, the City Council concludes that there is substantially greater than the
required 10% of the site devoted to landscaping and that all portions of the property not
devoted to buildings or parking areas are landscaped, consistent with Criterion 7.
...........................
CrIterion B
1I-C-1. BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS
APPROVAL STANDARD: Development in all commcreial and employment zones shall conform to the following
development standards:
OoC-Ia) Orteutatto. aad Sale
I) Buildings shall hsve their primary orienllllion toward the strm rather than the parking area. Building entrances shall
be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Pubhc sidewalks shall be provided adjacent
10 a public street along the street frontage.
Flndl~. of fKt and Conclu8lon. of Law
Page 23
Planning Actlon 2000-474
City of Ashland. Oregon
2) Buildings that are within 30 feet of the street shall have an entrance for pedeSlJ'ians directly from the street to the
building Interior. This entrance shall be designeollO be atttaelive and functional, and shall be open to the public during
all business hours.
3) These requirements may be waived if the building is nol lICCeSSed by pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial
buildings without anached offices, and automotive service uses such as service stations and tire stores.
Conclusions of Law: The City Council reaches the following conclusions of law:
· Regarding #1 above and based upon the map at Record p. 231 and the Site and
Topographic Survey at Record p. 175, the proposed subject property and proposed
building fronts upon both South Pioneer and Hargadine Streets. The primary orientation
of the new building is toward South Pioneer Street. The building does not have its
primary orientation towards the parking area. The primary building entrance is oriented
toward South Pioneer Street and has excellent access from the public sidewalk which
exists along South Pioneer Street. The City Council concludes that the application is
consistent with #1 above.
· Regarding #2 above, the building is not within 30 feet of any street. Therefore, the City
Council concludes that #2 is inapplicable.
· Regarding #3 above, the building is intended to be accessed by pedestrians. Therefore,
no waiver of the standards in #'s 1 and 2 above are sought or required.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application complies with Criterion 8.
...........................
CrIterion 9
n-c-I b) Streellleape
One 5ITeet tree chosen from the street tree Iii! shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that portion of the development
fronting the street.
CODcIusloDS of Law: The existing placement of street trees repeats a pattern of tree, tree,
light standard. each 22 feet apart. The applicant has protected existing street trees and placed
new trees in order to retain the existing pattern in all cases except where access to the new
parking structure interrupts the rhythm. Variation in spacing of street trees is pennitted by
Criterion 32 (I1-E-2-a) which allows for specific site limitations such as driveway
approaches. The applicant has requested and the City Council approves an exception from
the provisions of Criterion 9 and the same is documented as a part of Criterion 50. Based
upon the exception taken under Criterion 50, the City Council concludes that the application
is consistent with Criterion 9~
...........................
Finding. of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Pags:u
Planning ActIon 2000-074
City of Ashland, Oregon
-~---~-~.~------
CrIterion 10
I1-C-le) Landlcaplq
I) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50"10 coverage occurs after one year and 90% coverage occurs after 5 years,
2) Landscaping design use a variety of low water use deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant
specIes.
3) Buildings Illjaeent 10 streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10 teet in width, except in the Ashland
Historic District. Outdoor stOrage areas shall be screened from view from adjacent public rights-of-way, except in M-]
zones. Loading facilities shall be screened and buffered when adjacenl to residentially zoned land.
4) Irrigation systems shall be inslAlled to assure landscaping success.
5) Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible.
Conclnsions of Law: The City Council concludes as foIlows:
· The City Council interprets the requirements of #1 to apply only to live landscaping
materials. Based upon the letter from applicant's landscape architect at Record p. 220 _
222, the proposed landscaping improvements will attain 50010 coverage after one year and
900/0 coverage occurring after 5 years.
· Regarding #2 above and based upon Drawing Sheets L 1.0 through 14.1 at Record p. 182
- 188, the City Council concludes that the proposed landscaping design has used a variety
of low water use deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species.
In further support thereof, the City Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings
of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 36.
· Regarding #3 above and based on the photographs and key map at Record p. 226 - 229
and Drawing Sheet LO.t at Record p.180, loading facilities are set back from Hargadine
Street a distance of 80 feet and trees obscure the entrance to the loading dock. Further, as
explained more fully below, the loading facilities are not "adjacent" to residentially zoned
lands and are therefor not required to be screened under tmsstandard. Nevertheless, the
City Council interprets the screening and buffering requirement in this standard to be
satisfied because of the distance from the street and the intervening trees. The City
Council also concludes that there are no outdoor storage areas and the proposed building
is not adjacent to any street. Moreover, the City Council concludes that there is
landscape buffering 10 or more feet wide between the building and the frontages of both
South Pioneer and Hargadine Streets even though the property is within the Ashland
Historic District and is not required to meet this standard.
· Regarding #4 above, irrigation systems will be installed on the property to assure the
success of landscaping that applicant proposes to install in accordance with the
Landscape Irrigation Plan. See, Drawing Sheet L3.0 at Record p. 186.
· Regarding #5 above and based upon the various landscaping plans at Record p. 180 - 191,
the City Council concludes that applicant intends to preserve trees and shrubs along the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 25
Planning Actlon 2000-074
City 01 Ashland. Oregon
frontage of the subject property. However, utilization of the parking lot for the proposed
building and parking stnlcture wil1 not pemrit the preservation of existing trees and
shrubs centrally located within planters in the existing parking lot. Existing vegetation
remains around Carpenter Hall and a grove of 19 trees between the Hargadine Street
sidewalk and the new theatre and two large planters at the southwest and southeast
comers of the top level of the parking stnlcture increase the overall number of trees. The
replacement of trees and shrubs within new areas will complement the new buildings and
other site improvements. The City Council concludes that while efforts have been made
to save as many trees and shrubs as possible, their locations on the property make saving
all of them infeasible. Nevertheless, the City Council concludes that efforts at saving
healthy trees and shrubs have been made and that the project is consistent with #5 above.
See also the discussion of this criterion at page 14 under Policy VIll-I2.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Conunission
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 10.
...........................
Criterion 11
II-C-ld) Parkin.
I ) Parking areas shall be lOOIted behind buildings or on one or both sides.
2) Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous Ireea, buffered from adj~t non-residential uses and screened from non-
residential uses.
Conel.sions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
.
Regarding #1 above, the Commission finds that the front of the building is the west
elevation which faces South Pioneer Street. Based upon Drawing Sheet LO.I at Record p.
180, there is no parking proposed to be located in front oftbe building. All proposed off-
street parking is located to the rear and behind the theatre building.
Regarding #2 above, Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged) 2nd Ed.,
the teon "area" means:
..... . level piece of ground.
I. originally, a level surface or piece of ground.
2. a plUt of the earth's surfice; region; tract.
3. the total outside aurface of anything, as measured in square units.
4. a yard of building; areaway.
S. scope; range; extent.
6. a part of a house, 101. diatrict, city, etc. having a specific use or character; as, dining area; slum, area.
7. pI. often areae, in biology, a limited part of the surface of an organism.
The City Council fmds the term area to be ambiguous with respect to whether the teon
parking area means a parking stnlcture. Based upon the preceding dictionary definition
of area, the City Council interprets area in the context of a parking area to apply only to
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Paga2&
Planning ActIon 2000.014
City of Ashland. Oregon
------ ~-~~--------_..- -~._--~----
open/surface parking that is located on an open lot or parcel and not to parking located
within or upon parking structures.
· Also regarding #2 above, the applicant has requested and, notwithstanding the above
interpretation of the term area, the City Council grants an from the provisions of
Criterion II and the same is documented as a part of Criterion 50.
During the proceedings, some opponents argued that the term "screened" cannot be
interpreted to simply require intervening vegetation between the "parking lot" and lands
which are residentially zoned. Applicant argued and the City Council concurs that
according to Webster's Ne>>' Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged) 2nd Ed., screen
or screened means: "to separate or cut off from view, or to shelter or protect, with or as
with a screen." Opponents urged an absolute interpretation that requires screening
sufficient to make a parking lot (including, in this instance a parking structure) all but
invisible. The City has consistently not interpreted its ordinance in this manner and no
examples exist in the community of parking lots which are or nearly are invisible. The
term screen is commonly interpreted and administered in land use ordinances in less
absolute terms. In this instance, the parking lot or area - and by that, we mean the
vehicles which are parked - will be screened by more than simply the vegetation which
exists along the parking structure's frontage (in the abutting planter). The parking
structure itself will screen parked vehicles. Moreover, planned vegetation will be trained
on the walls and rails of the parking structure. The trailing vegetation will cover the
walls of the structure and trail over the wall openings.7 On the upper level of the parking
structure, there are planters on each comer of the structure that will have trees and
vegetation planned in accordance with the landscape plans (Record p. 180 - 191). There
will also be hedge planting within a planter strip lying between the front wall of the
parking structure and the sidewalk and trees and vegetation along the planter strip that
lies between the street/curb and sidewalk. Moreover, the Planning Commission and the
City Council have required as a condition that there be interior planting within the
parking structure. (See, Section VI). These features will make the parked vehicles within
the interior of the parking structure all but invisible from nearby lands that are
residentially zoned. However, Ashland is a community of diverse and steep topography
and view of the upper deck of the parking structure (and any other parking area in
Ashland) will be visible from vantage points above it. Some opponents argued that the
screening standard should be applied in ways that would make parked vehicles on the
upper deck invisible from vertical vantage points. On this, the City Council concludes
7 Applicant's representatives explained during the Planning Commission public hearing on July II, 2000 that
vines in planters located along the top of the parting slluCture walls will trail down to provide virtually
complete screening. A colored architectural elevation of the parking structure entered into evidence the night of
the Planning Commission public bearing, illustrates applicant's screenill8 concept and while the drawing does
not illustrate vines covering openings on the walls of the parking structure, it was explained that the trailing
vegetation would, in fact, cover the openings and provide a vegetative screen. From outside the parking
structure, the cars will be all but invisible because the openings in the parking stJUcture will be covered by
screening vines.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of lAw
Page 27
Planning Action 2000-074
City of Ashland, Oregon
~'-"--_._~---
that while there is substantial screening vegetation that will obscure the view of the upper
deck (including screening not proposed by applicant but required by conditions imposed
by the Planning Commission and City Council) it is impractical to require parking to be
screened from vertical vantage points and the City has never made this a requirement of
any parking area and it declines to do so in this instance.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the exception taken
under Criterion 50 for #2 above, the Commission concludes that the application is
consistent with the requirements of Criterion 11.
............*..............
Criterion 12
U-C-Ie) Deslgollted Creek Protectloa
I) Desillllllled creek protection areas shall be considered positive design e!ementsand incorporated in the overall design
of a given project.
2) Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance the creek habilat.
CODelusions of Law: Based upon the evidence, the City Council concludes that no creeks or
riparian plant materials exist within or adjacent to the subject property and that Criterion 12
is inapplicable. Therefore, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with
Criterion 12.
...........................
Criterion 13
1I-C.1f) Nellie and Glare
Specific attentiOllto glare (AMC 18.72.110) and noise lAMC 9.08.170(c) & AMC 9.08.175) shall be considered in the
project design to insure COll1pliance with these standards.
Conclusions of Law: With respect to glare, the City Council concludes, based upon Drawing
Sheets AL1.0 and AL1.1 at Record p. 213 and 214 and information on lighting at Recordp.
233 -249, that the proposed lighting standards match the historic light standards currently on
the property and in use throughout downtown Ashland. Outdoor lighting will be
appropriately shrouded so as not to permit the direct illumination of any residential zone.
With respect to noise, the City Council finds that while some measure of noise will be
produced by theatrical performances. it will occur within an enclosed building that, based
upon Drawing Sheets A4.I and A4.2 at Record p. 200 and 201, has been carefully designed
for acoustical containment. There is also likely to be some noise related to the coming and
going of theatre patrons. However, the City Council concludes that the general noise
associated with patron travel (by automobile, bicycle and foot) are neither unnecessary, loud,
disturbing, injurious nor dangerous to the comfort, repose, health, safety or peace of others.
The project includes outdoor mechanical and electrical equipment which supports the
operation of the new theatre. This equipment includes a cooling lOwer. chiller and boiler
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of l8w
PiIge 28
Planning Action 2000-474
City of Ashland, Oregon
enclosed in a masonry out-building within the parking structure and an on-site transfonner
Noise control for this equipment is being desiped to meet, and we find that it will meet, the
requirements of the Ashland Municipal Code.
In all ways the City Council concludes that the activities conducted within the building and
the nature of the use itself, is such that it will not violate provisions of the Ashland Municipal
Code that regulate unncx:essary noise - AMC 9.08.170(c) and 9.08.175. Based upon the
foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the
application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 13.
...........................
Criterion 14
"-C-Il> ESpaDSiOllI 01 Exiltlal Sites ad 8llIIdlIIp
I) For sitlS which do nOl confonn to these n:quirements, an equal percentage of the site must be made to comply wilh
these standards as the percentage of building ellpansion, e.g., if building area is to expand by 25%, then 25% of the site
moo be brought up to die standards required by this document.
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that because the building is being
constructed anew, the provisions of this criterion do not apply to the subject application.
Therefore, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 14.
...........................
Criterion 15
U-C-1. DETAIL SITE REVIEW
Developments that are within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to complying with the staDdards for Basic Site
Review, confonn to the following standards:
IK-la) OrleD.tatloa ad Scale
I) Developments sbaH have a minimum Floor Area Ratio of .35 and shall not exceed a maximum Floor Area Ratio of5
for all -..as outside the Historic D;strict. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall COWlt as floor area for the purposes of
meeting the rm.imum Floor Area Ratio.
2) Building frontages greater than 200 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the
building W:ade.
3) Any wa1l which is within 30 feet of the street, plWl or other public open space shall contain at least 20"/. of the wall
area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows mull allow VIewS into wortcing areas or
lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display arellll. Blank walls wilhin 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40"10 of the
length of the building perimeter can be exempted from this standard if orientlXltoward loading or service areas.
4) Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances.
5) Infill of buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in e~isting parlOng lots is encouraged and desirable.
6) Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roolil, alcoves, poni~oes and awnings that protect pedestrians from the nun and
sun.
I AMC 15.04.185 provides a maxiumm 45dBA at 25 feet from the nearest residential structure.
-~-'-----_.-
findings of FlICt and Conclusions of Uw
Page 29
PllII'Inlng AmIon 2000..074
City of Ashland. Oregon
Conclusions of Law: Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law for
the above Criterion 7 through 14 (inclusive) - which are incorporated and adopted _ the
City Council concludes that the application is consistent with all of the requirements for
Basic Site Review. The subject property is within the Detail Site Review Zone. Moreover,
the City Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law
for the below Criterion 15 through 34 (inclusive) in support of its conclusion that the'
application is consistent with all of the standards and criteria for Detail Site Review as
required of land within the Detail Site Review Zone. Therefore, the City Council concludes
that the application is consistent with Criterion 15.
The City Council also concludes as follows:
· Regarding #1 above and based upon Table 3 in the findings of fact, the City Council
concludes that the project has a floor area ratio of .46 because 46% of the property is
occupied by buildings in proportion to the amounts occupied by plaza and courtyard
areas, hardscape and landscaping.
· Regarding #2 above and based upon Drawing Sheets AJ.I and AJ.2 at Record p.. 198 and
199, no elevation or frontage of the new building is greater than 200 feet in length.
However, the proposed building incorporates offsets, changes in material and other
distinctive architectural features such as precast architectural copings, watertables and
vertical reveals along the building elevations.
· Regarding #3 and based on Drawing Sheets AJ.I and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199,25
percent of the wall area on the west elevation is glazed. The main entrance to the theatre
is a pair of 8 foot wide glass doors which face the entry plaza/courtyard and are sheltered
by a covered trellis. Twelve percent of the wall area on the north elevation is glazed. In
addition, display cases and benches sheltered by a continuous canopy have been
incorporated into the north elevation bringing the total to grater than 20 percent. The east
elevation is oriented toward the parking structure, not the street, and only 10 feet of the
wall is visible from the upper deck. Ten percent of the wall area on the south elevation is
glazed. and all the south elevation rests, at not less than 50 feet back from the street and
this view of the building is enhanced by a grove of trees and garden area of benches
between the building and the sidewalk.
· Regarding #4 and based upon Drawing Sheets AJ.l and AJ.2 at Record p. 198 and 199,
the building has incorporated lighting and changes in mass, surface and fmish and these
emphasize the theatre entrance. Materials are a combination of brick, ground face
concrete block, wood and glass. A steel and wood trellis emphasizes the main entrance
and provides shelter. Incandescent l1ght fixtures will be recessed into the soffit of the
covered trellis. Two historic light standards, which match those used in the existing
plaza/courtyard across Pioneer Street, are proposed to be placed in the new entry
plaza/courtyard.
-~_._.~-~.__._----~._--_.
Findings of Fact and Conclusiona of Law
Page 30
Planning ActIon ~74
City ot AaI1land, Oregon
· Regarding #5 and based upon the Site Survey and Topographic Map and Drawing Sheet
LO.1 (Record p, 175 and 180), the project infills an existing parking lot (which is adjacent
to a public sidewalk with a new building.
· Regarding #fJ and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199,
the proposed building incorporates a cov<;red trellis at the entry on the west elevation and
a 90'-0" long canopy along the north elevation to protect pedestrians from the rain and
sun.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with all the requirements of Criterion 15,
...........................
Criterion 16
1I-C.2b) stneQupe
I) Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. S~le materials could be unit masonry,
scored and colored concrete, gr8SSCrete, or combilllltions of the above.
2) A building shall be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area i. used for pedestrian
activities such as p18Z111l or outside eating areas. If more than one stl'1Icture is proposed for 8 site, at least 2S~. of the
aggregate building frontage shall be within 20 feel of the sidewalk.
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding #1 and based upon Drawing Sheets L2.0 and LZ.l at Record p. 183 and 184,
the project incorporates brick, concrete unit pavers and scored concrete as hardscape
materials. Brick pavers define the lower level entry plaza/courtyard and have been
selected to match those used in the plaza/courtyard across Pioneer Street. Concrete unit
pavers define the main level plaza/courtyard between Carpenter Hall and the main lobby.
Scored concrete defines pedestrian pathways as distinct from vehicular routes. In all
cases, the paving areas designate "people" areas.
· Regarding #2, while the building is set back more than 20 feet from any public sidewalk,
based upon Drawing Sheets LZ.O and LZ.I at Record p. 193 and 194, the area between
Pioneer Street and the building is a plaza intended for the congregation of people before
and after performances and during intermissions and the area between Hargadine Street
and the building is a courtyard garden area, filled with benches shaded by a grove of
trees, and intended for public use.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 16.
...........................
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
PIIge 31
Planning ActIon 2000.074
ClIy of Ashland, Oregon
Criterion 17
U..c-lc) ParldD," OII-Slte Clrcalatlon
I) Protected, raised walkways shall be installed through paOOng areas of SO or more spaces or more than 100 feet in
average width or depth.
2) Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas and divided by landscaped areas or walkways
at least 10 feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings.
3) Developments of one acre or more must provide a pedestrian and bicycle CIrculation plan for the site. On-site
pedestrian walkways must be lighted 10 a level wbere the system can be used al night by employees, residents and
CUSlomers. Pedestrian waIlcways shall be directly linked to entrances and the internal circulation of the building
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding #1 and #2 above, the applicant has requested and the City Council grants an
exception from the provisions of Criterion 17 and the same is doclUDented as part of
Criterion 50. However, fewer than 50 parking spaces are proposed on the upper and
middle levels of the structure and where 54 spaces are proposed for the lowest level of
the structure, a raised walkway has been provided at the western edge of the parking
structure.
· Regarding #3, based upon Drawing Sheet LO.l at Record p. 180, the City Council
concludes that there is a pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan for the property and that
on-site pedestrian walkways will be lighted to a level which permits the system to be used
at night by people. The City Council also concludes that pedestrian walkways planned
for the project, directly link building entrances and the internal circulation of the building.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 17.
...........................
Criterion 1 B
u..c-U) Burermg aINI ~r_1a1
1) Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between inc:o~tible uses on an adjacent lot. Those buffers can
CObsist of either plant material or building materials and must be compaollle with proposed buildings.
2) Parking 1015 shall be buffered from the main street. cross streets and screened from residentially zoned land.
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding #1 above, the City Council interprets the term "adjacent" to mean a lot or
parcel lhat is touching the subject property. Based upon the City of Ashland
Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map, there are no adjacent lots or parcels which
are planned or zoned differently than the subject property, which is planned Downtown
and zoned C-I-D. While parcels across South Pioneer and Hargadine Streets are in
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 32
Planning Action 2000-474
City of Ashland, Oregon
residential zones, 'these are not adjacent to the subject property because they do not touch
the subject property.
· Regarding #2 above, the City Council concludes that the tenn parking lot is Wldefined
and ambiguous in its meaning. The City Council interprets the term parking lot not to
include parking structures. Therefore, the City COWlcil concludes that #2 above is
inapplicable because a parking structure is not a parking lot and there is no other off-
street parking proposed to be located upon the subject property.
· Regarding #2 above, and notwithstanding the City COWlcil's interpretation of the term
parking lot in the preceding paragraph. based upon Drawing Sheets LO.l and U.l at
Record p. 180 and 188, the City Council concludes that there is landscaping that serves as
a buffer from parking facilities located on the subject property adjacent to Hargadine
Street. Land on the opposite side of Hargadine Street is residentially zoned R-2. The
City COWlcil finds the term "screened" as used in the above #2 to be ambiguous and
interprets it to require intervening vegetation between the subject property and lands
which are residentially zoned. Based upon Drawing Sheets LO.l and U.I at Record p.
180 and 188, the City Council concludes there is landscaping in the form of trees and
hedge shrubs which exist and are to be located both within and outside of the Hargadine
right-of-way which will screen the parking structure from residentially zoned land on the
opposite side of the street.
During the proceedings, some opponents argued that the term "screened" cannot be
interpreted simply to require intervening vegetation between the "parking lot" and lands
which are residentially zoned. Applicant argued and the City Council concurs that
according to Webster's New Twentieth Cemury Dictionary (Unabridged) 2nd Ed., screen
or screened means: "to separate or cut off from view, or to shelter or protect, with or as
with a screen." Opponents urged an absolute interpretation that requires screening
sufficient to make a parking lot (including, in this instance a parking structure) all but
invisible. The City has consistently not interpreted its ordinance in this manner and no
examples exist in the community of parking lots which are or nearly are invisible. The
term screen is commonly interpreted and administered in land use ordinances in less
absolute terms. In this instance, the parking lot or area - that is, parked vehicles - will
be screened by more than simply the vegetation which exists along the parking structures
frontage (in the abutting planter). The parking structure itselfwill screen parked vehicles.
Moreover, planned vegetation will be trained on the walls and rails of the parking
structure. The trailing vegetation will cover the walls of the structure and trail over the
wall openings.9 On the upper level of the parking structure, there are planters on each
9 Applicant's representatives explained during the Planning Conunission public hearing on July 11. 2000 that
vines in planters located along the top of the parking structure walls will trail dowu to provide virtually
complete screening. A colored arcbitectural elevation of the parking structure entered into evidence the night of
the Planning Connnission public hearing, illustrates applicant's screening concept and while the drawing does
not illustrate vines coveriJIg openinga on the walls of the perking structure, it was explained that the trailing
vegetation would, in fact, cover the openings and provide a vegetative screen. From outside the parting
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 33
Planning ActIon 2000.074
City of Ashland. Oregon
comer of the structure that will have!! t:tees and vegetation planned in accordance with the
landscape plans (Record p. 180 - 191). There will also be hedge planting within a planter
strip lying between the front wall of the parking structure and the sidewalk and trees and
vegetation along the planter strip that lies between the street/curb and sidewalk.
Moreover, the Planning Commission and the City Council have required as a condition
that there be interior planting within the parking structure. (See, Section VD. These
features will make the parked vehicles within the interior of the parking structure all but
invisible from nearby lands that are residentially zoned. However, Ashland is a
community of diverse and steep topography and view of the upper deck of the parking
structure (and any other parking area in Ashland) will be visible from vantage points
above it. Some opponents argued that the screening standard should be applied in ways
that would make parked vehicles on the upper deck invisible from vertical vantage points.
On this, the City Council concludes that while there is substantial screening vegetation
that will obscure the view of the upper deck (including screening not proposed by
applicant but required by conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and City
Council) it is impractical to require parking to be screened from vertical vantage points
and the City has never made this a requirement of any parking area and it declines to do
so in this instance.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 18,
...........................
Criterion 19
1I-C-2e) Lithllnl
1) Lighting shall include adequate lights that are lIClIIed for pedelltrians by including light standards or placements of no
greater lhan 14 feet in height aloog pedestrian path ways.
Conclusioas of Law: Ashland has adopted a historic light standard and fixture that is widely
used in the downtown area. See, Record p. 233 - 249. Most historic pole lighting in the
downtown is 10 to 12 feet tall. Applicant has incorporated the historic lighting standard and
fixture within the project area as depicted on Drawing Sheets AL1.0and AL1.1 at Record p.
213 and 214 and based thereupon. the City Council concludes that the project includes
adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians and that the light standards are not greater than
14 feet in height along pedestrian path ways consistent with the requirements of Criterion
19.10 See, Section VI.
structure, the cars will be all but invisible because the openings in the parking structure will be covered by
screening vines.
10 As noted for olber criteria which prolnbits site lighting from shining directly upon nearby residential lands,
the historic lighting fixture bas sufficiently low IUIJlCIlS such that any light that shines upon adjacent residential
property produces adverse impacts that are de minims. However, applicant has agreed to stipulate, if DCCeSSary
to comply with the standards of the City, that it will agree to use more convcntionallighting that is capable of
being shrouded to prevent the escape of direct light from the subject property,
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of L_
Page 34
Planning ActIon 2000~74
City of Ashland, Oregon
...........................
Criterion 20
I1-C.21) BUldIq Materials
I) Buildings shall include cbangefi in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, fluted masonry, for at least 15% of the
exterior wall area.
2) Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention 10 the building or use are prohibited. Buildings may
not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin.
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding # 1 and based upon Drawing Sheets AJ.I and AJ.2 at Record p. 198 and 199,
changes in relief are represented, on average, over 28 percent of the total wall area. The
building design incorporates precast copings, watertables, and vertical reveals in the
masonry wall which differentiate the lower/entry level of the building from the upper
stories. Furthermore, a change in the texture of a single course of brick from smooth to
rough defines continuous, horizontal bands which occur vertically every 4 feet.
Fenestration, carefully crafted wood panels and steel and wood screens enclose the lobby
volume.
· Regarding #2 above, and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and AJ.2 at Record p. 198
and 199, there are no bright or neon paint colors used on the proposed building and glass
has not been incorporated as a majority of the building skin.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 20.
...........................
Criterion 21
1I-C-3. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR LARGE SCALE PROJECTS
Developmenla (I) involving a groas floor area in exeess 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 to the standards for Basic and Detail
Site Review, shall conform to the following standards:
1I-C-3.) OrIolIotatloa aad Scale
I) Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating
changes in building mass or direction, shelll:ring 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 10 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or
length.
_._---_.__.~----_.~_.~--_.
Findings of Fact and Conclusion. of Law
Page 35
Planning Action 2000..074
City of Ashland, Oregon
3) Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance C(juallO the height of the tallest building.
Ifbuildings are more than 24Q feet In length, the separation shall he 60 feel.
4) All on-site citculation systems shall incorporate a slreetscape which includes curbs, sidewalks, pedestrian scale light
standards, and street trees.
ConelusloDS of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding #1 above and based upon Drawing Sheets Al.O through A4.7 and AP2.1
through AP3.2 (Record p. 192 - 206 and 207 - 211) the proposed building has been
divided into different heights and sizes which the City Council concludes relates
appropriately to human scale. The features from above # I which have been incorporated
into the building include changes in building mass and direction, sheltering roofs, a
distinct pattern of divisions on wall surfaces, windows, trees, and lighting that the City
Council concludes to be of a small scale. The mass of the theatre block has been eroded
where possible resulting in changes in the height of the exterior wall and setbacks or
offsets along the wall. A sloped roof on the theatre block, rather than a flat roof, reduces
its overall height, and the use of two veneer materials, brick and groWld faced block,
further divide the building mass. Display cases and benches sheltered by a continuous
canopy relate to the human scale and have been incorporated into the north elevation. A
garden area of benches shaded by a grove of trees relate to pedestrians walking along
Hargadine Street. Furthermore, the height and mass of the lobby volume, which greets
the patrons, is much lower and smaller than that of the theatre block volume. The City
Council interprets the above #1 to require only that one or more of the building features
be incorporated to achieve a relationship to the human scale. In this instance, the
applicant has incorporated all of the recommended features.
· Regarding #2 above and based upon Drawing Sheet Al.O at Record p. 192, the proposed
building has a gross floor area square footage less than 45,000 and a contiguous length of
less than 300 feet. During the proceeding some opponents argued that the parking
structure is 46,800 square feet in gross floor area and thus violates ALUa 18.72.050(C)
and Ashland Site Design and Use Standards (ASDUS) II-C-3-a-2 which both provide in
pertinent part:
No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildmgs shall exceed a gross square footage of 4$,000 square feet
or a combined contiguous huilding length of 300 feet.
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 (I) involving a gross floor area in excess of
10,000 square feet . . ." Emphasis added.) The City COWlcil 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
Findings of Fact and Conclueione of Law
Page 38
Planning Action 2000-474
City of Ashland, Oregon
--~~-----~--_. --_._------~---~--_..~-
square footage of the building and tbUl\d 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 ALVa 18,72,050(C) or
ASDVS II-C-3-a-2, As to whether the proposed buildings exceed a length of 300 feet in
violation of the same provisions, the City Council concludes that conditions it has placed
on these approvals require the buildings to be separated and for the parking structure to
have a "fire wall" sufficient to meeting building codes for the wall of the parking
structure that faces the theatre. The City Council concludes that the condition ensures
that the buildings will not be connected and will not, therefore, violate provisions of
ALUa 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2 that prohibit building or contiguous groups
of buildings from exceeding 300 feet in length. The City Council also concludes that the
subject buildings are not a contiguous groups of buildings because they are not
contiguous. During the proceeding, there was some recognized ambiguity regarding the
meaning of the term contiguous and the City Council construes contiguous to mean
touching. If the parking structure and theatre do not touch, they are not contiguous and
do not violate ALVa 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2 and the City Council
concludes that they do not. Moreover, based upon conditions the Council has attached to
this approval, the theatre building and parking structure cannot touch one another.
· Regarding #3 above, the applicant has requested and the City Council grants an
exception from these provisions of Criterion 21 and the same is documented as a part of
Criterion 50. Based upon the exception taken under Criterion 50, the City C.ouncil
concludes that the application is consistent with #3 above.
· Regarding #4 above, the applicant has requested and the City Council grants an
exception from these provisions of Criterion 21 and the same is documented as a part of
Criterion 50. Based upon the exception taken under Criterion 50, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with #4 above.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, including the
exceptions taken for #'s 3 and 4 above, the City Council concludes that the application is
consistent with the requirements of Criterion 21.
...........................
Criterton 22
1I-C-3b) PubU. Spaces
I) One square foot of plaza or public space shall be required for every 10 square teel of gross !loor area.
2) A plaza or public space shall incorponue at least 4 of the 6 following elements:
Findings of Fact IIfld Conclusion. of Law
Page 37
P1.nnlng Action 2000-074
City of Ashland, Oregon
a) Slttmg Space - at least one sitting space for each SOO square feet shall be included in the plaza. Seatmg shall be a
minimum of 16 inches in height and 30 inches in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum depth of 30 inches.
b) A nuxture of areas that provide both sunlight and shade.
c) Protection from wind by screens and buildings.
d) Trees. provided in proportion to the space at . nunimum of I tree per 800 square feet, at leasi 2 inches in
diameter at breast height.
e) Waler features or public art
t) Outdoor eating areas or food vendors.
Conclusions of Law: The City COWlcil concludes as folIows:
· Regarding #1 above, based upon Drawing Sheets LO.2, U.O and U.l at Record p. 181,
183 and 184, there is a greater than one square foot of plaza for each 10 square feet of
gross floor area.
· Regarding #2(a) above, there are 9,500 square feet (16% of the site) within the plaza area.
Based thereupon, there is a requirement for one seat per each 500 square feet - 19 seats.
Based upon Drawing Sheet U.O at Record p. 183, there are 200 lineal feet of bench
seating which, assuming a bench length of 2.5 feet per seat, equates to 80 seats. All the
ledge benches are 24 inches deep and back up to planters. The planters preclude any back
to back seating which perhaps reduces the depth required for comfortable seating. Based
upon the evidence, there are significantly more than the required 19 seats.
· Regarding #2(b) and based upon Drawing Sheets L2.0 and L2.1 at Record p. 183 and
184, plaza/courtyard areas occur on the north, west and southwest of the building
providing a mixture of sun and shade. CarefulIy placed trees and canopies further vary
the exposures,
· Regarding #2(c) and based upon Drawing Sheets U.O and L2.1 at Record p. 183 and
184, the theatre building and Carpenter Hall protect patrons on the lower and upper
plaza/courtyards from prevailing winds.
· Regarding #2(d) above, there are 9,500 square feet (16% of the site) within the plaza
area. Based thereupon, there is a requirement for 12 trees within the plaza. Based upon
the plan at Record p. 253 and 254 and Drawing Sheet U.O at Record p. 183, there are
more than 12 trees within and adjacent to the plaza. The City CoWlcil interprets the
ordinance to include trees that are adjacent to the plaza as in the numbers of trees within
the plaza for the purpose of #2(d) above. The applicant has agreed to stipulate that the
trees will be 2-inches diameter at breast height. See, Section VI.
· Regarding #2(e) above there is no water feature or public art intended for the plaza area
although the same may be added in the future.
Flndlnp of Filet and Conc/ualona of Law
P.38
Planning AcUon 2000~74
City of Ashland. Oregon
-_._._---_._._._--_.~.~-------
· Regarding #2(f) above, there are no outdoor eating areas or food vendors intended for the
plaza area.
· During the proceedings, some opponents argued that an insufficient number of trees have
been proposed in the public areas of the property because applicant has misinterpreted the
ordinance. While the objecting opponents did not identifY the criterion under which they
object, it appears that they refer to Ashland Site Design and Use Standards II-C-3b,
applicable portions of which require a plaza or public space that (among other
alternatives) incorporate trees that are provided in proportion to the space at a minimum
of I tree per 800 square feet, at least 2 inches in diameter at breast height. The plaza
(courtyard) area is delineated at Record p. 253 and 254 as an area having 9,500 square
feet, which requires 12 trees (at the rate of 1 per each 800 square feet). However, the
standard provides that, "a plaza or public space sha11 incorporate" trees in the required
amount. While there are fewer than 12 trees within the plaza/courtyard, it is not the only
area that should be considered a "public space" under the above Criterion 22. The
criterion relates to plaza or public space, not exclusively plaza spaces. All portions of the
property which are not occupied by buildings, including the hardscape and living
landscape areas, can and should be properly regarded as "public areas" and the City
Council concludes that this standard has been fully satisfied. While some opponents
testified that the applicant's calculations depended upon use of the parking structure's top
deck as plaza, the Council concludes that is not the case. While areas for the various site
features are sometimes difficult to discern, in this instance, the various areas are clearly
depicted at Record p. 253 and 254 and in the Findings of Fact. (See, Findings of Fact,
Section VI.2 and Table 3)
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 22 because
it is consistent with four or more of the six factors listed in #2 above. These are 2(a)
through 2( d) inclusive.
...........................
Criterion 23
n-C-3c) Truitt A_Ida
Transit amenities, bus sheltcn, pullouts and designated bike lanes shall be required in accordance with tile City's
Tmnspor1ation Plan and guidelines established by the Rogue Valley l'ransportation District.
Conclusions of Law: No transit amenities, bus shelters or pullouts are planned for the
subject property or its frontage upon either South Pioneer Street or Hargadine Street.
However, applicant has participated in ongoing planning with the City of Ashland relative to
the best location for transit facilities. Applicant and the City have agreed that the best
location for transit facilities, including amenities. bus shelters and pullouts, will be at a
nearby location but which is not within the boundaries of the subject property or its street
frontages. Applicant and the City have also agreed that pedestrian congestion in the vicinity
of applicant's existing theatre and additional pedestrian activity that will be added across
Rndlng. of Fact and Conc;'ualona of lAw
pag_ 38
Planning Aetlon 2000-414
City 01 Ashland, Oregon
- ------.------ -----~_._~,.~---~------- ~._--------
South Pioneer Street if and when the hew theatre is built, makes transit facilities in the
immediate vicinity of the subject property impractical and undesirable. The City Council
concludes that no guidelines established by the Rogue VaHey Transportation District
recommend that transit amenities, bus shelters or pullouts be located along the frontage of
the subject propet1y.
Some opponents argued that the ordinance requires transit amenities, bus shelters, pullouts
and designated bike lanes which applicant admitted had not been provided. Opponents
misinterpret Criterion 23 by disregarding the fact that the requirement is to be, "in
accordance with the City's Transportation Plan and guidelines established by the Rogue
Valley Transportation District". As explained under Criterion 23, there are no transit
amenities, bus shelters or pullouts planned (by the City) for the subject property or its
frontage upon either South Pioneer Street or Hargadine Street. However, applicant has
participated in ongoing planning with the City of Ashland relative to the best location for
transit facilities. Applicant and the City have agreed that the best location for transit
facilities, including amenities, bus shelters and pullouts, will be at a nearby location but
which is not within the boundaries of the subject property or its street frontages. Applicant
and the City agree that pedestrian congestion in the vicinity of applicant's existing theatre
and additional pedestrian activity that will be added across South Pioneer Street if and when
the new theatre is built, makes transit facilities in the immediate vicinity of the subject
property impractical and undesirable. Moreover, there are no guidelines established by the
Rogue Valley Transportation District which recommend that transit amenities, bus shelters
or pullouts be located along the frontage of the subject property.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 23.
...........................
Criterion U
UOOC-3d) Recydtul
I) Recycling areas shall be provided at all developments.
Concluslolls of Law: A description of applicant's recycling practices is contained in the
findings of fact. The City Council concludes that applicant's remote recycling center is
consistent with the intent and requirements of Criterion 24 because recyclable materials will
be collected on-site before being transported to the recycling center for final disposition. In
reaching this conclusion, the City Council finds that the intent of Criterion 24 is to encourage
recycling by requiring recycling areas for developments. Applicant's central recycling
facility is consistent with this intent.
...........................
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 40
Planning ActIon 2000~7"
City Of Ashland. Oregon
---~--~~~- -_.~---~-- ---~-~--
Criterion 25
II-D. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STANDARDS
Approval Standard: All parking lots, which for purposes of this section include areas of vehicle maneuvering, parking. and
loading, shall be landscaped and screened as follows:
1I-D-1) Screening at Required V'"
J) Parking abutting a required landscaped front or exterior yard shall incorporate a sight obscuring hedge screen into the
required landscaped yard.
2) The screen shall grow to be at least 36 !Dches higher than the finished grade of the parking area, except for required
vision clearance areas.
3) The screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and plant materials.
4) Elevated parlcing lots sball screen both the parking and the retaining wall.
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
.
Regarding the above provisions that relate to parking lots, the City Council, consistent
with its interpretation under Criterion 18, concludes that the teon parking lot is undefined
and ambiguous in its meaning. The City Council interprets the term parking lot not to
include paIking structures. The City's standards for parking lots are clearly designed to
mitigate the impact of surface parking lots, with the assumption of ample areas for
planting, and that there will be soil below the surface for planting. Parking structures are
truly constructed buildings, and not surface paIkillg lots. Therefore, the City Council
concludes that the above provisions of Criterion 25 that relate to parking lots is
inapplicable because a parking structure is not a parking lot and there is no other off-
street parking proposed to be located upon the subject property.
.
Regarding #'s I and 4 above and based upon Drawing Sheet LA. I at Record p. 188, the
City Council also concludes that the pading structure adjoins a front or exterior yard only
along Hargadine Street where the structure is screened by hedge shrobs.
.
Regarding #2 above and based upon the letter from applicant's expert landscape architect
at Record p. 220 - 222, the bedge shrubs that screen the parking structure along
Hargadine Street, will attain a height of 36 inches and can and will be maintained at 36
inches or greater (except as needed to meet the City's clear vision at intersections
standard).
.
Regarding #3 above, no earth mounding is proposed and none is required by the
standard.
.
During the proceedings, some opponents argued that the term "screened" cannot be
interpreted simply to require intervening vegetation between the "parking lot" and lands
which are residentially zoned. Applicant argued and the City Council concurs that
according to Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged) 2nd Ed.., screen
Flndlng8 of Fact 8nd Conclusions of L..w
Pege 41
PI8nnlng ActIon 2000-074
Clty of Ashland, Oregon
----..----------....---.-------.- --_...-.~.._-
or screened means: "to separate or cut off from view, or to shelter or protect, with or as
with a screen." Opponents urged an absolute interpretation that requires screening
sufficient to make a parking lot (including, in this instance a parking structure) all but
invisible. The City has consistently not interpreted its ordinance in this manner and no
examples exist in the community of parking lots which are or nearly are invisible. The
term screen is commonly interpreted and administered in land use ordinances in less
absolute terms. In this instance, the parking lot or area - that is, parked vehicles - will
be screened by more than simply the vegetation which exists along the parking structures
frontage (in the abutting planter). The parking structure itself will screen parked vehicles.
Moreover, planned vegetation will be trained on the walls and rails of the parking
structure. The trailing vegetation will cover the walls of the structure and trail over the
wall openings. 11 On the upper level of the parking structure, there are planters on each
comer of the structure that will have trees and vegetation planned in accordance with the
landscape plans (Record p. 180 - 191). There will also be hedge planting within a planter
strip lying between the front wall of the parking stnlcture and the sidewalk and trees and
vegetation along the planter strip that lies between the street/curb and sidewalk.
Moreover, the Planning Commission and the City Council have required as a condition
that there be interior planting within the parking structure. (See, Section vn. These
features will make the parked vehicles within the interior of the parking structure all but
invisible from nearby lands that are residentially zoned. However, Ashland is a
community of diverse and steep topography and view of the upper deck of the parking
structure (and any other parking area in Ashland) will be visible from vantage points
above it. Some opponents argued that the screening standard should be applied in ways
that would make parked vehicles on the upper deck invisible from vertical vantage points.
On this, the City Council concludes that while there is substantial screening vegetation
that will obscure the view of the upper deck (including screening not proposed by
applicant but required by conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and City
Council) it is impractical to require parking to be screened from vertical vantage points
and the City has never made this a requirement of any parking area and it declines to do
so in this instance.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 25.
...........................
11 Applicant's representatives exp14incd dining the Plamling Commission public hearing on July 11, 2000 that
vines in planters located along the top of the parlcing structure waIls will trail down to provide virtually
complete screening. A colored arcbi~l elevation of the parking structure entered into evidence the night of
the Planning Commission public hearing, illustrates applicant's screening concept and while the drawing does
not illustrate vines covering openings on the waIls of the parking structure, it was explained that the trailing
vegetation would, in fact, cover the openings and provide a vegetative screen. From outside the parki11g
structure, the cars will be all but invisible because the openings in the parking structure will be covered by
screening vines.
-----------------.- "--~---_._-.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law
Page 42
Planning Action 2000~74
City of Ashland, Oregon
- -~-~-"...-----_.~
Criterion 28
11-0-2) ScreeDiDg Abulting Property Lt."
Parking abutting a property line shall be screened by a 5' landscaped strip. Where a buffer between zones is required, the
screening sball be incorporated into the required buffer strip, and will nOI be an additional requirement.
Conclusions of Law: The parking structure adjoins the south property line of the subject
property along Hargadine Street. Along the Hargadine frontage, applicant has proposed a
hedge planting strip 3 feet in width and planters in the southwest and southeast comers of the
top deck of the parking structure which measure approximately 18 feet square. There are
also street trees which intervene between the curb line and parking structure. The City
Council concludes that the combined planting is equivalent (in area) to and greater than a
single strip that is 5 feet wide because the combination of planting areas will provide for a
36-inch tall hedge, mass plantings and trees that will separate the parking structure from the
street to which it is adjacent. While the planter strip could be increased in width to 5 feet, the
increase would undesirably cause the loss ofthe entire row of parking (6 stalls) which adjoin
the south wall of the parking structure. Moreover, the City Council concludes that in this
instance, that parking does not abut the property line; the parking structure abuts the property
line and it has been appropriately screened in the ways above described.
During the proceedings, some opponents argued that the term "screened" cannot be
interpreted to simply require intervening vegetation between the "parking lot" and lands
which are residentially zoned. Applicant argued and the City Council concurs that according
to Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged) 2nd Ed., screen or screened
means: "to separate or cut off from view, or to shelter or protect, with or as with a screen."
Opponents urged an absolute interpretation that requires screening sufficient to make a
parking lot (including, in this instance a parking structure) all but invisible. The City has
consistently not interpreted its ordinance in this manner and no examples exist in the
community of parking lots which are or nearly are invisible. The term screen is commonly
interpreted and administered in land use ordinances in less absolute terms. In this instance,
the parking lot or area - that is, parked vehicles - will be screened by more than simply the
vegetation which exists along the parking structures frontage (in the abutting planter). The
parking structure itself will screen parked vehicles. Moreover, planned vegetation will be
trained on the walls and rails of the parking structure. The trailing vegetation will cover the
walls of the structure and trail over the wall openings,I2 On the upper level of the parking
structure, there are planters on each comer of the structure that will have trees and vegetation
12 Applicant's representatives explained during the Planning Conunission public bearing on July II, 2000 that
vines in planters located along the top of the parking SUUClUJe waDs will trail down to providt virtually
col1lplete screening. A colored architectural elevation of lbe parldng struc1ure entered into evidence lbe night of
the Planning Commission public hearing, illustrates applicaut's screening concept and while the drawing does
not illustrate vines covering openings on the walls of the parking structure, it was explained that the trailing
vegetation would, in fact, cover the openings and provide a vegetative sc=. From outside the parking
structure, the cars will be all but invisible because the openings in the parking structure will be covered by
screening vines.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Uw
Page 43
Planning ActIon 2~74
City 01 Ashland. Oregon
planned in accordance with the landscape plans (Record p. 180 - 191). There will also be
hedge planting within a planter strip lying between the front wall of the parking structure and
the sidewalk and trees and vegetation along the planter strip that lies between the street/curb
and sidewalk. Moreover, the Planning Commission and the City Council have required as a
condition that there be interior planting within the parking structure. (See, Section VI).
These features will make the parked vehicles within the interior of the parking structure all
but invisible from nearby lands that are residentially zoned. However, Ashland is a
community of diverse and steep topography and view of the upper deck of the parking
structure (and any other parking area in Ashland) will be visible from vantage points above it.
Some opponents argued that the screening standard should be applied in ways that would
make parked vehicles on the upper deck invisible from vertical vantage points. On this, the
City Council concludes that while there is substantial screening vegetation that will obscure
the view of the upper deck (including screening not proposed by applicant but required by
conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and City Council) it is impractical to
require parking to be screened from vertical vantage points and the City has never made this
a requirement of any parking area and it declines to do so in this instance.
...........................
Criterion 27
I1-D-3) Laadtupe Standards
I) Parlcing lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 7% of the total parking area plus a ratio of I tree for eal;h seven
parking spaces to create a canopy effect.
2) The tree species shall be 111 appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be selected from the street tree list to avoid
root damage to pavement and utilities, and damage from droppings 10 parked can and pedestrians.
3) The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least 2 feet from any curb or paved area.
4) The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and/or living ground cover to assure 50-/. coverage within I year and
90% within 5 yeara.
5) Landscaped aras shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area and parking perimeter at the required ratio.
6) That portion of a required JandscapecI yard, buffer strip or screening strip abutting parlcing stalls may be counted
loward required parking lot landacaping but only for those stalls abutting landscaping as long as the tree species, living
plant material coverage and placement distribution criteria are also met. Front or exterior yard landscaping may not be
substituted for the interior landJcaping required for interior parking stalls.
CODclusioDS of Law: The applicant has requested and the City Council grants an exception
from the same, as documented as a part of Criterion 50. Based upon the exception taken
under Criterion 50, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with
Criterion 27.
...........................
Findings of FllC;t and ConclU8lons of Law
Page 44
Planning AcUon 2000.074
City of Ashland. Oregon
--------~._..~-"---_._- -- ~-- .__.~_.. ----~--~
Criterion 28
0-0-4) ResldeadaJ ScreealDg
I ) Parking areas adjacent to residential dwellings shall be set back at least 8 feet from the building, and shall prn\~de a
continuous hedge screen.
CODclusioDs of Law: Consistent with its interpretation of the term "adjacent" under
Criterion 18, the City Council interprets the term "adjacent" with respect to "residential
dwellings" to mean a lot or parcel (which is occupied by a residential dwelling) that is
touching the subject property. Based upon the site photographs and aerial photograph at
Record p. 226 - 229 and 251, there are no residential dwellings which are located adjacent to
the subject property. Therefore, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent
with the requirements of Criterion 28.
.*.........................
Criterion 29
1I-))..5} Redee ScreeoIDI
The required hedge screen shall be installed as fullows;
I) Evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that 50% of the desired screening is achieved within 2 years, 100% within 4
years.
2) Living groundcover in the screen strip shall be planted such that 100% coverage is achieved within 2 years.
Conclusions of Law: Criterion 29 relates to the hedge required in Criterion 28 to screen
parking areas when these are located adjacent to a residential dwelling. As concluded in
Criterion 28, there are no residential dwellings which are adjacent to the subject property.
Therefore, no hedge or other screening is required pursuant to Criterion 28 or 29, and
Criterion 29 is deemed to be inapplicable. Therefore, the City Council concludes that the
application is consistent with Criterion 29.
...........................
Criterion 30
U-D-6) Otber Screealaa
I) Other screening and buffering shall be pro~ded as follows:
Refule COl1talDer SCl'ftD: Refuse containen or disposal areas shall be screened from view by placement of a solid
wood fence or masonry wall from five to eight feel in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the refuse
area
Service Corridor Screen; When adjacent to residential uses, commercial and industrial service corridors shall be
screened. Siting and design of such service areas shall reduce the adverse effectS of noise, odor and \~sual cluIler upon
adjacent residential uses.
Ll&ht and Glare Screen: ArlIficiallighting shall be so arranged and constructed as to not produce direct glare on
adjacent residential properties or streets.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law
Page 45
Planning ActIon 2000~74
City of Ashland, Oregon
- ---~-"----_.~----_.__._-- --~--~-._-_._-_.__._--
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding refuse container screening, there are no dumpsters planned or required on the
subject property. Based upon the findings of fact, refuse is hauled by applicant to its
remote recycling center. AU refuse containers, except those within the plaza area to
accommodate patrons, are internal to the theatre building and do not require screening
because the building serves as the screen.
· Although access to the theatre loading dock is provided off Hargadine Street, the loading
dock itself sits 60 feet back from the street and the opening into the theatre is another 20
feet back. Trees which are proposed between the theatre and Hargadine Street will
obscure the loading dock. Moreover, the City Council, consistent with its intelpretation
of the term "adjacent" under Criterion 18 and 28, interprets the tenn "adjacent" with
respect to "residential uses" to mean residential uses located on lot or parcel that is
touching the subject property. Based upon the site photographs and aerial photograph at
Record p. 226 -229 and 251, there are no residential uses on lots or parcels which touch
the subject property. Therefore, the City Council concludes that the application is
consistent with the requirements of service corridor screening under Criterion 30 because
the standard does not apply and if the standard does apply, the service corridor has been
screened and its siting and design will reduce any adverse effects of noise, odor and
visual clutter upon residential uses that are located nearby.
· Regarding light and glare screening, the City Council incorporates and adopts in findings
of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 19 and based thereupon and upon the lighting
information at Record p. 233 - 249 and Drawing Sheets ALt.O and AL1.I at Record p.
213 and 214, the City Council concludes that artificial lighting has been arranged and
constructed so as not to produce direct glare upon adjacent residential properties (which
there are none) or streets. In reaching this conclusion, the City Council construes the
term "adjacent" consistent with its interpretation under Criterion 18 and 28 and regarding
service corridor screens in this Criterion 30.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 30.
...........................
Criterion 31
D-E. STREET TREE STANDARDS
APPROV At STANDARD: All development fronting on public or private streets shall be required to plant street trees in
accordance with the following standards and chosen from the teCOl11IIICIIded list of street trees found in this section.
I1-E-I) Loeatloo for Street Trees
I ) Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk ellcepl in cases where there is a designated planting strip in the right-
of-way, or the sidewalk is greater than 9 feet wide. Street trees shall include inigation, root bsniers, and generally
conform to the standard established by the Department of Conununity Development.
._---_.__.~-~--~~~~_._.-
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 48
Planning Actton 2000.014
City of Ashland. Oregon
-~_.._--_._-_._._--_._---~_.-
Conclusions of Law: Based upon the photographs at Record p. 226 - 229, there are existing
street trees along both South Pioneer and Hargadine Streets which abut the subject property
and these are shown on the Survey and Topographic Map at Record p. 175. The trees are
located in cutouts within the concrete sidewalk adjacent to the curb line. No improvements
to either abutting street are proposed or required to support the development of the project.
The City Council concludes that for the existing street trees, the cutouts function as a
designated planting strip in the right-of-way under the meaning of Criterion 31. However,
new street trees intended to replace those lost to accommodate access into the property,
include the trees in the south courtyard between the theatre and Hargadine Street. The
Commission also believes (and it concludes) that while the existing street trees are believed
to lack irrigation, root barriers and in some ways may not conform to all standards
established by the Department of Community Development, the trees, as existing site
features, are not required to conform to the current standards expressed in Criterion 31.
.....**....................
Criterion 32
1I-E-2) Spaclac, P1aCCJllellt, and Pruning of Street Trees
All tree spacing may be made subject \I) special site conditions which may, for reasons such as safety, affect the decision.
Any such proposed special condition m,1I be subject to the Staff Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacmg,
and proning of street trees shall be as follows:
0) Street trees shall be placed al the rale of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with
variations to the spacing permitted lOr specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches.
b) Trees shall not be planted c10cer th8l125 feet from the curb line of intenections ol _ or alleys, and not closer than
10 leet from private driveways (measured al the beck edge of the sidewaIk), fire hydrants, Or utility poles.
c) Sb'eet trees shall not be planted closer than 20 fee( to light standards. Except for public safety, DO new light standard
location shall be positioned cloler than 10 feet \I) any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least
20 feet distant.
d) Trees shall not be planted clocer than 2-1/2 fee( from the fau olthe curb except at intersections ~ it shall be 5 feet
from the curb, in a curb return area.
e) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species arc 10 be chosen that will not interfere with those lines.
f) Trees m,1I not be planted within 2 leet ofaoy permanent hard surtiu:e paving or walkway. Sidewa11c cum in concrete
for b'ees shall be al least 10 square leet, however. larget' cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and
Wale.- into the root system and add to the health ol the tree. Space between the tree and such hard sur1ilce may be
covered by permeable non-permanent hard surfaces such .. grates, bricks on sand, or paver blocks.
g) Trees, as they grow, shall be plUtled to provide at least 8 feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12 feet above street
roadway surf"""".
h) Existing trees may be UliCd 86 street b'ces if d1ere will be no damage from the developmenl which will kill or weaken
the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation may be utilized 10 save existing street trees, subject 10 approval by
the Staff Advisor.
Conclusions of Law: The applicant has requested and the City Council grants an exception
from the provisions of (a) through (f) of Criterion 32 and the same is documented as a part of
Findings of Fact and Conclualona of Law
Paga 47
Planning Action 2000-074
City of Aahland, Ofegon
_._-~-------~._---------- ~-~.._-_._.~_._--
Criterion 50. The City Council concludes that (g) above is purely a maintenance issue that
can and will be observed. Regarding (h) above and based upon the letter from applicant's
expert landscape architect at Record p. 220 - 222 and its stipulation that has been
incorporated as an approval condition in Section VI, the City Council concludes that the
existing street trees that are intended to remain on the property frontage, will sustain little or
no damage from the development which will kill or weaken the trees which are located
within cutouts in the sidewalks fronting South Pioneer Street and Hargadine Street. Based
upon the exception taken under Criterion 50 for Criterion 9 and (a) through (f) of Criterion
32, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with both Criterion 9 and 32.
.....*.....................
Criterion 33
1I-E.3) ~t of Street Trees
Existing street IReS removed by development projects sball be replaced by the developer with those from the approved
street IRe list. The replllCemo:nt IReS sball be of size and species similar to the IReS that are approved by tbe Staff Advisor.
Conclusions of Law: Three existing street trees along Hargadine Street are proposed to be
removed as part of the project in order to allow drive access to the new parking. A grove of
19 trees has been added between the building and Hargadine Street and Criterion 32 (ll-E-2-
a) addresses the potential for conflict between regularly spaced street trees and driveway
approaches and provides relieve which, in this instance, the City Council concludes is
appropriate. The first row of six trees will function as street trees and serve as the
replacement trees for the ones to be removed. The City Council concludes that the planned
courtyard trees satisfY the requirement to replace street trees consistent with Criterion 33.
Moreover, applicant has agreed to stipulate to specifying trees within the courtyard and
adjacent to the sidewalk with trees from the approved street tree list and to make these of a
size and species similar to ones approved by the project's staff advisor. See, Section VL
...........................
City of Ashland. Oregon
-'~-_._~---_._--
Criterion 35
CIIY OF ASHLAND
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION ill
WATER CONSERVING LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES AND POLICIES
The City has established the following policies for use whenever water conserving landscaping is required by ordinanc.,. by
a condition of approval of a planning action, in consideration for a density bonus or other development incentive, or in
consideration for reduced systems development charges. These policies have the weight of law, and landscapes installed
and certified as Water conserving must be maintained according to these guidelines, or will be in violation of the Municipal
Code.
Genen! and Mbcellaneous
· The combined run or water areas (i.e. pools, ponds and fountains) shan be limited to 20% of the landscaped areas.
Turf litrntations do not apply to public parks, priVate common open space, required outdoor recreation areas, golf
courses, cemeteries and school recreation areas.
· A minimum of two inches of mulch (neither large nuggets nor tine hark may be used) shall be added in non-turf areas
to the soil surface after planting. Non-porous material shall nOl be placed under the mulch.
· All fountains shall be designed to recycle their water.
· Turf is restricted 10 slopes with Ies5 than 10010 grade.
CODc1usions of Law: Based upon Drawing Sheets LO.1 through L5.2 at Record p. 180.191,
the City Council concludes as follows:
· A small area of new turf is planned to be added to the existing turf area on the adjacent
Carpenter Hall site. Based upon the Site Survey and Topographic Map and Drawing
Sheet U.O at Record p. 180 and 187, this new turf area does not exceed a slope of to
percent. Based upon applicant's drawing plans at Record p. 173 - 214, no new water
areas are planned.
· The applicant has agreed to stipulate in Section VI, that not less than 2 inches of mulch
will be added in all non-turf landscaped areas after plant materials are installed. Based
thereupon, the City Council concludes that applicant can and will comply with the
mulching requirements of Criterion 36.
· There are no fountains proposed as part of the project.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 35.
...........................
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 49
Planning ActIon 2000-074
City of Ashland. Oregon
"----.--. -'--'-_._~-_._.~._---,-
Criterion 36
PI..es
.
At least 90% of plants in the non-turf areas are to be listed as drought tolerant in the Sunset Western Garden book, or
be smtilarly well-suited for this climate of region as determined by the Staff Advisor. Up to 10% of the plants may be
of a non-drougbt tolerant variety or species as long as they are grouped together and can be irrigated separately from
the drought tolerant plants.
.
No watering within the drip line of existing native oaks. pines and madrone trees is pennitted. except that a temporary
drip system may be installed for maximum of two years for the establishment of dry shade tolerant plants.
.
Screening hedges must be planned to attain 50% coverage after twO years.
.
Water conserving designs are not required to meet the standard of a 50% coverage within one year. However. they
must meet the coverage standard for p1antings of 90% after live years.
Conclusions of Law: Based upon Drawing Sheets LO.l through LS.2 at Record p. ]80 - ]9],
the City Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding drought tolerant species, based upon the letter from applicant's expert
landscape architect at Record p. 220 - 222, the City Council concludes that 90% of plants
in the non-turf areas are drought tolerant according to the descriptions of water
requirements in the Sunset Western Garden book and, based upon Drawing Sheets U.O
and lA.l at Record p. 187 and 188, the remaining 10010 of the plants which require
''regular water" are appropriately grouped together and call be irrigated separately from
the drought tolerant plants
· There are no existing native oaks, pines and madrone trees located upon the subject
property in areas which are intended to be newly landscaped or irrigated and none are
proposed as part of this project.
· Based upon the letter from applicant's expert landscape architect at Record p. 220 _ 222,
new screening hedges are of a type that with the installation and irrigation to be supplied
in accordance with the landscape plan, will attain 50% coverage after two years.
· Based upon the letter from applicant's expert landscape architect at Record p. 220.222,
water conserving designs will meet the 90% coverage standard after five years.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City COWlcil
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 36.
...........................
CriterIon 37
Irripdon
Irrigation system shall be designed so that overspray is minimized.
Finding. of Fact and Conclualona of Law
Page SO
Planning Action 2000-G74
Clty of Ashland, Oregon
.
For sprinkler irrigated areas, perimeter sprinklers musr be included in irrigation pattern,
.
Sprinkler heads with a precipitation rate of .85 inches per how- Or less shall be used on slopes exceeding 15'1. to
minimize runoff, or whOll slope exceeds 10% within 10 feet of hardscape,
.
Precipitation rates are to be matched for all irrigation heads for each circuit.
.
The same type of irrigation heads shall be used for each circuit.
.
Valves and circuits shaJl be separated based on water use.
.
Drip irrigation systems are required for trees unless within lawn areas,
.
Serviceable check valves (or pressure oompettsating ermlters for drip systems) are required where an elevation
differential greater than 20 feet exists On any circuit
.
Sprinkler head spacing shall be designed for head-to-head coverage,
.
The system shall be designed to minimize nmoff and overspray to non-irrigated areas.
.
All irrigation systems shall be equipped with a controller capable of dual or multiple programming. Controllers must
have multiple cycle start capacity and a flexible calendar program. Controllers must allow seven day or greater timing
cycles.
Conclusions or Law: The City Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact
and conclusions of law for Criterion 10. The City Council also concludes, based upon
Drawing Sheets LO.l through L5.2 at Record p. 180 - 191, that the proposed irrigation
system can and will comply with the standards of Criterion 38.
...........................
Criterion 38
r8J181npby
.
No D10Ie than So/" of landscaped area of any lot or project may be bcntts or raised beds higher than OIle foot unless
there is demonstrated need for sound or safely barrier.
.
All plantings on berms one foot or greater in height must be drought tolerant.
.
Only drip imgalion is allowed on berms mo~ than one foot in height.
If allowed, berms must be no taller than 1/6 of their width.
Conclusions or Law: Based upon Drawing Sheets LO.t through L5.2 at Record p. 180 -191,
the City Council concludes as follows:
No greater than 5% of the landscaped area is devoted to raised beds which are higher than
one foot. While some planters are used to acbieve changes in grade, these are not raised
beds as this term is used in Criterion 38.
· There are no berms proposed on any part of the subject property.
Findings of FIICt and Conclusions of Law
Page 51
Pllflnlng Action 2000.074
City of Ashland. Oregon
-------- --- ~-~._---- -- --_.__._^----~..._-----,-----
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 38.
..... ........ ... "'... ..,,*****
Criterion 39
Lnd.cape plan. are required tlaat IDc:lude, in addld811 to tbe ItaJadard plan requlnlllellts, the foilowillC:
.
The area irrigated (in square feet).
.
Precipitation rates for each valve circuit.
.
Montllfy irrigation schedule for the plant establishment period (6-12 months) and for tile first year thereafter.
.
A watering schedule for each circuit from tile plan must be posted inside tile corresponding controller.
.
A grading plan with sufficient contours so that slope may be measured.
.
For lots with less than SOOO square feet of landscaped area no grading plan is required.
Concluslolls of Law: The City Council concludes that grading and erosion control plans
have been submitted for the project as Drawing Sheets Cl.O and Cl.l at Record p. 176 and
177. As to the above standards in Criterion 38 which regard the irrigation system. the City
Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for
Criterion 10 and 37. Moreover, based upon Drawing Sheets LO.l through L5.2 at Record p.
180 -191, the proposed irrigation system complies with the standards of Criterion 39.
Therefore, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with Criterion 39.
...........................
Criterion 4(}
ern OF ASHLAND
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION VI
DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES
VI-A) Helpt
I) Building height shall vary from adj8CClltt buildings, Uling either "stepped" parapets or .Iightly diosimiJar ovetall height
to maintain the traditional "staggered" -.cape appeanmce. An exception to this standard would be buildings that
have a distinctive ver!ieaVfacade treatment that "visually" separates it from adjacenr buildingo. (Illustration:
Recommend I, S & 10. Avoid 3)
2) Multi-stOry de\'elopmellt i. encouraged in the downtown. (l11ustration: Retommend 1,5.6 & W)
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
.
Regarding #1 above, as evidenced by the aerial photograph at Record p. 251, the height
of the proposed building varies from that of buildings on adjacent parcels. There are no
buildings which are adjacent to those proposed in the application.
F1ndln~ of Fact and Conclualons of Law
Page 52
Planning Action 2000~74
City of Ashland. Oregon
-~------- ----- -_.._--.--~ -------- ~~
· Regarding #2 above and as evidenced by Drawing Sheets Al.D, A3.1 and A3.2 at Record
p. 192, 198 and 199, the development is of multi-story architecture.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 40.
.............*..~..........
Criterion 41
VI-B) Setback
I ) Except for arcades, alcoves, iIIId other recessed features. buildings shall maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or
pmpeny line (Illustration: Reconunend 2. 5 & 10). Areas having publieurility ca.'ieIt1ents or similar restricting
conditions shan be exempt from this standiard.
2) Ground level entries are eneOUl'8ged to be recessed from the public right-of-way to create a "sense of enlly" through
design or ~ ofmaterlals. (Illustration: Recommend 2. 5, 6 & 10; Avoid 3).
3) Recessed or projecting balconies, verandas or other useable space above the ground level on existing and new
buildings shall not be incorporaIed in a street facing elevation. (Illustration: Avoid 4 &; 7).
€onclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding # 1 above, the applicant has requested and the City Council grants an
exception from its provisions and the same is documented as a part of Criterion 50.
Based upon the exception taken under Criterion 50, the City Council concludes that the
application is consistent with #'s 1 above.
· Regarding #2 above and based upon Drawing Sheets A2.1 and A3.1 at Record p. 194 and
198, the City Council concludes that the covered trellis and canopies which shelter the
ground level public entries effectively recess the entries from the public right-of-way and
enhance the "sense of entry" to the building. The City Council also concludes that
because #2 merely encourages and does not require, that it does not function as a
mandatory approval criterion.
· Regarding #3 above, the City Council concludes, based upon Drawing Sheets A2.2 and
A3.1 at Record p. 195 and 198, that no recessed or projecting balconies, verandas or other
useable space above the ground level have been incorporated in any street facing
elevation of the new building. .
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 41.
.. .............................
Findings of Fact lInd Conclusions of Law
Page 53
Planning ActIon 2000-074
City of Ashland. Oregon
Criterion 42
V I-C) \\1dtb
I) The width of a building shall extend from side lot Ime to sIde lot line (Illustration: Recol11llklnd 5). An exception to
this standard would be an area specifically designed as plaza spau, courtyard spece, dining space or rear access for
pedestrian walkways.
2) Lots greater than SQ' in width shall respect the traditional width of buildings in the downtown area by incorporatilli: a
rhythmic division of the facade in the building's design. (Illustration: Reconunend 5 & 10; Avoid 3).
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding #1 above which requires a building to extend from side lot line to side lot line,
except under certain circumstances, the City Council concludes that the circumstances
present in this instance meet the requirements of the standard. Based upon Drawing
Sheets LO.2, L2.1 and L2.2 at Record p. 181, 184 and 185, the areas surrounding the
buildings (theatre and parking structure) include areas devoted to plaza and landscaped
courtyards (on the north and west sides of the building). The landscaped area located
south of the theatre, is integrated with pedestrian paths and seating and the City Council
interprets this area to be a plaza or courtyard.
· Also regarding #1 above and in regards to the service corridor which exists along the east
boundary of the property between the boundary and east wall of the parking structure, the
City Council concludes that while this service corridor is not design for pedestrians, it
can provide rear access to and for pedestrian walkways which exist along the north
boundary of the property.
· Regarding #2 above, and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198
and 199, the City Council concludes that while the subject property is greater than 80 feet
in width, the design of the project has respected the traditional width of buildings in the
downtown area because rhythmic divisions in the f~ade have been incorporated into the
building's design. The use of two veneer materials, brick and ground faced block, and the
use of vertical reveals in the masonry walls divide the facades and reveal proportions
consistent with historic buildings in downtown Ashland.
· During the proceedings, some opponents argued that the parking structure cannot be used
to meet the side lot line to side lot line standard for buildings. Opponents' objection is
unclear but appears that they are arguing that the parking structure is not a building. The
City Council concludes that the parking structure is a building as that term is defined at
ALUO 18.08.750 as follows:
Strueture ... bulldlnc. That which i. built or constructed; 11\ edifice or building of any kind or any piece of
work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner and which requires
location on, in, or above the ground or which is attached to something having a location on, in or above the
ground. StrUctUres eighteen (18) incbes in height or less are exempt from the side and rear yard requirements
md from half (1/2) the yard requirements for the front yard and side yard abUlting a public street. (Ord. 2380,
1986)
F1ndll1Sla of FlICt and Conclualona of Law
Page 54
Planning ActIon 2000-&74
i\--
Diy of Ashland. Oregon
City of Ashland, Oregon
--------,-~_. ~".-~------_._~-~-~--------
· Regarding #5 above and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and
199, the ground level entry doors are glass.
· Regarding #6 above the City Council interprets the term sidewalk to mean a public
sidewalk which is typically adjacent to a street and curb and, for most of downtown
Ashland, the public sidewalk is adjacent to downtown commercial buildings. The same
is not the case for this building. Based upon Drawing Sheet LO.l at Record p. 180, no
portion of the building is adjacent to any sidewalk and the City Council concludes that
the above #6 is inapplicable. The City Council also concludes, alternatively, based upon
Drawing Sheets A3.l, A3.2, A4.4, A4.5 and A4.6 at Record p. 198, 199 and 203 - 205,
that the walls of the proposed building incorporate features of design and materials of
construction that will be of interest to pedestrians. In further support, the City Council
herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion
15 and 20.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 43.
...........................
Criterion 44
VI-E) HerlzontaJ RIIytb_
I) Prominent horizootallines at similar levels along the streer's streetfront shall be maintained. (IIlUS1rlllion; Recommend
1,5,6" 10; Avoid 4" 8).
2) A clear \~sual divisIon shall be maintained between ground level floor and upper tloors. (Illustration: Reconmend I.
5, 6 " 10).
3) Buildings shall provide a foundation or bllSe, typicaUy from ground to the boUom of the lower window sills, with
changes in volume or material, in order to give the building a "_ of 1Itrength", (Illustration; Recorrmend I, S "
10; Avoid 4 & 8).
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding # I above, the City Council believes and concludes that the standard was
intended for buildings fronting Main Street and the plaza in Ashland's downtown core.
While the subject property is in the "downtown," it is not contiguous to a row of existing
buildings where a continuation of prominent storefront architecture is at issue. The City
COWlcil also concludes, alternatively, that the prominent horizontaIlines and proportions
of adjacent Carpenter Hall have been continued in the design of the proposed building.
Based thereupon, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with # I of
Criterion 44.
· Regarding #2 and based upon Drawing Sheets AJ.t, A3.2, A4.4, A4.5 and A4.6, the City
Council concludes that a clear visual division has been maintained between the ground
level floor and upper level floors by means of a continuous precast watertable occurring
at the main level floor which divides the ground level volume from upper levels.
Finding. of Fact and Conclusion. of Law
Page 56
Planning ActIon 2000-074
City of Ashland. Oregon
----..---------
Furthermore, a change of material, front masonry to wood and glass, at the main level
floor distinguishes the ground level lobby from the upper level lobby.
· Regarding #3 and based upon Drawing Sheet A3.1 at Record p. 198, the City Council
concludes that the building design incorporates a precast watertable at the elevation of the
main level floor.]] The watertable detail is designed and intended to complement the
wood trim on adjacent Carpenter Hall. The detail occurs at approximately the same
elevation on both buildings and in both cases serves to distinguish the base of the
building from the upper floors. The City Council concludes that the precast detail caps
the base of both buildings and provides a sense of strength for the new building in a way
that is consistent with #3 above.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 44.
...........................
Criterion 46
VI.F) VenicaI Rbytlll"
I) New construction or stOrefronl remodels shall reflect a vertical orientation. either through actual volumes or the UIe of
surface details 10 divide large walls, so as 10 reflect the underlying historic property lines. (ntustration: Recommend 5
& 6; Avoid 3).
2) Slorefront remolding or upper-story additions shall reflect lite tradilional slrllctural system of lite volume by matching
lite spacing and rhythm of historic openings and surflwe detailing. (mUS1nlion: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 & 9).
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding #1 above and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and
199, the City Council concludes that the proposed building reflects a vertical orientation
through the use of brick that has vertical and horizontal joints, windows that are taller
than they are wide, columns which support a canopy along the north elevation, roof
seams that run vertically and columns along the east elevation. The City Council deems
the elements which provide a vertical orientation are appropriate and sufficient to divide
the large walls of the structure. As to reflecting underlying historic property lines, the
City Council concludes that this matter is most important for traditional commercial
buildings which extend from property line to property line along Ashland's traditional
main street. In this instance, the building does not and is not required to extend across
the entire subject property.14 As such, the building's architecture cannot denote the
location of property lines.
13 The City Council understands the term "watenable" to mean a horizontal architectural detail strip.
\4 The standard at Vl-C (Criterion 42) which requires buildings to extend from side 101 line to side lot line
permits an exception for areas designed as plaza, courtyard or dining space or rear access for pedestrian
walkways. In this instance, areas between property lines and building walls are designed as plaza/coUrtyard
spaces or spaces which provide rear access for pedestrians.
FindingS of FlICt and Conclusions of Law
Page 57
Planning ActIon 2000-074
City of Ashland, Oregon
"- - ._--------------~----
· Regarding #2, the City Council concludes that. by its language, #2 applies exclusively to
storefront remodeling or upper-story additions; the proposed project is none of these,
· Therefore, based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City
Council concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 45.
$.........*................
Criterion 46
VI-G) Roef FOI"IDI
I) Sloped or residential style roof fonns III'e discouraged in the downtown area unless viIuaIly screened from the righl-of-
way by either a parapet or a false front The false front shall incorporate a well defmed cornice line or "cap" along all
primary elevations. (lIIustration: Recommend I, S & 10; Avoid 1).
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that while Criterion 46 discourages
sloped roof forms, it does not prohibit them. Based upon Drawing Sheets A2.4, A3.I and
A3.2 at Record p. 197 - 199, the adjacent Carpenter Hall has a sloped style roof that the
Commission finds appealing, and historic. The City Council finds that the sloped roof form
of the proposed theatre building is intended to be and is compatible with the roof form of
Carpenter Hall. The proposed roofing material of asphalt shingles matches the material used
on the Elizabethan Theatre. Moreover. the sloped roof on the theatre block, rather than a flat
roof, reduces its overall height. The sloped roof style of the proposed building is also
compatible with residential dwellings which are located nearby but not within the residential
area. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council concludes that the application is not
inconsistent with Criterion 46 because the City Council deems it not to be a mandatory
decisional criterion and, if applied, would produce an undesirable result given the roof form
of other nearby buildings in the surrounding area
During the proceedings, some opponents argued that the requirements of Criterion 46 were
impermissibly disregarded as not being a mandatory standard because it merely discourages
(but does not prohibit) residential style roof lines. Opponents asserted that it is a mandatory
standard. The City Council concludes that the standard is not mandatory because it is notCcouched in mandatory language. However, even if it is mandatory, the roof style of the
proposed theatre and parll:ing structure are not of a sloped, residential style. The only sloped
roof on either the theatre or parking structure occurs only over the central portion of the
theatre and serves to reduce the overall height of the building.
...........................
~.~------------
Findings of Fact and ConclusIons of Law
pageSS
Planning Action 2000-074
.
City of Ashland. Oregon
--~-- -...- ---._---~-
Criterion 47
VI-H) Materlab
I) Euenor building materials shall consist of traditional building materials found in the downtown area including block,
brick, painted wood, smoolh stucco, or natural Slone. (Illustration: A void 4 & 9).
2) In order to add visual '"teres!, bUildings are encouraged to incorporare complex "paneled" exrenors "ith colurms,
framed bays, tranl50ms and windows 10 create multiple surface levels. (lIIustrauon: Recommend t, 5 & 10; Avoid 7, g
&9).
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding #1 and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.l and A3.2 at Record p. 198 - 199, the
City Council concludes that the exterior building materials consist of brick, ground faced
concrete block, wood and glass. Brick, block and wood are listed as traditional building
materials found in downtown Ashland.
· Regarding #2 above and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at Record p. 198 _
199, the City Council concludes that the lobby volume of the proposed building
incorporates the layering and staggering of waIl panels to create multiple surface levels.
The panels are made of glass, solid wood and wood screens.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 47.
...........................
Criterion 48
VI-I Awablp, Marq'a_ or Similar l'edeltrla. SIIeIten
I) Awnings. 1tl3TtJuee& or sinilar pedestrian shelters shall be proportionate to the building and shall not obscure the
building's archilectUraI details. If mezzanine or transom windOWll exist, awning placement shalJ be placed below the
mezzanine or transom windows where feasible. (D1ustration: Reconmend 1,5,6 & .10; Avoid 4 &. 9).
2) Except for marquees - similar pedestrian shel~rs such as awnings shall be placed betwm1 pilasters. (Illustration:
Recomnend t &. 5; Avoid 9).
3) Storefronts with prominenl horizonlBllines at similar level. along the street's streetftont sball be maintained by their
respective sidewalk coverinSs. (Illustration: Recommend 5; Avoid 8).
Conclusions of Law: Based upon applicant's plans and drawings at Record p. 173 - 214, the
City Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding #1 and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3,2 at Record p. 198 and 199,
the City Council concludes that the covered trellis, meant to shelter patrons at the main
entrance, is in all respects proportionate to the building and does not obscure the
building's architectural details. It highlights the entrance. The proposed building has no
awnings or mezzanine.
findings of Fact and Conclusione of Law
Page 59
Planning ActIon 2000-074
City of Ashland, Oregon
'_.-----~._~----~---~_._------
.
Regarding #2 above, and based upon Drawing Sheets AJ.l and A3.2 Record p. 198 and
199. the City Council concludes that the proposed theatre has no pilasters.
.
Regarding #3 above, the proposed building does not have a "storefront". However, as
depicted on Drawing Sheets AJ.l and AJ.2 at Record p. 198 and 199, the horizontal
lines of the nearby historic Carpenter Hall have been maintained in the proposed
building. There are no "sidewalk coverings" to be maintained.
.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 48.
...........................
Criterion 49
VI-J) Qt_
I) Non-street or alley facing elevations are less significant than street facing elevations. Rear and sidewalls of buildings
shall therefore be fairly simple, i.e., wood, block, brick. stucco, cast 8lOne, masonry clad, with or without windows.
2) Visual integrity of the original building shall be maintained when altering or adding building elements. This shall
include such features as the vertical lines of columns, piers, the horizontal definition of spandrels and cornices, and
other primary structural and decorative elements. (Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4 & 9).
3) Restor.ttion, rehabilitation or remodeling projects shall incorporate, whenever possible, original design elements that
were previously removed, remodeled or covered over. (Illustration: Recommend 6; A void 4 & 9).
4) Parking 10ls adjacent 10 the pedestrian path are prohibiled. (Refer to Site Design and Use Standards, Section II-D, for
Parldng Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards.) An exception 10 this standard would be paths required for
handicapped accessibility.
5) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, surface details on sidewa1b, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticoes,
awnings, and sidewalk seating shall be provided where posaible and feasible.
6) Uses which are exclusively aulomotive such as service stalions, drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire stores are
discouraged in the dowDtown. The city sball use its diseretionary powers, such as Conditional Use Permit&, to deny
new uses. although improvements to existing facilities may be pennitted.
Conet.slons of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding #1 and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.1 and AJ.2 at Record p. 198 and 199,
the City Council concludes that the non-street elevations of the proposed building are
fairly simple and consist of brick and block, both of which are found in Ashland's
downtown.
· Regarding #2 above, the City Council interprets it to apply only to additions being made
to existing buildings and concludes the standard is inapplicable to new buildings where
no addition to an existing building (as in this instance) is being proposed.
· Regarding #3 above, the plain language of the standard clearly indicates its exclusive
application to "restoration, rehabilitation or remodeling projects". The proposed project
FInding. of Fact and Conelualona of L.w
Page 60
Planning Actlon 2000.074
City of Ashland, Oregon
is a new building that does not involve restoration, rehabilitation or remodeling.
Therefore, the City Council concludes that the standard is inapplicable.
· Regarding #4 and based upon Drawing Sheets A3.l and A3.2 at Record p. 198 and 199.
no parking lots are proposed adjacent to the primary pedestrian path along Main Street,
and a hedge separates the proposed parking from the Hargadine Street sidewalk. The
property is not adjacent to Main Street or the pedestrian path along it..
· Regarding #5 and based upon Drawing Sheets L2.0 and L2.1 at Record p. 183 and 184,
the City Council finds that pedestrian amenities appear to have been included wherever
possible. Trees, benches and exterior lighting are proposed on the north, west and south
sides of the building. A sidewalk extension on the east and west side of Pioneer Street
makes crossing the street safer for pedestrians and further connects the new outdoor
people areas to those which exist adjacent to the Elizabethan Theatre and Angus Bowmer
Theatre across South Pioneer Street.
· Regarding #6 above, the subject land use, a theatre, is found to nor be, by nature,
exclusively automotive as it is located in Ashland's downtown which is accessible by
pedestrians and bicyclists as well as by automobiles.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 49.
........................**.
Criterion 50
VI-K) Exc.ptMa to Studanll
An exceplion to the Downtown Design SlIndard. is not subject to the Variancc requirements of Section 18.100 of the
Ashland Municipal Code and may be granted with respect to the Downtown Design Standards if all of the following
circurnacances _ found to exist;
I) There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due 10 a unique or unusual aspect
of lhe site. an existing structure or proposed uae of the site;
2) There is demonstrable evidence that tbe alternative design accomplishes the purpose of the Downtown Design
Standards and Downtown Plan in a manner that is equal or superior to a project designed pursuant to this standard or
historical precedent. (Illustration: R~d m. ""The purpose of the Downtown Design Standards and Downtown
Plan is as follows;
I-
I
1M fJU#'POSe of the Downtuwn Design Standards is to respea Ih. areas unique herlfa~ a"d to enhll1lC4!
lhe appearance and livability of the aru as II develops and ckallges. Based upon cOllllllOn featul"es
found ill lhe dawn/oWll, the standards provide a fo_tion for prospective applicants, citizens, and
CO"....u"'/)! Ucisio" molters 10 dinct cho",e /" a p<n/llw and tang/ble w<9'. It Is "ot the intent of the
Design Slantkuds 10 freeze time alld haJJ progress or ~ricJ tUI individual property owner's creallvity,
bid rarker /0 guide ""'" aruJ relflOdekd proposals 10 be in collie.xt with lhelr ki.olorlc surrOlJJldings.
Personal choice should be and CdII be expressed withilllhe franutWOr4 of lhe SUlruJanis_
While many commtlnities across America are altempttllg 10 "creale" ar "re-create" tUI urban
downtown of Iheir awn, the DoWlJroMl Design Standards are all alIempl fa preserw what Asllland
alread}' has: a "main streel" histarical district wllh diverse individual buildings lhal collective!v creal,'
Finding. of Fact and Conc:lualona of Law
Page 61
Planning Ac:tIon 2OOO.(J74
City Qf Ashland. Oregon
.---- -----_._-_._---_.~ .._-"
an organIZed. coordlna/ed and ageless rhythm of buildings. As a colfec/i"" group. /,,~ do....n/own can
retain ils "s~"se of Piau ". ils economic base. ils history alld its citizen 's vision.
3) The exception requested is the minimum necessary lO alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown Design
Standards.
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that not all standards and criteria in the
Ashland Site Design and Use Standards must be met if one or more properly documented
exceptions are presented which substantiate compliance with each of the three standards in
Criterion 50 (for each exception that is sought). In point of fact, the City Council believes
that the purpose for exception process is to enable the approval of new buildings which
cannot and should not look like typical downtown buildings. The city's downtown design
standards were developed with an eye to typical Main Street buildings; not all buildings in
the downtown area and subject to its design standards are located on Main Street. This
applicant has requested exceptions from six of Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards (of
which there are approximately 150 embodied in 44 criteria) and these are addressed by the
City Council as follows:
Exception 1
Exception 1 regards the standards and criteria for Criterion 9 and 32 (involving street trees)
which states:
O.c-lb) Streeucape
One street tree chosen from the streel tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that portion of the developmenl
fronting the street
0-&-2) SpaelDl. P1aceml!llt, aJHI PraIllD& ef Street Trees
AlIlree spacing may be made-subjed to special site conditions which may, for reasons IIIICb as safety, affect the decision.
Any such proposed specia\ condition shall be subject to the Statf Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing,
and pruning of st:reet trees shall be as follows:
a) Street trees shall be p111l:ed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees shall be evenly 1Ip8Ced, with
variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limilalions, such as driveway approadles.
b) Trees shall not be planted close! than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and nof closer thlll
10 feet from private driveways (measured al the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles.
c) Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet 10 Iighllilandards. Excepl for public safety, no Dew light standard
location shall be positioned closer lItan 10 feet 10 any existing street Iree, and preferably such locations will be at least
20 feet distant.
d) Trees shall nol be p1anled c\oaer than 2-1/2 fee. from lite flCe of lite curb except at intersections where il shall be 5 feet
from the curb, in a curb relw1l area.
Conclusions of Law for Exception 1: The City Council concludes as follows with respect to
Exception 1 as the same applies to Criterion 9 and 32:
1. As shown on the Survey and Drawing Sheets LI.O, L2.0 and U.l at Record p. 175 and
182 - 184, there are existing trees of which the type and spacing are different from the
requirements defined by the provisions of Criterion 9 and (a) through (f) of Criterion 32.
Flndl~ of Fact pel Conc:lualona of Law
P.S2
Planning AGtIon 2000..074
Cdy at Ashland, Oregon
~ -~--._'----_.._------~
There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements related to the tree
standards because the standards would require the relocation of these existing desirable,
mature trees, The proposed project introduces new street trees where possible with
respect to the existing pattern of street trees and light standards along Pioneer Street and
Hargadine Street.
2. The unique and unusual aspect of the site is the fact that there are desirable mature trees
which now exist along the frontage of the subject property which the City Council and
community would not like to have removed in favor of immature trees which would
better meet present City requirements. The demonstrable difficulty related to the street
tree standards is the complexity and risk associated with the relocation of existing mature
trees.
3. Based upon the Survey and Drawing Sheets Ll.O, L2.0, L2.1, U.O and U.l at Record p.
175, 182 - 184, and 187 - 188. the City Council concludes that the existing street trees,
while conflicting with some standards, are more in context with the historic surroundings,
and as such, accomplish the purpose of Ashland's Downtown Design Standards and
Downtown Plan in a manner that is superior to the same if some or all existing mature
street trees were removed and replaced by correctly placed, albeit immature, trees.
4. Based upon the evidence, the City Council concludes that proposed exception is the
minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown Design
Standards.
5. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the proposed Exception J is consistent with the criteria for an exception to
the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards as these are enumerated as Criterion 50.
...........................
ExceptiOll 2
Exception 2 regards one of the standards for Criterion 11 and 27, which states:
II-C-ld) Parkilll
2. Parking areas shall be sbaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential IISeS and screened from nOD-
resi<lential uses.
U-1>-3) LaadKape StaDdarda
I) Parlc.ing lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 70/. of the total parking area plus a ratio of I tree for each seven
parking spaces to create a canopy el1'ect.
2) The tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be selected from the street tree list to avoid
root damage to pavement and utilities, and damage from droppings to perked cars and pedestrians.
3) The tree shal I be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is III least 2 feet from any curb or paved area.
~_._--_._._--"---~--
FIndings of FlICt and Conclusions of Law
Page 83
Planning Action 2000.074
City of Ashland. Orel/Oll
---- --.- ---------- --~. -------_._-~-
4) The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and/or living grnund cover to lISSure 50% coverage within I year and
9()"Io within 5 years.
5) Landscaped areas shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area and paroug perimeter at the required ratio.
6) That portion of a required landscaped yard, bu/fer strip or screening strip abutting parking stalls may be counted
toward required parking lot landscaping but only for those stalls abulling landscaping as long as tile Iree species, Iivmg
plant material coverage and placement distribution criteria are also met. Front or exterior yard landscapIng may not be
substituted for the interior landscaping required for interior parking stalls.
Conclusions or Law for Exception 2: The Planning Commission and City Council on
appeal has required applicant to supply landscaping on the top deck of the parking structure
and the same will be provided. However, in granting this exception the City Council intends
to only partially waive the landscaping requirements of Criterion 11 and 27 and in so doing,
the City Council concludes that landscaping required by conditions attached to the approval
(as set forth in Section Vn can and will be provided. Based thereupon, the City Council
further concludes as follows with respect to Exception 2 as the same applies to Criterion 11
and 27:
1. The proposed parking facility is a parking structure, not a parking area or parking lot.
Based upon Drawing Sheets AP2.1, AP3.1 and AP3.2 at Record p. 207,210 and 211, the
structure of the building is concrete with a perimeter guardrail of cable wires framed by
steel angles. Vines grow from planter strips along grade up concrete walls infilled
between the structural columns.
2. The demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the above standards
is related to the challenge of placing trees and other landscaping within the interior and
beneath any floor of the proposed parking structure. The parking structure design is
illustrated in Drawing Sheets AP2.1, AP2.2, AP2.3, AP3.l and AP3.2 at Record p. 207 _
211. This difficulty has been demonstrated by the expert evidence contained in a letter
from applicant's landscape architect at Record p. 220 - 222 which describes the difficulty
connected with placing trees and other landscaping on the interior of any floor within the
proposed parking structure because:
1. On lower floors, the overhead ceiling lacks sufficient clearance to accommodate
virtually any tree.
2. Also, on lower floors, there is dense shade. The lack of natural sunlight will prevent
trees from thriving or even surviving.
3. Trees and shrubs cannot reasonably grow where there is insufficient drainage. Even
on the top floor of the parking structure it would is demonstrably difficult to provide
adequate irrigation and drainage without extraordinary expense.
4. Extensive landscaping on the top level of the parking structme creates potential
maintenance problems, such as leaks.
Andl""s of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 64
PlanninG Actlon 2000.074
City of Ashland. Oregon
3. The City Council concludes that the demonstrable difficulty in meeting the parking area
landscaping standards is due to the proposed use of the site as a parking structure rather
than a parking lot. The City's standards simply have not appropriately anticipated the
potential for a parking structure and no applicant proposing a multi-level parking
structure should be unreasonably held to standards of landscaping which were designed
and intended for and relate specifically to, surface parking.
4. The proposed design includes landscaping along the Hargadine Street frontage and at the
southwest and southeast comers of the top level of the parking structure, where inigation
lines can be easily extended and drainage can be provided. Vines will grow up infilled
concrete walls from at grade planter strips along the north and east elevations.
I
5. Neither parking lots or parking structures are "historic". The issue of whether or not trees
are provided within the parking structure is not an issue of historic accuracy or
compatibility. During the proceedings, applicant argued that the lack of interior
landscaping in the parking structure will not appreciably threaten the downtown's sense
of place, its economic base, history or community vision while some opponents argued
'Int 'bese qualities would be adversely affected. Based upon landscaping proposed along
txlges of the parking structure, the City Council concludes that the lack of trees on the
mterior of the parking structure's lower floors, will not threaten (in any appreciable way)
the downtown's sense of place, its economic base, history or community vision. Instead,
the Structure will provide needed off-street parking to accommodate Ashland's
considerable and growing tourist trade in a way that is compatible with surrounding
structures, land uses and activities.
6. Even where oo~~i"'t" +l-,. Council also concludes that requiring extraordinary and
eX" ..ite landscaping required by Criterion 11 and 27, would
raised beds within the parking area. The number and area
Nlthin the parking structure would potentially violate other
..". ...; of the design standards that specifically limit the use of raised beds taller than
. 'Ot. Rais'{j beds over one foot would be required to support the root mass of trees
'IS 0" ~Tlrl "ariety needed to meet the requirements of the landscaping
epted.
7. ~ings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
Cui;;...., requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the
difficulty of meetlh6 .ut: vowntown Design Standards.
~Iring the proceedings, some opponents argued that the term "screened" cannot be
"'reted simply to require intervening vegetation between the "parking lof' and lands
ML -, ~esidentially zoned. Applicant argued and the City Council concurs that
8CCOru. ~ . T'"ebster 's New Twentieth Century' Dictionary (Unabridged) 2nd Ed., screen
or screened means: "to separate or cut off from view, or to shelter or protect, with or as
with a screen." Opponents urged an absolute interpretation that requires screening
sufficient to make a parking lot (including, in this instance a parking structure) aU but
Findlng8 of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 65
Planning Action 2000-474
City of Ashland. Oregon
-~_..__._--_._----_.__.~-~-_.- -
invisible. The City has consistently not interpreted its ordinance in this manner and no
examples exist in the community of parking lots which are or nearly are invisible. The
teon screen is commonly interpreted and administered in land use ordinances in less
absolute terms. In this instance, the parking lot or area - and by that we mean vehicles
that are parked - will be screened by more than simply the vegetation which exists along
the parking structures frontage (in the abutting planter). The parking structure itself will
screen parked vehicles. Moreover, planned vegetation will be trained on the waIls and
rails of the parking structure. The trailing vegetation will cover the walls of the structure
and trail over the wall openings. IS On the upper level of the parking structure, there are
planters on each comer of the structure that will have trees and vegetation planned in
accordance with the landscape plans (Record p. 180 - 191). There will also be hedge
planting within a planter strip lying between the front wall of the parking structure and
the sidewalk and trees and vegetation along the planter strip that lies between the
street/curb and sidewalk. Moreover, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
required as a condition that there be interior planting within the parking structure. (See,
Section VI). These features will make the parked vehicles within the interior of the
parking structure all but invisible from nearby lands that are residentially zoned.
However, Ashland is a community of diverse and steep topography and view of the upper
deck of the parking structure (and any other parking area in Ashland) will be visible from
vantage points above it. Some opponents argued that the screening standard should be
applied in ways that would make parked vehicles on the upper deck invisible from
vertical vantage points. On this, the City Council concludes that while there is substantial
screening vegetation that will obscure the view of the upper deck (including screening not
proposed by applicant but required by conditions imposed by the Planning Commission
and City Council) it is impractical to require parking to be screened from vertical vantage
points and the City has never made this a requirement of any parking area and it declines
to do so in this instance.
9. Based upon the foregoing fmdings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the proposed Exception 2 is consistent with the criteria for an exception to
the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards as these are enwnerated as Criterion 50.
...........................
Exceptio" J
Exception 3 regards the two of the standards for Criterion 17, which state:
IS Applicant's representatives explained during the Planning Commission public bearing on July II, 2000 that
vines in planters located along the top of the parking slnJcture walls wiU Irail down to provide virtually
complete screening. A colored architectural elevation of the parlcina structure entered into evidence tile night of
the Planning Commission public bearing, illlllttates applicant's screening concept and while the drawing does
not illlllttate vines covering openings on the walls of the perIcing structure, it was explained that the trailing
vegetation would, in fact, cover the openings and provide a vegetative screen. From outside the par\cing
structure, the cars will be all but invisible because the openings in the parking structure will be covered by
screening vines.
-_._---~._--
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Uw
Page 66
P1ann1nv ActIon 2000-474
!
!
L--__
I
!
City of Ashland. Oregon
City of Ashland. Oregon
..11....".........."" _....,.. *...... ....
Exception 4
Exception 4 regards two of the standards for Criterion 21, which state:
II-C -38) Orientatloa aDd Scale
3. Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the height of the tallest building.
[fbuildings are more Ihan 240 feet in length, the separation shall be 60 feet.
4. All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate a ~tscape which includes curbs. SIdewalks, pedestrian scale light
standards, and street Ireel;.
Conclusions of Law for Exceptio. 4: The City Council concludes as follows with respect to
Exception 4 as the same applies to Criterion 21 :
I. Regarding #3 above and based upon Drawing Sheet LO.l at Record p. 180, the City
COlUlcil finds that there exists a demonstrable difficulty in meeting #3 due to the
proposed use of the site as a theatre and fact that historic Carpenter Hall exists on
adjacent property. If made to comply with #3, the space available would be too small to
accommodate the theatre. If the theatre and parking structure were required to be
connected, it would eliminate some pedestrian access to the north plaza from Hargadine
Street. Moreover, connecting the theatre building to Carpenter Hall to avoid the building
separation would impermissibly impact Carpenter Hall as an important historic building.
2. Also regarding #3 above and based upon applicant's plans and drawings in Record p. 173
- 214, the City Council concludes that the proposed design accomplishes the purpose of
the Downtown Design Standards and Downtown Plan in a way that is superior from one
designed pursuant to the standard because:
· While most buildings in the downtown along Main Street and Siskiyou Boulevard
have common walls, those which are separated, frequently do not have separations in
accordance with the standard.
· The proposed design respects the unique heritage of historic Carpenter Hall by
creating appreciable setbacks from it, while enhancing the land around it with
landscaped plaza/courtyard areas that improve the appearance and livability of the
area and in so doing, strengthens its sense of place while enhancing the community's
economic base by facilitating one of its more important economic resources, the
. Oregon Shakespeare Festival. The festival is important to Ashland's recent its
history and to the community and its citizens as expressed in the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Based upon the evidence, the City Council concludes that the exception to #3 above, is
the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown Design
Standards.
FIndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 68
Planning ActIon 2000-074
City of Ashland. Oregon
~..- ~- -.--- ---- ---~--
4. Regarding #4 above, the City Council incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and
conclusions of law for Exceptions 2 and 3 as the same applies to exceptions related to the
provision of streetscape elements within the proposed parking structure (except for
pedestrian scale lighting which is provided for in applicant's plans.
5. Also regarding #4, the City Council finds and concludes that the required streetscape
elements are incorporated into applicant's plans for all accesses designed and intended
for pedestrians and these elements are demonstrated by Drawing Sheet L2.1 at Record p.
184.
6. With respect to the service corridor which exists along the east boundary of the subject
property, the City Council concludes that it has never applied the standard (#4 above) to
corridors designed and intended for service vehicles and it declines to do so in this
instance, especially as other routes for pedestrians (which observe the standards)
adequately serve the theatre complex. The City Council interprets the phrase "on-site
circulation system" as not including service corridors.
7. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the proposed Exception 4 is consistent with the criteria for an exception to
the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards as these are enumerated as Criterion 50.
8. Based upon the evidence, the City Council concludes that the requested exception to #4
above, is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown
Design Standards.
9. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the proposed Exception 4 is consistent with the criteria for an exception to
the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards as these are enumerated as Criterion 50.
...........................
Exceptio" 5
Exception 5 regards the one of the standards for Criterion 41, which states:
VI-B) Setback
I) Except for arcades. alcoves. and other recrssed features, buildings shall maintain a zero setback &om the sidewalk or
property line (mU8ttalion: Recorm1end 2, 5 & 10). Areas baving public utility easements or similar restricting
conditions shall be exetq)l from this standard.
Conclusions of Law for Exception 5: The City Council concludes as follows with respect to
Exception 5 as the same applies to Ctiterion 41 :
l. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements as they relate to
zero setbacks. Applicant's plans and drawings at Record p. 173 - 214 illustrate that the
New Theatre has been designed to complement adjacent buildings (particularly Cmpenter
Findings of Fact and Conclualona of L_
Pag.88
Planning ActIon 2000.07.
City of Ashland. Oregon
Hall), reduce the impact of the theatre and stage volume on the surrounding
neighborhood, and provide essential public gathering space for pre-and post-show
crowds.
2. The City Council believes that there simply must be space where people, after having
purchased tickets to performances, can gather while waiting to enter the theatre, and this
space must be of sufficient area to accommodate the numbers of people attending the
performances. If the only place for theatre-goers to assemble is on the sidewalk, the
crowds will preclude pedestrian use of the sidewalk and will impede people attempting to
cross South Pioneer Street. The ticket sales area is located on the plaza/courtyard across
Pioneer Street and adjacent to the Elizabethan and Angus Bowmer Theatres. Once
tickets are purchased, theatre patrons must cross South Pioneer Street and assemble in
front of the new theatre.
3. In addition. the largest volume of the theatre is located at the center of the block, set back
from the street, in order to diminish its impact. Plaza/courtyard and garden areas,
featuring planters, trees, benches, bike racks, water fountains and canopied protection
from the rain and sun, have been provided on three sides of the new building. The City
Council finds that these areas will engage the pedestrian and enhance the fabric and
people-friendly atmosphere of downtown Ashland.
4. If the building were to front Pioneer Street and Hargadine Street, it would crowd
Carpenter Hall. The proposed design retains garden, plaza/courtyard areas on all sides of
the historic building and provides outdoor rooms on the north, west and south side of the
new Theatre which serve both the function of the theatre and the activities of its
community and neighbors. Drawing Sheets LO.l, L2.0 and L2.1 at Record p. 180, 183
and 184, illustrate that the theatre building bas setbacks along Pioneer Street and
Hargadine Street that are similar to and compatible with the historical precedent
established on the property by Carpenter Hall. In the proposed design. the City Council
finds that the area's unique heritage, appearance and livability have been preserved and
enhanced, while retaining its "sense of place" and augmenting the community's economic
base. The Oregon Shakespeare Festival is one of Ashland's most important artistic and
economic resources and is important to both Ashland's recent history and to the
community and its citizens, as expressed in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
5. Based upon the evidence, the City Council concludes that the requested exception to #5
above, is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown
Design Standards.
6. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the proposed Exception 5 is consistent with the criteria for an exception to
the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards as these are enumerated as Criterion 50.
..***.................*....
Findings of FIICt and Concluaions of 1BW
Page 70
Pl8nnlng Action 20~74
City of Ashland, Oregon
Exception 6
Exception 6 regards one of the standards for Criterion 43, which states:
VI-D) Opeoinp
2) Ground level elevations facing a s"- shall maintain a consistent proportion of lransparency (i.e., windows)
compatible with the pattern found in the downtown area. (Illustration: Recommend I. S. 6 & 10).
Conclusions of Law for Exception 6: The City Council concludes as follows with respect to
Exception 7 as the same applies to Criterion 43:
I. The west and south elevations of the new Theatre face South Pioneer Street and
Hargadine Street, respectively. As illustrated on Drawing Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 at
Record p. 198 and 199, the materials on both elevations are brick, wood and glass.
2. The west elevation opens to the lobby and is very transparent. The transparency allows
patrons to see in and out of the lobby further cOlIDecting the New Theatre to the Festival
campus and the natural beauty of Ashland. The proportions of glazed openings and
carefully crafted wood screens are reminiscent of the openings in adjacent Carpenter HalL
The ground level entry doors to the New Theatre are glass and are emphasized by a
covered trellis.
3. The south elevation is primarily brick. The nature of the building as a theatre established
demonstrates the need for acoustic and light enclosure around the stage periphery,
resulting in a solid wall along the south elevation. In order to incorporate this, and in lieu
of adding additional building square footage and program space against the south wall,
the theatre was purposely set back from Hargadine Street, allowing for a garden of trees
and benches between the south facade and Hargadine Street. The garden area engages the
pedestrians and buffers the neighborhood from the theatre. The proportions of the south
wall have been carefully considered. Precast copings, vertical reveals, inset louvers, and
offsets in the wall provide visual interest and a handsome backdrop for the garden area.
Based upon this evidence, the City Council finds that demonstrable evidence that
applicant's alternative design has accomplished the purpose of the Downtown Design
Standards and Downtown Plan in a manner that is equal or superior to a project designed
pursuant to this standard or historical precedent.
4. Based upon the evidence, the City Council concludes exception is the mtnmlUtn
necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown Design Standards.
5. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the proposed Exception 6 is consistent with the criteria for an exception to
the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards as these are enumerated as Criterion 50.
... 11<..*.. ..iIl ...... ..........
Flndlnga of Fact /IIld Conclusions of Law
Page 71
Planning Action 2000-074
City of Ashland. Oregon
---~-------~'-----'---'- -- _._--~.. -~------
Criterion 51
cIty 6; AS&AND
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION VI
DOWNTOWN ASHLAND ARIA STANDARDS
The following criteria are adopted with this plan and mall be used as p8l1 of the land use approval process:
Approval Criteria for Downtown Area Development:
VI-I) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited.
VI-2) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticoes, awnings, and sidewalk
seating mall be provided where possible and feasible.
VI-3) Weather protection on adjacent key pedestrian paths are required by all new developments.
VI-4) Windows and other features of interest 10 pedestrians shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk, Blank ...1IIls
adjacent to sidewalks are prohibited.
VI-5) Two-story development is encouraged downtown, with the second stories in commercial, residential, or parking
uses.
VI.{i) Uses which are excluaively automotive such as service stations. drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire stores are
discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional Use permits, to deny
new uses, although i~vements to existing facilities may be pennitled.
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
· Regarding VI-I above, the City Council herewith incoIpOrates and adopts its findings of
fact and conclusions of law for #4 in Criterion 49 and concludes that compliance has
been established.
· Regarding VI-2 above, the City Council herewith incoIpOrates and adopts its findings of
fact and conclusions of law for #5 in Criterion 49 and concludes that compliance has
been established.
· Regarding VI-3 above (which requires weather protection on adjacent key pedestrian
paths for new development) the City Council finds that the standard is ambiguous in that
it does not define what weather protection means or what constitutes a Ire)' pedestrian
path. The Commission interprets the term weather protection to mean protection from
wind and the sun as well as overhead protection from rain, sleet, snow or hail. The
Commission interprets the term Ire)' pedestrian path not to (necessarily) include all plaza
or courtyard areas and does not include public street crossings. The City Council also
believes (and it concludes by interpretation) that weather protection does not necessarily
include impermeable overhead cover. Pursuant to these interpretations, the City Council
concludes that the key pedestrian paths located upon the subject property, include the
route through the west plaza to the building entrance, those within the south courtyard
and the route through the north plaza. For these key pedestrian paths (based upon
Drawing Sheets LO.t and L2.0 at Record p. 180 and 183) there are other buildings, trees,
Flndlngn of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 72
Planning ActIon 20000474
City of Ashland, Oregon
-~,~~..- ~-------~~-,--~- -----
awnings and a trellis which provide, to different degrees, protection for the different
types of weather conditions, Based upon the foregoing fmdings of fact and conclusions
of law, the City Council concludes thi1t appropriate weather protection on adjacent key
pedestrian paths has been provided consistent with VI-3 above.
· Regarding VI-4 above, the City Council finds that the only sidewalks are those which
adjoin South Pioneer and Hargadine Streets. The proposed building is not adjacent to
either sidewalk. However, as evidenced by Drawing Sheets AJ.l and AJ.2 at Record p.
198 and 199, the City Council concludes that the architecture of walls that face South
Pioneer and Hargadine Streets, has windows and other features of interest to pedestrians
consistent with the standard.
· Regarding VI-5 above, the City Council concludes that the proposed building is of two-
story construction. Whether theatre use on the second story is a commercial use is
ambiguous. The City Council interprets the term commercial (uses) to mean any use that
is permitted within a commercial zone. Theaters are a permitted use in the City's C-I-D
zone pursuant to ALVO 18.32.020(D). Therefore, the City Council concludes that
theatre use on the second floor of the proposed building is permissible (and encouraged)
under the above VI-5. The City Council also fmds, alternatively, that the above VI-5
does not operate as a mandatory approval criterion as it merely encourages but does not
require two-story development in downtown Ashland.
· Regarding VI-6 above, the City Council herewith incorporates and adopts it findings of
fact and conclusions of law for #6 in Criterion 49 and concludes that compliance has
been established.
· Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 51.
...........................
Other Objections
During the proceedings, the following issues were raised by some opponents. In some
instances, the below objections relate to the approval criteria and where this is the case, the
conclusions of law of the City Council below are to be considered along with its conclusions
of law for the criteria enumerated hereinabove as Criterion I through 51.
1. Availability of Historic CommJssion and Tree Commission Recommendations: In a
July II, 2000 memorandum addressed to the Ashland Planning Commission (Record p.
263 - 270) Sharon and Philip Thonnahlen contends that reports from the Ashland
Historic Commission and Tree Commission were impermissibly unavailable to parties 7
days prior to the hearing and this entitled opponents Thormahlen to a continuance and
such continuance should be for not less than 60 days. In support of their request for a
continuance, opponents point to an incomplete citation of ORS 197.763(6)(a). The City
Findings of Fact and ConclualOM of Law
Page 73
PllU1nlng ActIon 2000.074
City of Ashland, Oregon
----_.~---._-_._-~.__._----,._---._--- '----
Council concludes that the Planning Commission acted properly not granting a
continuance at all and only leaving the record open for 7 days. ORS 197.763(3)(i)
provides that a copy of the staff report will be made available 7 days before the public
hearing. The staff report was available seven or more days prior to the public hearing.
Recommendations from Ashland's Historic and Tree Commissions are not staff reports.
Notwithstanding irrelevant arguments about the timeliness of recommendations tendered
by Ashland's Historic and Tree Commissions, ORS I 97.763(6)(a) provides that any party
(if they request before the close of the initial evidentiary hearing) and for any reason, are
entitled to either a continuance or to have the record left open for a period of at least
seven days. Nothing in ORS 197.763 entitles any party to a continuance. The
prerogative to leave the record open or grant a continuance is the Planning
Commission's. Moreover, nothing in ORS 197.763 requires a period of 60 days for
opponents to furnish additional testimony. The City Council concludes that the Planning
Commission acted properly and within its authority by closing the hearing but leaving the
record open for seven days.
2. Ordinance Term Dermitions: Some opponents argued that the teon "adjacent" cannot
be interpreted to mean touching and the term "screened" cannot be interpreted only to
require intervening vegetation between the parking structure and lands which are
residentially zoned. The City Council concludes that the term adjacent is not defined in
the ALUO. Based upon the testimony of applicant: according to Webster's New
Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged) 2nd Ed., adjacent, used as an adjective
means: "lying near or close (to something); bordering upon". The Council finds that the
dictionary definition itself is ambiguous as to whether it means touching; lying near or
close (to something) does not mean touching. while bordering upon does. The City is
entitled to interpret its ordinance and the City Council (and Plamring Commission) must
routinely make interpretations of the ALUO to cany out its duties and the Council
believes that it has clear authority to interpret its own ordinance.
In Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508,515,836 P2d 710 (1992) the Oregon Supreme
Court held that: "[1]n reviewing a [local government's) land use decision, [the Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA)] is to affirm the [local government's] interpretation of its own
ordinance [that is part of an acknowledged comprehensive plan,] unless LUBA
determines that the [local government's] interpretation is inconsistent with express
language of the ordinance or its apparent purpose or policy. LUBA lacks authority to
substitute its own interpretation of the ordinance unless the [local government's]
interpretation was inconsistent with that ordinance, including its context." Moreover,
ORS 197.829(1) requires LUBA to afTum the decisions oflocal government unless they
are clearly wrong:
ORS 197.829 Beard to dIIrm certain IoQI pve.-.-t lnterpntatl-.
(I) The Land Use Board of Appeals shall affinn a local government's intetpretation of its l:ODlpI'dlensive pllll1
and land use regulations. 1UI\ess the board determines that the local govemmen~s interpretation;
(8) Is inconsistent with the express language or the comprehensive plan or land use regulation;
Finding. of Fact and Conclusions of lAw
Page 74
Planning ActIon 2000-074
City of Ashland, Oregon
(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 iilalute, land use goal or rule that the comprehensive plan provision or l3Jld use
regulation implements.
The City Council concludes that its interpretations of the terms adjacent and screened are
consistent with the express language and purpose of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan
and relevant local land use regulations, underlying policies that provide the basis for the
plan and land use regulations and with relevant state statutes, land use goals and rules that
are implemented by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and related local land use
regulations.
3. Approval of the Application will Cause a Loss of Trees. Opponents Swales and Lang
argued that approval of the application will result in a significant loss of existing mature
trees that now exist on the subject property. The City Council finds that a significant
portion of the trees to be removed are located within an existing surface parking lot that is
proposed to be used for the planned parking structure. While the City Council regrets the
loss of existing vegetation, the same cannot be preserved if needed parking is to be
provided. The City Council can find no provision in the plan or its implementing
regulations which precludes the removal of existing vegetation and it concludes that its
removal is required in order to undertake the theatre and parking structure projects.
4. View Blockage; Visibility: Under Criterion 46 and elsewhere, some opponents argued
that the theatre would block the view of Pompadour Bluff and Grizzly Peak and would be
otherwise visible from the Interstate 5 freeway. The City Council finds that view
blockage is not a criterion, but if views are blocked by these buildings, it will affect only
people at street level or from buildings immediately opposite the subject property on
Hargadine Street. Policy VDI-14 of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan states: "Views of
Pompadour Bluff, Van Dyke's Cliffs, Mt. Asbland. Grizzly Peak, and the surrounding
ridges are irreplaceable assets to Ashland. and should be protected through cooperation
with Jackson County." The City bas always understood, and the Council so interprets,
this policy to be aimed at protecting the specific geographic locations identified from
degradation due to development or other intrusive activities. The City bas never utilized
this policy as the basis for view protection. While Pompadour Bluff and Grizzly Peak are
important visual assets, there are no standards that prohibit view blockage and the City
Council concludes that tbe blockage that occurs in this instance is de minimus. As to the
building's visibility from Interstate 5, the City Council concludes that there is no
evidence that the buildings would be visible or that mere visibility from the freeway
would violate any substantive approval criterion and the Council concludes that it would
not.
5. ExceptioDs: During the proceedings, some opponents argued that all standards for which
applicant sought exception can be achieved and. therefore, the exceptions cannot be
approved. On this objection, the City Council concludes there is no requirement that an
Findings of Fact and ConclusloM of lJIw
Page 75
Planning ActIon 2000-074
i
4
Planning action For Expansion Ashland Public Lililtlla~.
I-
f I
vi
The following refers to Application by Craig Stone and Associates Ltd. March 31,2000.
Page 2 Para. 5 . SERA has undertaken extensiw! public inl'Ol\'ement....
While there have been a number of public meetings there are key issues that have not
been addressed in public.
1. Choice of alternative sites. I have spoken with members of the Friends of the Library
Board, the S ERA architects and G reg Scoles, assistant City Administrator. There is no
evidence ofa thorough search for alternatives to the Carnegie site prior to the process
beginning, or during it. Even when the office building adjacent to the site was found to be
unavailable, other alternatives were not even considered. The design charrette consisted
of alternatives A, B C or D ...all on this site.
2. There is no mention in the Public Record of the necessary Zone Change,
comprehensive Plan Change or Land ordinance change. These important issues were
never raised or presented to the voters for their approval. The impacts of these changes on
the surrounding historic residential neighborhood have never been discussed publicly.
Page 2 Para. 6 (re: Delay of Parking Issues.)
The applicants have stated that the Public Library is one of the most frequently used
public buildings in Ashland. .
For its size it is one of the most heavily trafficked branches ofthe Jackson County
Library system at 960 visitors per day at present. Librarians estimate that 90-95% of
patrons enter from the existing car park.
o DOT estimates that based upon proposed size the automobile count will be 1340 cars
per day with 179 during a typical peak hour.
No current traffic study exists showing traffic along Gresham, Union, or the residential
alley. Ray Smith of the Public Works Dept. who is responsible for traffic counts, police
accident data and parking design has said that he has not been involved with any studies
relating to library parking and traffic.
Parking suggestions offered by S ERA do not reveal the overall loss (7 - 1 0 spaces ?) of
on-street pa~king in the immediate library vicinity by switching parking across Gresham.
Design Goal by SERA architects #4 stated "Improve site accessibilityfor pedestrians.
and those arriving by car, bicycle. as well as the disabled" (my emphasis). As all
Jackson County citizens pay for, and use this library to ignore the parking necessary to its
function is unworthy of such a public project..
Page 10. Table I The applicants describe their proposed building as being 3 stories.
This is very relevant when it comes to the side yard impact of the neighboring property
and the desire to alter the Land use law pertaining to it.
Page to Para. I re: according substantial weight to the written testimony of the
hired consultants mentioned. Their paid involvement in this project severely
compromises their impartiality. Historic and Tree commission comments and
recommendations faults these "expert" opinions on many points.
Pagel!. Para.! Conclusions of La\!:
[ take strong objection the citing of past case laI\ to imply that the policies
delineated in the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan are "couched in perm issit 'e
terms ". and therefore ""inapplicable ". For the City to so describe this important document
sets an unhealthy precedent for all those who look to the Planning Department for
guidance in these matters. For the applicants to then chose only those criteria it deems
applicable shows insufficient and biased compliance with this aforementioned
Comprehensive Plan.
Page 12 Policy VIl-I....Exhibit 9 City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory.
\. This deals \~ ith Housing needs only and is therefore Irrelevant .
.., The data in Table 2.1 is incorrect .... ....
a) There has been 1/2 acre of developable lane on the opposite side of Gresham
Street advertised for sale for approximately 3 yrs with no offers. This site is adjacent to a
City parking lot behind the Golden Fields building. A single level (second floor) library
on this site in economically viable \~ ith an extra 32 spaces beneath. This would allo\~
pedestrian access from H argadine Street, and Retail space on \1ain street as \\ ell as
public parking for about 40 - 55 cars. This site has never even been considered by the
Friends of the Ashland Library.
b) The City is planning to let OSF build an additional theater on the Hargadine
Parking lots \\ ith a 3 story parking Structure. 1 suggested this site to Mayor Sha\v and the
City Council early last year. This would allow a street level, single story library with
parking below and Public open space with view. This site has never even been considered
by the Friends of the Ashland Library.
c) Other sites in town have not been considered such as the air space above existing
City Parking.
2. The statement that. . . . ... :'there 1/0\1' exists an insufficient quantity a/vacant land
within Ashland''s downtown" is untrue, irrelevant and not a necessity. This proposal
\\ ould also do absolutely nothing to change the situation in any way whatsoever.
Pagel2 VIII.-13.... The Historic Commission voted as follows....
Chambers recommended three conditions of approval: 1) the architects look carefully at the metal
siding, 2) nothing be changed on the existing entrance to the Carnegie so it can revert back to a
front entrance in the future, and 3) the base be more substan tial rather than just cosmetic.
Skibby moved to recommend approval of this application to the Planning Commission with the
previously stated conditions. Foil seconded the motion. With a show of hands, Skibby,
Chambers, Foil and Shostrom voted aye and Sa iley, Lewis. Maser and Lekjl1ton voted nay.
Page 12 VII - 32 .re: Landscaping
The Tree Commission met last Thursday and made 0 number of recommendations
on the plan presented to them.
also Bryan Nelson member stated... .. :'!got to thinking that my most important
recommendation that was agreed to by the commission was left off the recommendations,
that was that the balance between tree removal and the buildingfootprint was not met.
How can the planning department say that it was when onlv 7o/the 4() trees are being
saved? It's under Policy VII!-32: H'e/elt that the maximum amount ofl'egetation has nut
heen Sat'cd. I wish tha/you would include this inyour remarks hefore the planning
cOll1m ission as It 11 as agreed to bl' the commission"
Page 12 Policy V 111-33...re: Street Trees.
The plan calls for the removal of all existing street trees on both Siskiyou
Boulevard and {,resham. The parking and replacement trees planting has yet to be
specitied after a year of planning. This is totally unacceptable in my opinion and sets an
unhealthy precedent.
Page 13 Policy xl-43 (a) re: \few I Existing building.
(Instance #2) I strongly object to the City describing its own Comprehensive Plan
as "ambiguous ". This is totally unacceptable in my opinion and sets an unhealthy
precedent.
Page 13 final paragraph.....The Planning Commission concludes that the term
"orderly" is ambiguous .......
(Instance #2) I strongly object to the City describing its own Comprehensive Plan
as "amhiguous ". This is totally unacceptable in my opinion and sets an unhealthy
precedent.
Page 14 Para. 1 "re: Public Need " ...exists upon a parcelofland that has
sufficient size to attractively accommodate the building addition
I. The site is too small to accommodate a building of this size causing.....
a) Devastation of the Tree canopy on site and the surrounding streets and alley, see Tree
Commission Report .
2. Historic Carnegie Library is overwhelmed by bulk of new addition. Carnegie
entrance to be blocked from public ingress. James Hamrick of Oregon State preservation
Office stated to me on Thursday, Apd 27,2000 (13 days ago)
"lam aware of the project but we have not been asked to participate in anyformalway. I
understand that the addition is being placed at the rear o.{the property. .. ... ... ... .1n this
case, not knowing the layout, we wouldprobably have suggested that the addition be
placed to the rear.. ........"
I then immediately sent him elevations and floorplan drawings. He replied later that
day.
"I have reviewed the drawings andphotos. Thankyou. I would like to have seen a site
plan andfloor plan to determine why the old entrance is being phased out. In terms of the
issues you raise.. .....
I, / too am concerned about the closing offofthe entrance, particular(v since, in my
experience, the library will have to put up some sort ofblockade across the stairs, plus
signage to keep people from trying to still use it. I have nel'er seen this approach done
wel/, or so that it doesn't have a negative impact on the resource."
This is at variance with the statement by George Kramer in the Historic
Commission Minutes dated 5/3/00 that states:
Kramer rebutted Swales comments regarding SHPO. He said he has talked to Hamrick about this
project, and he did see renderings prior to the submittal of the current plans. In discussions with
Hamrick, Kramer ackna.vtedged he was concerned about the closur e of the Carnegie entrance.
The entrance will be kept, although not used. If there ever is a change of mind, this can revert back
to a usable entrance. Hamrick is not thrilled with this, but understands the Reed for this.
A s Mr. Kramer has been Ilorking closely to get a number of Ashland's Historic
Buildings on the National Register, I find the fact that SHPO was, until I informed them
less than 2 I\eeks ago, completely in ignorance ofthis proposal that severely
compromises one of Ashland's most prominent Historic structures to be a deliberate act
of misinformation on the part of the applicants.
Page 14 Para 2 re: Comprehensive Plan map." ..!!lay have intended to include the
subject property. -.::
1. This is pure conjecture on the part of the applicants and is without any basis in
fact. No evidence is given to support mis idea.
2. Residential zone R-2 SECTION 18.24.030 Conditional Uses, states
The .fol/owing uses and their accessorv uses arc permitted when authorized in
accordance with the chapter on conditional use permits:
D. Public and quasi-public halls. lodges and clubs.
The existing library and the proposed renovation both incorporate a large public
meeting hall. Library patrons sit around in club chairs in tront ofthe fire reading books,
magazines and newspapers. This would seem to be a public club II ith all Jackson County
residents being members with membership paid for through property tax levies.
a) The existing library use predates the zoning lalls. A non conforming use is not
forbidden. SECTION 18.08.520 Nonconforming structure or use. states:
An existing structure or use lawful at the time the ordinance codified in this Title, or
any amendment thereto, becomes effective, and which does not conform to the
requirements of the zone in II hich it is located, (my emphasis).
3. The applicant uses the phrase ".....cannot conclude that the plan map and zone
change is needed to correct mistakes..... **. This is the reverse of their previous
statement.
Page 14 Para 3 re: adjust to new conditions: ".. ..obviates the need to upgrade...."
This statement contradicts the applicants conclusions.
Page 14 Para 4 re: Public Welfare.
Libraries are not allowed under any of the Ashland Title 18 Zone permitted or
conditional uses. This is a fault of the current law. As stated above, the most fitting use
would be in an R-2 zone (I ik e the public Schools) subject to the requirements thereof.
Page 15 Goal 1 re: Citizen involvement in the planning process:
In spite ofa 15 month long process the citizens have been kept in ignorance about
key elements of the applicants proposal.
No mention has been made in public during the design phase of bond measure
vote about required changes to the Zoning, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use la\\ changes,
Landscaping impacts. There has yet to be conducted a traffic or parking study \\ ith the
impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood.. Important technical information
with regard to the above has been withheld from the public as is evidenced by the fact
that even Commissioners a fe\\ days ago v.ere ignorant of the proposed Carnegie
entrance blockage. Understandable Landscaping plans v.ere only available a week ago in
spite of my request to City Council on 4/4/00. Last minute changes v. ere made.
The city is misleading the community \\ ith regard to its requirements under the Public
1\Jotice ordinance. I received a complaint from a wheelchair hound citizen that he was
unable to read the Posted Notice from the public sidev.alk due to its awkward placement.
Page 16 Goal 5 re: Historic areas.
No mention has been made of the library Historic Ethel Reid park dedicated in
1973 to commemorate the 100 yr. anniversary of the founding of Ashland. The proposal
VI' ill have a severely negative impact on this park. its setting and the landscaping.
Especially of concern is the historic significance of the 100 yr. old ginkgo tree VI' hich
predates th~ library itselfand is one of Ashland's "Trees-of-the-Year"
re: G roundv. ater resources:
It is my understanding that the spring that runs under this property was used
historically, being piped to the Railroad Yards for use there. Restrictions on the use of
this water is part of the original recorded subdivision plat. I have seen no evidence that
the applicants have concerned themselves with these issues. Press articles have
mentioned an groundwater heat pump for the proposed building. Again...no data has been
provided to the public.
Page 17 Para. 1 re: Protection oftbe Historic Library." ... ..are sufficient to protect
tbe bistoric library... :'.
Jim Lewis, chair of the Historic Commission stated at 5/3/00 meeting" . ... The
commercial zone will not protect the Carnegie. ....The city should be held to its own
criteria and I feel the criteria have not been met for approval. The commission, after all.
is here to protect historic resources. . . . ':
Page 17 Para 4 ''.....In Asbland, libraries are commercial uses in tbe sensetbat it is
w itbin tbe City's downtown commercial zooe (C -I-D) tbat libraries are
permitted...... :'
I. SECTION 18.32.050 "0" Downtown Overlay District.
The permitted uses in C -I zone and C-l-D are identical. Inclusion in the downtown
overlay in this case merely eliminates the need for on site parking that a commercial zone
would normally require.
SECTION 18.32.010 Purpose (RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) states:
C,,~(EX'OC:X sdcsr!!nedX0stabilize.Impro\"eand lu",..'\\"'~- I.nr~t"er,,"'" ol,ho, ':c'J<'
providfng commercial commodities and senices, (jny emphasis) ,
under the City's owndefinilions : SECTION 18,08,120 Commercial. or commercial use,
slales .....,~ activity inl'Oiling the sale ojgoods or serv;cesforprofit
I consider the use as a Free Public Library and Free Public Meeting Hall to be
inconsistent with the purpose stated in 18.32.010.
Page 18 Para I & 2 Re: "communication service"
The Free Public Library is neither a "communication sCITice "nor a "commercial Use ",
nor a "Public and quasi-public utility, and sen'ice buildings. andpublic parking lots, but
excluding electrical substan'ol1S "; It is a library and I object to it being so described
Page 18 Goal 12 "To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system"
The city has undertaken no study \\ hatsoever \\ ith regard to parking or vehicular
movement associated \\ith this proposal. Nor have they consulted with key staff
employees who conduct such studies and access to relevant data" The impacts on the
historical residential neighborhood are immense, The use of the alley for access and
parking for such an important and highly trafficked public use contravenes the City's
own street design standards for alleys. The same holds true for Gresham and Union
Streets and other streets that will be impacted such as A lIison and V ista, Pedestrian and
bicycle safety concerns have not been addressed,
Page 20 Criteria 4 Permitted use C-!-D zone
See my comments above re: Page 17 Para 4 ,
Page 21 Criteria 6 re; Street standards in Chapter 18.88
As stated previously (Page 18 goal 12) the proposal does not meet the City's
street standards, The proposed parking on Gresham is also in contravention of SECTION
18,88,060 Parking Standards namely"",
C On-Street Parking Standards. On-street public parking may be provided by either
the minimum criteria established in the Performance Standards guidelines under Section
18,88.090 or parallel to curb side, Curb side stalls shall be eight feet in \\ idth and 24 feet
in length and shall not be permitted in front of driveways or fire hydrants.
Parking shown on the latest plan shows only 20 long parking bays,
I fthe site is re-zoned C -I-D the residential neighbors \\ ill be severely impacted,
They \V ill they suffer the considerable inconvenience of having library patrons and staff
parking outside their homes during \\ orking hours and when the 100 seat public meeting
hall is being used in the evenings, They \V ill also lose the SECTION 18,92,025 Credit for
On-street A utomobile Parking, Under para, F "'.. P.arking spaces may not be counted that
are within 20.0 feet ofa C-I-D or SO zone. This will severely restrict the future
development of their property and is to be considered a taking by the city of both
amenity, development potential and therefore has great negative financial effects of those
neighbors.
Page 21 Criteria 7 re: Landscaping requirements.
The effect of reducing the landscaping requirements fTom 3500 (R - 2) to 100'0 (C-
I-D) w ill have a devastating effect on the surrounding historic residential neighborhood
as is evidenced in the proposed landscaping Plan.
The Tree Commission recommendations stated ...... .IVe beliel'e the librarv grounds
represent a gateway to the residential area and as such should have a 11/ore denselv
landscaped appearance. .
Page 21 Criteria 8 re: 2) "..... en trance shaD be design ed to be attractive and
functional, and shaD be open to thepublic..."
Ingress to the Carnegie will be blocked. This is not what is meant be historic
preservation. In an e-mail to Barbara Ryberg, SERA and City statTdated 120'00] stated:
" The approach to, and entrance into, a building is of the utmost importance.- especiallv
one ofprominent and Hell trafficked Civic Use. This Has clear~v recognized in the
original Carnegie bui/ding which resulted in the magnificent steps alld entrance lobby.
Patrons now Hill main~\' come in through the "backdoor" on the alley which in itselfwill
probab~v be a shabby experience compared to the $5.9 Million spent. However, those
ludyenough to approach onfoot ji-om downtown along Siskivou Boulemrd and climb
the original steps will be greeted with a locked door (probablv with a "use other door"
sign with pointingfinger). This hard~vproduces a welcomingfeeling and is a travesty of
what the original builders intended. "
Mark Knox of the City Planning staffreplied that he agreed with me completely.
I remind you of the comments by James Hamrick ofSHPO......
"i too am concerned about the closing offofthe entrance, particularlv since, in my
experience, the library will have to put up some sort ofblockade across the stairs, plus
signage to keeppeopleji-om trying to still use it. I have never seen this approach done
well, or so that it doesn't have a negative impact on the resource."
Page 23 Criteria 9 Streetscape "....street trees ...... the design for which, will be
rmalized by the applicant city at a later date ..... ..that it is not yet prepared to deal
with the issue ot; ifand how, parking might be accommodated along the Gresham
Street frontage."
Considering the impact of this proposal I find this to be completely unacceptable
from a city planning standpoint. Its sets a bad precedent to other developers.
Page 23 Criteria 10 (5)" Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees
and shrubs on site as possible"
Bryan J\e1son, Tree commissioner IHites'..." ....1 got to thinking that my most important
recommendation that was agreed to by the commission was left off the recommendations,
that lIas that the balance betl\een tree removal and the building footprint lIas not met.
HOII can the planning department say that it was \\ hen only 7 of the 40 trees are being
saved~ It's under Policy VIII-32; \\e felt that the maximum amount of vegetation has not
been saved. I II ish that you \\ould include this in your remarks before the planning
commiss ion as it II as agreed to by the commiss ion."
See also Page 24 Para 3.
Page26 Criteria 14 re: Expansion of existing buildings- ".... because the building
is being increased in size by more than 100%, the provisions ofthis "criteria do not
apply"
This statement sets a bad precedent for others to follo\\.
Page 27 Criteria 16 re Scale: "....finds the term Historic Distrkt...... to be
ambiguous because Ashland has more than one historic district"
This statement sets a bad precedent for others to follo\\. This is instance #3 of the use by
the City of "ambiguous" to describe its own planning requirements.
Page 28 Para 5. "merely states what is 'encouraged' and 'desirable' .J!!lt a
required standard for approval...."
This statement sets a bad precedent for others to follow.
Page 30 Criteria 19 re: Buffering and Screening - ** interprets the term 'adjacent
lot' to mean.....next to or contiguous.
Dictionaries of Quality such as OED define adjacent to mean "nearby". This is to contrast
it with meaning Adjoining, Contiguous or Juxtaposed. For the applicant to so interpret
the \\ord denies the adjacent historic residences the buffering and screening form such
intense use as is contemplated.
Para 3 "..n.f"mds screened to be ambiguous...."
This statement sets a bad precedent for others to follow. This is instance # 4 of the
use by the City of "ambiguous" to describe its own planning requirements.
" parking adjacent to the aUey .... ....it is not truly a.parking lot in tbe ordinary
meaning.... ."
It is. 13 spaces are shown with book drop off
Page 31 Criteria 21 re: Building Materials - " ...glass bas not been incorporated as
a majority oftbe building skin"
Dale Shostrom, of Historic commission stated 5/3/00 that "this is a fairly glassy
building.... "
Pages 31& 32 Criteria 22 re Orientation and scale -para 2 -" .. .beights and sizes
that relate to human scale ( and are compatible with the historic library to which it
is attached. "
I quote from the minutes of the Historic commission 53/00....
"Le\\ is stated that he has concerns in that the design of the ne\\ building overpowers the
Carnegie...."
.. ..Leighton said her observation is from a residential point ohiew \\ ith the metal back
\\ all and the large mass \\ hich \V ill be up against the alley
Para 5 "...finds 'on-site circulation system' to be ambiguous...."
This statement sets a bad precedent for others to follo\\. This is instance # 5 of the
use by the City of "ambiguous" to describe its own planning requirements.
Page 33 Para 1 Re: Plaza or Public Space ".. '.'interprets 'public space' ...to
mean all portions of the property not occupied by a building.."
They use this to allow the parking, trash receptacles etc.. to be defined as "Plaza
or Public Space". This is clearly not the intent of Criteria 23 and this statement sets a bad
precedent for others to follov,.
Page 35 Criteria 26 re Parking lot landscaping and screening standards.- " The
off-street parking spaces do not include areas ofvehicle maneuvering....."
Backing up. 3-point turns and adjusting position within the parking lot all
constitute 'maneuvering' For the City to use this alleged loophole in the law robs the
adjacent historic residential neighborhood of the protection it deserves and it is wrong
therefore to call this criteria "inapplicable" This statement sets a bad precedent for others
to follow.
Page 35 Criteria 27 Re: Screen ing A butting Property lines. "-by reason of
in ap p Iicab i1ity..."
F or the City to use this alleged loophole in the la\\ robs the adjacent historic
residential neighborhood of the protection it deserves and it is \\rong therefore to call this
criteria "inapplicable" This statement sets a bad precedent for others to follo\\.
Page 36 Criteria 27 Re: Landscape Standards, "....by reason of in applicability..."
F or the City to use this alleged loophole in the law robs the adjacent historic
residential neighborhood of the protection it deserves and it is wrong therefore to call this
criteria "inapplicable" This statement sets a bad precedent for others to follow.
Page 36 Criteria 29 Re: Residential Screening, "....by reason ofinapplicability..."
F or the City to use this alleged loophole in the law robs the adjacent historic
residential neighborhood ofthe protection it deserves and it is wrong therefore to call this
criteria "inapplicable" This statement sets a bad precedent for others to follow.
Page 36 Criteria 27 Re: Hedge Screening, "....by reason ofinapplicability..."
F or the City to use this alleged loophole in the la\\ robs the adjacent historic
residential neighborhood of the protection it deserves and it is \\ rong therefore to call this
criteria "inapplicable" This statement sets a bad precedent for others to foIlO\\.
Page 37 Criteria 31 re: Other Screening - II ..1) No residential uses lie adjacent to
the subject property...."
The O\\ner of the neighboring property zoned R-2 has told me that he is
considering putting Travelers Accommodation above the existing offices. This is a
conditional residential use in this historic residential zone. That property deserves the
screening required under Criteria 31 trom this intense public use.
It is my contention that the residences across the alley are also 'adjacent' to this
property and also deserve the screening.
Page 38 Criteria 32 Street Tree Standanls -" ....street trees at less than the
required spacing along Gresham...." and "....applicant city.....is not yet prepared
to deal with the issue of, ifand how, parking might be accommodated. "
For an already intense public usage and a 4 times expansion in size these issues
need to be addressed prior to approval. The applicant has had 12 months to carry out the
necessary studies and has neglected to do so. This sets a shameful example to other
developers. See also delay requested in Criteria 34 follo\\ ing.
Page 39 Criteria 34 Re: Replacement of Street Trees " -.llreet trees along
Siskiyou Boulevanl are intended to be removed ...':
The Tree commission recommends (5/4/00)..." keep the Red Maple at the comer
of Siskiyou and Gresham..."
Page 41 Criteria 36 para 3 -" .. ..fmds the term 'designed' to be ambiguous....**
This statement sets a bad precedent for others to follow. This is instance #6 of the
use by the City of "ambiguous" to describe its own planning requirements.
Page 45 Criteria 43 (and others) -" ....was intended to deal with interior buildings
located within dow ntown blocks....rather than with the subject property *!..
This .excuse and other exceotions taken serve to emasculate the adopted
Downtown design standards. This statement sets a very bad precedent for other~ to follow
especially the proposed OSF theater where the City will be co-applicant. It also serves to
prove that the Carnegie Library site is not, and should not be included in the downtown
overlay zone.
Page 47 Criteria 45 Re horizontal Rhythms " ... fmds the term streetfront to be
ambiguous.... **
This statement sets a bad precedent for others to follow. This is instance # 7 of the
use by the City of "ambiguous" to describe its own planning requirements.
Page 48 Criteria 48 para. 2 "... .framed in language that merely encourages rather
than requires...."
This statement sets a bad precedent for others to follow, see criteria 43 above.
Page 49 Criteria 49 para. 4 - " ....... ...interprets the term...to mean buildings
\\ithin Ashland's downtown area (zoned C-I-D) ....within one block ofthe subject
property....**
This excuse and other exceptions takm serve to emasculate the adopted
Downtown design standards. This statement sets a very bad precedent for others to follow
especially the proposed OSF theater where the City will be co-applicant. It also serves to
prove that the Carnegie Library site is not, and should not he included in the downtown
overlay zone.
Page 50 Criteria 50 last para. 3 ".. ..finds the term 'original design elements' to be
ambiguous.
This statement sets a bad precedent for others to follow. This is instance # 8 of the
use by the City of "ambiguous" to describe its own planning requirements.
Page 52 Exception 1 "....other land in the dow ntow n C -1-11 is not steeply sloped
along its frontage....the subject property is unique ., .",.
This excuse and other exc<:,ptions taken serve to emasculate the adopted
Downtown design standards. This statement sets a very bad precedent for others to follow
especially the proposed OSF theater where the City will be co-applicant. It also serves to
prove that the Carnegie Library site is not, and should not be included in the downto\\-l1
overlay zone.
Page 53 para 2 "...to respect the area's unique heritage and to enhance the
appearance and livability ofthe area.....-"
F rom the Historic Commission meeting 5/3/00....
The library has a considerable affect on the neighborhood OON. The design is not compatible with
a residential neighborhood, especially the metal siding. Lewis asserted Craig Stone, who drew up
the findings for the City, did not think the library would f it into the doNntCM'n zone. The commercial
zone will not protect the Carnegie. This side of Siskiyou Boulevard is mostly residential all the way
to the university. Right OON, the library fits into the neighborhood. If the current zoning is
maintained, protection of the Carnegie building and the neighborhood will be maintained. Also on
the negative side are the loss of mature trees and the parklike nature of the site.
Page 55 Exception 3 ".... Tbe architecture ofthe Carnegie Library is distinctly
different from most of the other buildings within the downtown area zoned C-I-
See page 52 and 53 comments above.
Page 57 Exception 4 "....the overriding intent of the library addition is for it to be
compatiblewitb tbe architecture oftbe bistoric Carnegie building...."
From Historic Commission meeting 5/3/00
Shostrom reiterated the size is what is needed. He wondered, hemever, if many citizens kOONwhat the
new building will look like. He also wondered why metal siding is being proposed if the building is
supposed to be historically compatible.
Lewis stated the Commission has told people for years that this is not what you do to historic
properties. Why should this be different? Criteria are hem historic properties are treated and this
does not meet the criteria.'
Page 60 Criteria 52 Approval for Downtown Area Development -" . , . Whether library
use on the seco!,1d story is a commercial use is ambiguous..."
Under the City's own definitions : SECTION 18.08.120 Commercial, or
commercial use states..... .. Any activity inFo/Fing the sale of goodl' or senices for
profit.
I consider the use as a Free Public Library and Free Public Meeting Hall to be
inconsistent \Iith the commercial use for which they seek approval.
This is instance # () of the use by the City of "ambiguous" to describe its own
planning requirements. This statement sets a bad precedent for others to follO\\.
Page 61 para 2 Conclusions of Law -".... the old C amegie Library
addition ....cannot be rehabilitated... :'.
This useful historic space is to be demolished to make way for parking. The
addition meets all the requirements for an addition to a historic, structure that the
proposed 17,000 sq. ft. addition does not. The Feasibility Report prepared by SERA the
contracted architects is biased in that it facilitates their own proposed building program.
Page 62 para 3. "....The integrity and architectural character of the
neighborhood .....will not be substantially diminished or compromised......"
Half the Historic Commissioners voted on 5/3/00 not to recommend the approval
ofthe application for the reasons stated. The proposal will have a profound negative
effect on a surrounding historic residential neighborhood that predates the Carnegie
library and the existing use of the site;. The City, in its application has shown itself to
flaunt adherence with its own State and City planning requirements. This is not the sort
of example they should be setting to all who folloll in their footsteps.
I
Conclusions.
Based upon the rebuttal herewith submitted I urge the Planning
Commissioners to reject the Planning application and to ask the City to
require strictest adherence by itself to its own high ideals and necessary
planning standards.
Colin Swales 143 Eighth Street, Ashland 5/9/00
Page 1 of2
David Stalheim - FW: Request for GSPC opinion on possible ethics violation
.
~
_B
""V..
From:
To:
"Cate Hartzell" <cate@mind.net>
"'Mike Franell'" <franellm@ashland.or.us>, "'David Stalheim'" <stalheid@ashland.or.us>,
<Mbennet@ashland.or.us>
4/29/2007 11 :27 AM
FW: Request for GSPC opinion on possible ethics violation
Date:
Subject:
---_._~----._._-,_.~._---------_._----_.._-_._._._-
In reviewing my emails from Colin to make sure I am able to report any exparte contacts, I found this email that is
not listed on the list Mr. Stalheim sent out. Not only do I want to make sure it is placed in the record, but I would
like to know what if any action was taken on this request. It appears that Mr. Swales has raised a question of
merit and I would like to make sure there's a written opinion in the record.
Cate
From: Colin Swales [mailto:colinswales@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:13 AM
To: Martha Bennett
Cc: John Morrison; Cate Hartzell; Eric Navickas; David Chapman; katejackson@opendoor.com; Alice Hardesty;
Russ Silbiger; Mike Franell
Subject: Request for GSPC opinion on posSible ethics violation
Martha,
cc Council and City Attorney - (Forward as necessary)
I am writing regarding possible ethics violations during proceedings on pl~ng action 2006-02354
The city recently received two letters on ethics from Historic Comissioners.
Quoting in part:
".../ can imagine the potentialfor bias or conflict of interest between members of the same commission...."
Dale Shostrom, chairman of the Historic Commission
''All members detail their ex-parte contacts, and commissioners dutifully excuse themselves from any and all conflicts or
involvement in projects that come before the commission...." Alexander C. Krach, Historic Commissioner.
At the Historic Commission meeting on September 6 2006, Comissioner Giordano joined the meeting
late. Presumably this was because the first item on the agenda was a project for which he was the
planning agent. (co-incidentally this same project was also the only sucessful reversal by
"reconsideration" by the planning comision of the three requests for reconsiderations received from Mr.
Girodano during the last two years).
Towards the end of that meeting, presumably with Mr. Giordano present, a "pre-app" was heard for Mr.
Kistler's project on North Main and Glenn Street. (P A# 2006- 02354)
...[Kistler} had just found out the front setback is 20 feet instead of 1 0 feet which would severely
impact the ability to use the proposed design. He may need to request a setback variance..... The
majority of the Commissioners said they could support a variance to the setback if necessary... "
According to the minutes of the meeting, no declaration of potential or actual conflict of interest was
file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Loca1 Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM
4/30/2007
TO I
Page 2 of2
ever made, nor was their any recusal by any commissioners.
(Mr. Giordano would later represent his client, Mr. Kistler, as Planning Agent before the Planning
Commission on that same Planning Action.) .
This was all pointed out by myself during the first public hearing in January on this planning action, and
my assertions have to date neither been rebutted nor denied.
Staffhas also been resoundingly silent on the matter.
If after interviewing the staff present at that September Historic Commission meeting, it is found that the
minutes accurately reflect the proceediings, and that Mr. Giordano did in fact voice support for a setback
variance for his client's project, I would respecfully request that this matter, after investigation by
our own legal department, is forwarded to the Oregon Government Standards and Practices
Commission (GSPC) for an opinion, regarding possible conflict.
In the meantime it would seem that only a de novo public hearing (per written request by 2 citizens) on
appeal BY Council ofPA 20006-02354 will clear the air on this matter.
Colin Swales
Historic Comission minutes 9/6/06 http://ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?
Display=Minutes&AMID=2778
Planning Commission minutes 1/9/07 http://ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=2871
Video Planning Commission 1/9/07 (see Hr. 2:29:00> and 3:00:59
>) http://rvtv.roguedatavault.net:5 54/ramgenlashland/planninglplanO 1-09-07 . TIn
file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 0000 I.HTM
4/30/2007
re."Skiomore ~adeDlY '; storic"Dis,~.i'~~',;,,; ,
'(~mted2001""Jackson,Coun,tY"" "",
' ',#91~(},008'32)
"',~tg~' Y bOljRded_by the RR R~@~:W~ " "
,,' < )~~:~~t~" SceiiiG ' and Maple, S'ts..'>As~' hl~n~:~,' ,"
" ~~,I/ll, ',' , " "" ", :U''''', ~.<,
.~17i.~iacres,299 buildings) ',c;v',"
','
Historic Significance: Event
Area of Significance: Architecture
Period of Significance: 1850-1874, 1875-1899, 1900-1924, 1925-1949
Owner: Private, Local Gov't
Historic Function: Domestic, Education, Religion
Historic Sub-function: Multiple Dwelling, Religious Structure, School,
Single Dwelling
Current Function: Domestic, Education, Religion
Current Sub-function: Multiple Dwelling, Religious Structure, School,
Single Dwelling
~
mM
--Af~/(~ ~~ikr
of f/15-/tY! [ f(eit-l!)
rRseufel ~bl i / ftf?cr
/1Mf 1/ 20/1 7
?A 2w.t, ,~ 02}jf
,........~-...
ICitYOf~.-"'!
1~:.a,.,.n.i,n9 EXhibIt f
':Xh'~" ;;l.!.-~~ 7
! 1;~OOQ~f-J
CALL TO ORDER C:~",~~7i~(~ y
Mayor Morrison reconvened the continued Council meeting of March 20, 2007 at 1 :00 p.m. --'''------..i
MINUTES FOR THE CONTINUED MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
March 23, 2007
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED MEETiNG
AfARCH 23, 2007
PAGE I of4
Councilors Hartzell, Hardesty, Silbiger, Chapman and Navickas were present. Councilor Jackson was absent.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Request for Council to appeal PA #2006-02354 (as outlined by AMC 18.108.110).
Mayor Morrison informed the Council that there was a split vote on this action when it was before the Planning
Commission and two City policies may be in conflict. He clarified the Council is not making a decision on the
merits of the Planning Action, but rather whether they wish to review this to see if there are conflicting
policies.
City Attorney Mike Franell explained the Council has the authority to call for an appeal, but generally, this
type of action is reserved for issues that are of significant policy consideration for the City. Mr. Franell noted
the applicants and the other parties involved in the action also have the ability to appeal. He explained this
issue involves a conflict between two City policies. The first is the arterial setback standards and the other is
the historical design standards. The Planning Commission weighed these issues seriously and determined that
the historical design standards took precedence. Mr. Franell stated if the Council wishes to look at the policy
implications involved, bring them forward, and provide guidance to the Planning Commission, it would be
appropriate for them to bring forward the appeal. Mr. Franell cautioned the Council to not discuss the merits of
this action until there is a full hearing, and to limit their discussion today to whether there is a policy
implication significant enough to warrant the Council taking action.
Ex Parte Contact:
Councilor Hartzell noted she is the liaison to the Planning Commission, but did not attend this meeting or
review the meeting materials. She indicated she met with the Planning Director on site to discuss the policy
question she had and how it would relate to this action. She noted Councilor Chapman was also present at the
site visit.
Mr. Franell clarified communications with staff are not necessarily ex parte contact; however any information
gleamed from the site visit would need to be a more detailed disclosure if this issue is called up for appeal.
Councilor Hardesty stated she spoke with the Planning Director about this issue and also spoke briefly with
Mr. Swales to let him know she had not received any information from staff on this issue. She also indicated
that she read the Daily Tidings article on this issue.
Councilor Chapman stated he conducted a site visit and indicated he was on the Tree Commission when the
landscaping for this project came before them.
Councilor Navickas noted he has been involved in the broader issue for some time and has made comments at
Planning Commission meetings in the past, but not in regards to this specific project. He also noted he
accidentally placed a lawn sign on this property when he was running for office.
Councilor Silbiger stated he read the Daily Tidings article, has driven past the site, and has received letters
from Mr. Swales and one from Councilor Navickas suggesting an appeal.
CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED MEE71NG
A/ARCH 23, 2007
PAGE2of4
Mayor Morrison indicated he has read the staff memos and reviewed the emails from Mr. Swales. He stated he
does not believe there was anything he reviewed that would have an impact on any decision he would make.
All councilors indicated they had no bias and could make objective decisions.
Councilor Silbiger explained that he would have to leave early and urged the Council to not make an appeal.
Councilor Silbiger leji the meeting at 1: 13 p. m.
Council offered their comments and preferences in regards to this issue. Councilor Hartzell voiced her interest
in making sure they are protecting arterials and ensuring the City has the space it needs to make future bicycle
and pedestrian improvements on North Main Street. Councilor Navickas commented on integrity in the land
use process and stated when citizens perceive land use decisions that contradict each other, it is the Council's
responsibility to step in and issue a ruling. Councilor Chapman voiced his preference for a citizen to bring
forward an appeal, rather than the Council. He stated he has not researched the issue enough to know what the
conflict and policies are. Councilor Hardesty also indicated that she does not know enough about the policies in
question and the degree of conflict, but stated that this is a problem that needs to be solved. Mayor Morrison
noted the City is currently in the process of reviewing the Land Use Ordinance and stated he is reluctant for the
Council to call this up. He added developing good policy and legislation is usually not best achieved through a
judicial or quasi-judicial process.
Mr. Franell clarified there are ordinance provisions that require the design standards to be applied, and clarified
the issue is balancing between which standard is more important. He stated that Council's role is to set the
mechanisms by which that balance occurs and to have a process where an appointed commission applies the
mechanisms the Council provides. He added that it would be appropriate for the Council to step in if they feel
they need to provide additional guideance to the Planning Commission in the balancing between standards.
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s that Council appeal P A #2006-02354 for a hearing. DISCUSSION:
Councilor Hardesty voiced support for calling this forward. Councilor Chapman shared his concern that they
are getting dangerously close to prejudging this. Councilors Hartzell and Navickas clarified their general
concerns are not with this specific proposal. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Navickas and Hartzell,
YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-1.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Setting a Public Hearing for Assesments to be
Charged Against Lots Within the Nevada Street Local Improvement District No. 85."
Art Bullock/Request the Council not schedule the final public hearing and final assessment until the appeals
process has been completed. He asserted that there were problems with this project that need to be resolved.
Mr. Bullock also requested that Council alter the requirements listed at the bottom of the Speaker Request
Form and stated this language could cause an unnecessary court case.
City Administrator Martha Bennett requested Council not debate the question of the Speaker Request Form
until she has had the opportunity to consult with legal. In regards to the Nevada LID, she indicated staff would
brief the Council on the status of the lawsuits during an Executive Session in April, and recommended Council
proceed with scheduling the public hearing. She added if Council decides to postpone the hearing after the
Executive Session it can be rescheduled. She encouraged them to adopt the proposed resolution and noted that
staff cannot proceed with any of the next steps until Council sets the hearing.
CiTY COUNCIL CONTINUED MEETING
MARCH 23, 2007
PAGE 3 q(4
City Attorney Mike Franell clarified that Mr. Bullock did not prevail at the Circuit Court level and stated that
he was unable to show that the City acted inappropriately or in contradiction to the ordinances. He noted that
Mr. Bullock has now appealed the Circuit Court decision. Mr. Franell stated he is confident that the Court of
Appeals will uphold the Circuit Court decision and indicated that it is appropriate and financially prudent for
the City to continue with the process.
Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to approve Resolution #2007-09. Roll Call Vote: Councilor
Chapman, Hardesty and Hartzell, YES. Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 3-1.
2. First Reading by title only of an Ordinance Titled "An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 To
Apply Ethics Provisions to Employees, Appointed Officials and Elected Officials."
Mayor Morrison noted that Councilor Jackson reqeusted that this item be deferred until she could be present to
participate. He noted that he would be willing to hear public testimony at today's meeting since there are
individuals present who signed up to speak.
Councilor Hartzell requested that Council honor these types of requests by other councilors and suggested
possibly scheduling a special meeting to discuss this issue and stated she would like a better analysis of some
of the issues.
Councilor Chapman left the meeting at 1:57 p.m.
Council agreed to take public testimony but defer a decision to the next meeting.
Colin Swales/461 Allison Street/Stated that citizens are fed up with what has been perceived as a lack of
ethics and noted that this item has been on the Council agenda since September, but has repeatedly been
delayed. Mr. Swales commented that the proposed ethics ordinance is not perfect, but stated it goes a long way
to solving some of the problems experienced in the past and urged the Council to recognize the urgency of this
ordinance.
Art Bullock/Provided the following three complaints in regards to the proposed ordinance: I) the ordinance
does not apply the same provisions of the current policy applicable to city employees to elected and appointed
officials, 2) there are no provisions in the ordinance that would allow for any kind of independent resolution of
an ethics violation, and 3) claimed there is a serious problem with trust and integrity in the Planning
Department and commented on the provision that prohibits commission members from representing clients
before another body of the city.
Dale Shostrom/1240 Tolman Creek Road/Chairman of the Historic Commission. Expressed concerns with
the proposed changes to the ethics ordinance and stated the changes would adversely impact the Historic
Commission and its membership. Mr. Shostrom commented on Section E, Conflict ofInterest, subsection 4
and expressed concern with the second part of the regulation which reads ..... or in any action or proceeding
before another board, commission or the City Council..." He stated this portion of the ordinance is too
restrictive and would create a loss of professional members to the Historic Commission, Tree Commission, and
the Building Appeals Board. He noted the Historic Commission could lose funds as a result of this ordinance,
and the quality of plan review could also be affected.
Mayor Morrison noted this item would be scheduled appropriately.
3. Second Reading by title only of an Ordinance Titled "An Ordinance Amending Sections 10.30.005,
10.30.020 A. and 10.30.030 A. of the Ashland Municipal Code Addressing Outdoor Burning and
Requirements for Permitted Fires."
Suggestion was made for was made for staff to come forward to answer Council's questions, but for Council to
postpone a decision until the full Council is present.
CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED MEETiNG
MARCH 23, 2007
PAGE.j of 4
Fire Chief Keith Woodley addressed the Council and noted there are four options presented in the staff report.
He commented on Councilor Chapman's request for staff to consider a burning ban in Ashland that would only
be lifted on a site specific basis if the Fire Department felt there were no other alternatives to open burning. He
noted staffs proposal is to restrict open burning to wildfire fuels and noxious weed eradication only.
Request was made for staff to provided an amended staff memo with the new alternatives when this item is
presented to the Council. Mr. Woodley asked that Council share their preferences for burning outside of the
zone.
4. Second Reading by title only of an Ordinance Titled "An Ordinance Amending Ashland Municipal
Code Chapter 9.24 to Require Removal and Disposal of Non-Certified Wood stoves and Fireplace
Inserts Upon Conveyance of Real Property, Requiring Disclosure and Removal Certification."
Councilor Hardesty/Hartzell m/s to approve Ordinance #2936. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas,
Hardesty and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Tripartite Housing Committee Report.
Item will be placed on future agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 2:24 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Page 1 of 1
From: Colin Swales [colinswales@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11 :42 AM
To: Martha Bennett
Cc: John Morrison; Alice Hardesty; Russ Silbiger; David Chapman; Cate Hartzell; Eric Navickas
Subject: Time is of the essence (appeal of PC decision)
:;~'-'-"""~a-',_
t City of Ashla: l.j ....I'
, r:anninq Exhib;i ~
jE'r",uq-~
~CJ.':~_~-
"':'~~Si(;ff '
~~:,.~".,....;"o...,...........,.....,,,,,,,~,...:
Cate Hartzell
Martha,
(cc. Mayor and Council)
It is essential for an appeal under ALVO 18.108.110 "Appeal to Council" that it is filed within 15 days
of the PC decision adopting the Findings.
In the case ofPA# 2006-02354 this PC adoption was last Tuesday.
Therefore, it is my understanding that should any Council member wish to make such a Motion to
appeal this Planning Decision it will have to be at the very next Council meeting.
Could you please let me know if this time-sensitive matter will be included on the upcoming
agenda for the Council meeting next week?
Or otherwise please let me know so that members of the community can begin passing the hat round for
donations towards the legal defense (of our ALVO) fund.
I hope to hear from you soon as Time is of the Essence.
Thanks
Colin
4/29/2007
~DRAFT~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
JOINT STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
MARCH 27, 2007
, '..,~.~---~...,
, ::'tv ~)! J\shla:-.c! }'
:.' l(,nJ'~Q Ex~)ib;1
\:'~:. # 2o-2ccr7
. ':~~Ob-~23-
,o/'1Ju:i__Staff___
...,-........'."c~....~..- _..~
CALL TO ORDER- Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street,
Ashland, OR.
Planning Commissioners Present: Housing Commissioners Present:
John Fields, Planning Commission Chair Richard Billins
Tom Dimitre Regina Ayars
Dave Dotterrer Stevc Hauck
Olena Black Aaron Beniamin
Pam Marsh Carol Voisin
John Stromberg Absent Members:
Absent Members: Liz Peck
Melanie Mindlin Bill Street
Michael Dawkins
Mike Morris Council Present:
Cate Hartzell, Planning Commission Council Liaison (arrived 7: 10 pm
Staff Present: Alice Hardesty, Housing Commission Council Liaison
Bill Molnar, Planning Manag:er
Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
[7:00 pm] Fields welcomed the Housing Commissioners to this joint meeting.
Before getting to the agenda items, Fields noted the Council had a special meeting recently where they called up a planning
action that the Planning Commission had approved with a five/four vote. Fields touched on several things that have been on
his mind including the apparent changing role ofthe Planning Commission. In the past, the Planning Commission has been a
leader in the state in terms of developing new ordinances, keeping up with growing problems and doing forward-thinking long-
range planning. The decision-making process has become more complicated and complex, making it difficult for the
Commission to weigh and balance their different values. In the past it was rare a Planning Commission decision was
overturned by the Council. He envisions moving more toward a form-based code that will be much more rigid, but can't help
thinking that good planning happens with people making very difficult decisions. However, adding more regulations, raises
the level of complexity, and adds conflict with other things. He has spoken with Marsh and thought this could be talked about
more at the Planning Commission retreat.
Marsh was appalled when she read the Tidings concerning the Council's action on an item that was just approved at the
Planning Commission and the fact that the Council is short-circuiting the public process. She brought it up in case the Planning
Commission wished to make a statement. The Planning Commission's decision was very specific to the site. Her hope is that
as the Council looks at the appeal, they contain their comments to the specific application and let the Planning Commission
take on the broad issue of the setback. If the Council insists on taking on land use issues themselves, the Planning Commission
might as well "pack up their tents and go home."
Stromberg went further to say that last year we had the opportunity to start cleaning up a lot of the conflict and complexity.
The Council made what he believes to have been an ill-advised decision in not giving the go-ahead on the update of the
Downtown and Railroad Districts and now they are living with the consequences. We could now have a new revised zoning
ordinance with less tension between the development community and the general citizens at large and that would start to
remove some technical battling they are dealing with now. However, he is positive about moving ahead now under the
direction of David Stalheim, Community Development Director.
Councilor Hartzell joined the meeting.
[7:10 pml RENTAL NEEDS ANALYSIS
STEVE FERRARINI, FERRARINI & ASSOCIATES
,..",DRAFT,..",
Goldman introduced Steve Ferrarini, Ferrarini and Associates from Oregon City. His company was hired by the City to
conduct the Rental Market Analysis. Data and findings dated April 24, 2007 were handed out to each Commissioner. The
report has not yet been completed. The goal is to provide the City with good information so they can develop appropriate
policies to address the rental housing market. He will attempt to put a face on the renters in this community, who they are,
what their household composition is like and then have a little understanding of some of the market factors that have been
driving the rental market for the last 15 years. Ferrarini reviewed his statistics he provided.
[7:55 pm] For Ashland's purposes, Stromberg wants to know what the real poverty figures are. How much can a single person
get by on, how much can a single mom need to survive on in Ashland?
Ferrarini said there are generalities in the statistics and there are subgroups that aren't doing as well as the statistics indicate.
The cost of moving into home ownership has grown and rental rates are increasing. As we look forward, things are going to be
more difficult for those who are low income and rent burdened.
The Commissioners asked for the following information knowing that some of it may not be feasible to obtain.
How many rental units in Ashland?
How many renters in Ashland?
How many condominium units are owner occupied?
How does the increase in minimum wage over the last five years fit into rents?
Is there a way to find out what the demand is for rental units?
How is the information going to be used? Are we educating people or are we taking action?
Only 204 renters responded. Do they have a strategy for getting additional information?
Ferrarini said along with the survey, the state has a designed a good housing needs model and they will use that in their next
step of the analysis.
Overall, Ferrarini said Ashland has a higher proportion of people who are paying more than 30 percent of their income on
rents. On average the rental market has gotten more affordable, but there is still a large segment of the rental population who is
paying too much for rent.
Ferrarini understands there is imprecision with many numbers. In the end they will not be 100% accurate, but he doesn't
believe it needs to be. In order to make good policy, it is important to understand and define the magnitude of the problem and
what policies can be adopted to address the problems. This study will provide all of those things for the City.
r8:30 pm] ANNEXATION ORDINANCE
In the packet is a communication that outlines some issues that have been previously identified by the Housing Commission
concerning the current ordinance and specifically, how it provides for affordable housing that's required. The Planning
Commission saw this in November of2006. They outlined the following issues:
Construction timing - how units are brought into a development
Construction standards - relates to the size of the units (number of bedrooms) and materials used
Distribution of affordable housing that is annexed or requests a zone change
Percentage of affordability - There is currently a menu of options the developer can choose from. Provide 15 percent of the
units to people at 60 percent income or provide up to 35 percent ofthe units at 120 percent income.
Cash in lieu fees has been brought up before.
Goldman provided sample code language specific to Ashland's ordinance. The language has not been reviewed by the Legal
Department.
Goldman said that in developing code language to address remedies, the objective has been to provide a clear and objective
path by which somebody could apply for an annexation and have clearly set rules that they could meet and therefore have an
approvable application. But also knowing there is a measure of flexibility that may be addressed if there are physical
constraints or other issues that would necessitate an alternative plan. A series of alternatives have been developed that could be
provided as exceptions to the ordinance.
Housing Commission will be reviewing the same Council Communication that is in front of them tonight at tomorrow night's
Housing Commission meeting.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
JOINT STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
MARCH 27,2007
2
-DRAFT-
Stromberg said the Council can decide on an annexation based on the criteria of whether the proposal is good for the
community in general. He hopes someday the Council directs Staffto create a matrix for analyzing the complete spectrum of
cost and benefits to the community.
Goldman said they've established that the minimum square footage of affordable units should comply with the HOME
program based on the number of bedrooms. The HOME program also has a square footage ceiling to qualify for receive a
subsidy.
Marsh favored the Housing Commission looking at some of the alternative options. She did not see anything that mentions
what kind of housing units have to be developed to meet the affordable standard if there is a mix of single family homes,
townhouses, etc. They need some clarity about this because it can make a lot of difference.
Fields noted that developers tend not to know anything about the affordable housing market, but agree to it during a hearing
and then they are stuck with having to do something. He thinks it will come to paying money in lieu of units or dedicating land
where the developer can step away from the responsibility of creating it.
[8:45 pm] PUBLIC INPUT
GREG WILLIAMS, 744 Helman Street, said when a developer is required to do more, and things become more onerous, it will
cause the developer to charge more for the other homes because the developer has to make money. In response to the list of
items, Williams had the following comments:
Construction timing - a good idea, however, include within a three period so it's not tied to a percentage. Just state
that the affordable housing has to happen within three years.
Construction standards - if someone is building a more energy efficient home, they might use a different construction
process. Should they be required to do that on affordable housing? He agrees it should be architecturally compatible.
Distribution of affordable housing - don't want "the projects" but in Ashland we're not talking about a lot of units. Is
it really a problem or are we just perceiving it might be a problem?
Percentage of affordability - he applauds flexibility
Land dedication - non-profits know affordable housing. We need to work with the non-profits.
Cash in lieu fees - no comment
Stromberg suggested simplifying the ordinance to require giving a certain amount ofland to the City. Then the City can
control what would happen to the land. Hartzell wondered if we could create a zoning category and the land in it would be
bound to build rental housing.
[9:00 pm] BRENT THOMPSON, 471??? Allison, said the first Affordable Housing Commission meetings many years ago,
established the accessory dwelling unit ordinance. We should be looking to see how that ordinance is working, asking if we
can liberalize it, can we modify it to make it work better for us? An accessory unit can not only make an affordable unit for a
tenant but make it possible for homeowners to cope financially too. With regard to infill, we have a bunch of little lots
centrally located. He's always favored the City investigating the potential of "substandard-in-size-lot- partitions". Or, maybe
there is room for someone giving a lump sum of money for affordable housing.
The next Housing Commission meeting will be held at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building
tomorrow from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Hartzell left the meeting.
ADOPTION OF FINDINGS
PA2006.01784, 720 Grandview, McDonald
Molnar said because of the history of this application, the Findings were prepared by Richard Appicello, Assistant City
Attorney. This application went to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) once on the issue of the building permit. There
were items on the remand from LUBA that Appicello felt needed to be entered into the record.
Ex Parte Contacts - No one had an ex parte contact.
Black believes the way the Findings are worded, the City is taking on a liability and she considered submitting a minority
report because at some point they will say this action compromised access for a whole group ofland owners.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
JOINT STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
MARCH 27, 2007
3
~DRAFT~
Other Commissioners felt uneasy approving Findings on something that was not discussed at the Planning Commission
hearing.
Marsh/Dotterrer m/s to approve the Findings for PA2006.01784. The motion carried with Dotterrer, Fields, Marsh and Stromberg
voting "yes" and Dimitre and Black voting "no."
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
JOINT STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
MARCH 27, 2007
4