HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-0509 Special Meeting Packet
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Council Appeal PA2006-02354, Kistler
Meeting Date:
Department:
Contributing Departments:
Approval:
May 1, 2007
Community Development
Martha Bennett
Primary Staff Contact:
E-mail:
Secondary Staff Contact:
Estimated Time:
David Stalheim
stalheid@ashland.or.us
Maria Harris
60 Minutes
Statement:
This is a council-initiated appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve Site Review to
construct a two-story building at the intersection of North Main and Glenn Street. An Exception to the
Street Standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage. A
Variance is requested to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting
arterial streets from twenty to ten feet.
Staff Recommendation:
The Planning Commission approved the application based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law attached to this report and part of the record. The project was also recommended for approval by
the city's Historic Commission and by Community Development staff.
Staff believes that the decision of the Planning Commission is supported by the facts in the case and
feels that there are not sufficient grounds to overturn the decision. Staff recommends that the Council
either affirm the decision of the Planning Commission approving the application, or modify the
decision by adding additional conditions to the approval. The Council must enter its own Findings and
Conclusions of Law since consideration of the appeal is a de novo public hearing.
Background:
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 3600 of 391E05DA is located at the southern comer of the intersection ofN. Main
St. and Glenn St. and is zoned E-1 (Employment). The project lies within the Detail Site
Review Zone and the Skidmore Academy Historic District.
2) The applicant is requesting Site Review approval to construct a two-story building. An
Exception to the Street Standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn
St. property frontage. A Variance is requested to reduce the special setback requirement for
front yards for properties abutting arterial streets from twenty to ten feet. The site plan and
building elevations are on file at the Department of Community Development.
3) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held Public Hearings on January
19, 2007, and February 13, 2007, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were
presented. The Planning Commission approved the Site Review, Exception to the Street
Page 1 00
~.,
Standards and Variance to the Special Setback Requirement application subject to
conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
The Planning Commission voted to approve the project based on the Findings and Conclusions
included in the attached record of decision. The vote for the approval was 5 to 4. The Commission
noted that the site plan and building is both high quality and satisfies the historical criteria imposed on
the site. The Commission particularly struggled with the variance to setback question, but the majority
believed that there were unusual circumstances related to the historical overlay and site conditions; that
there were no negative impacts on adjacent uses; and that the criteria doesn't require that you prove
you can't do it another way, but accommodate good design and the site to relate to all the
circumstances of the site.
NORTH MAIN
In reviewing the Council minutes from March 23,2007 and in conversations with individual council
members, one of the underlying concerns with granting a variance to setbacks on this parcel is whether
it will preclude any future improvements to North Main, particularly to accommodate a bicycle lane.
The staff report addendum to the Planning Commission issued in February outlined this issue in some
detail.
Concerns were raised at the January 9, 2007 public hearing regarding the installation of
bicycle lanes on N Main St. at a future date. County and city maps provide general
information about the N Main St. corridor. Based on county assessor's maps, city aerial
maps and the Ashland Street Standards, there appears to be adequate space between the
proposed building and the building on the opposite side of the street at 493 N Main St.
for a future reconstruction of N Main St. as a four-lane Boulevard including parkrows
and bicycle lanes. If the Planning Commission believes land should be set aside in the
front yard of the subject property for future possible changes to N Main St., the
Commission will need to decide what is a reasonable amount of land to reserve for a
possible future street project.
In evaluatingfuture possible street improvement projects, a question to consider is the
likelihood of widening the N Main St. corridor, and the associated impacts that would
result from a street widening project. The issue of the possible widening of N Main St. is
difficult to asses solely on the conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
The N Main St. corridor includes a variety of right-ol-way widths, the street
improvement width changes throughout the corridor and the width of the existing street
improvement is not clear. The street corridor is partially located in the Skidmore
Academy Historic District (i.e. from the downtown to Maple St.). The Skidmore Academy
Historic District is on the National Historic Register, and the associatedfederal
regulations could affect street widening projects in listed historic neighborhoods. As
shown on Staff Exhibits B - E, the 20-foot setback intrudes into some of the building
footprints on both sides of N Main St. A street widening project could potentially impact
Page 2 of?
r.,
the character of the historic district by reducingfront yards and removing historic
buildings, and thereby altering the historic development pattern.
If the Council wishes to ensure the potential widening of North Main in this vicinity for a future
bicycle lane, the approval of the application could be amended to add a condition requiring dedication
of an easement as outlined below:
23. That a seven foot bicycle and pedestrian easement shall be granted to the City of Ashland along
North Main that will allow the city, or designee, to construct, reconstruct, install, use, operate, inspect,
repair, maintain, remove and replace access improvements, including but not limited to street,
sidewalk, bike path and landscaping improvements.
UNDERL YING POLICY AND SETBACK ISSUE
The criteria for consideration of this project are outlined in existing city ordinances which are provided
later in this communication. The final decision on this case does not resolve the underlying policy
issue, nor does it necessarily set a precedent that allows for other applications to either be approved or
denied. Each case must be analyzed in the context ofthe specific property, the development, and the
applicable criteria.
The Planning Commission has placed review of the underlying standard as one of its highest priorities
in review of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Staff believes that it is important to put resources
towards this discussion to identify the development pattern the city wishes to achieve. The city's Site
Design and Use Standards, Historic District Standards, Transportation plans, etc. are either outdated or
in need of refinement. North Main is a place where critical stafftime should be spent in development
of a corridor plan where transportation, land use and site design are addressed in a coordinated fashion.
INPUT ON APPLICA nON
Agencv Invut: The application was supported by city planning and engineering staff and by the
Oregon Department of Transportation which has jurisdiction over North Main Street.
Advisory Committee Invut: The application was supported, with conditions, by the Tree Commission
and the Historic Commission after review of the application.
Neif!hbor Input: No comments, either written or oral were received from property owners or residents
in the immediate vicinity of the application.
General Public Invut: Input was received both in favor and in opposition to the application. Please
see minutes of the Planning Commission.
Based on the lack of agency or immediate neighborhood concerns, it appears that the basis for the
special setback requirement articulated in Section 18.68.050 regarding light, air, vision and to permit
widening of streets is not compromised by the granting of the variance request.
Page 3 of?
r.,
PRECEDENT CASES:
Colin Swales, in requesting that the City Council appeal this decision, points out two cases that he
believes the City Council previously ruled on: PA2000-039 (Carnegie Library) and PA2000-074
(Oregon Shakespeare Festival).
Staffhas reviewed these cases. Neither case involved the required front yard setbacks as required in
ALUO 18.68.050 and the subject of dispute in this application. Additionally, the City Council never
adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on PA2000-039. The Planning Commission was the
final decision on the land use matter for the Carnegie Library. The only action the Council took on this
matter was an amendment of the Land Use Ordinance regarding side yard setbacks.
PA2000-074 involved construction ofthe New Theater for Oregon Shakespeare Festival. This case
did not involve a variance request from front yard setbacks as required in ALUO 18.68.050. The
purpose for bringing this case forward in review appears to be how the Council interpreted the word
"adjacent" in these findings. This case differs because the term "adjacent" is not used in conjunction
with the historic district design standards as is the current case. The term "adjacent" in PA2000-074
applied to Conditional Use Permit criteria in determining impact on "adjacent" property.
The reference to "adjacent" in the current case comes from a site design standard in the Historic
Guidelines that reads as follows:
"Maintain the historic fayade 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 or behind the historic fayade line."
It is very important to not narrowly construe the word "adjacent" in the historic district standards in the
same way that the term was interpreted in the OSF case (PA2000-074). If, for example, an entire
block has setbacks of20 feet, but the immediately adjacent building is at 0 feet, the historic
"streetscape' in this case should be considered at 20 feet. A similar interpretation to the OSF case of
the word "adjacent" in the historic standards could result in not meeting the historic streetscape pattern
as intended.
In the current case, the historic streetscape pattern is not as clearly defined as in other areas of the city,
such as downtown. The block has a mixture of setbacks, some less and some more than the proposal.
The opposite corner on Glenn and Main Street has an historic home with a setback of approximately 5
feet, whereas the property to the south has a setback of approximately 20 feet. The Planning
Commission and Historic Commission both supported the setback proposed as maintaining the historic
fayade line of the streetscape.
Another case not previously discussed is also a relevant precedent. A 2006 application at 588 North
Main Street (P A2006-00088) for Site Review and Variance was approved to the Ashland Community
Hospital Foundation. This variance request allowed the same setback as in the current case (10 feet)
on property located just 9 lots to the north. In that case, a 10 foot setback was granted on a lot with a
depth of 195 feet, compared to just 100 feet in the current application. The Hospital Foundation case
was not appealed. The distinguishing characteristic between these two applications is that the Hospital
Foundation case is not located in an historic district. The variance criteria are otherwise identical
between the two cases, however.
Page 4 of7
rA'
No matter the precedent, the only assurance for the City Council to ensure consistency in land use
actions is to amend the plans and codes to provide clear standards. In other Oregon cases cited below,
the court found that the Planning Commission or Board (county case) was not bound by earlier
decisions.
The Planning Official, the Planning Commission, and the Board are not bound by such
earlier decisions. Reeder v. Clackamas County, 20 Or LUBA 238,244-245 (1990) (It
does not matter whether the challenged decision is consistent with prior decisions, if
those prior decisions applied incorrect interpretations of the applicable approval
standards). Okeson v. Union County, 10 Or LUBA 1,5 (1983) (There is no
requirement that local government actions must be consistent with past decisions,
but only that a decision must be c<?rrect when made. Indeed, to require consistency
for that sake alone would run the risk of perpetuating error.) S & J Builders v. City
ofTigard, 14 Or LUBA 708, 711-712 (1986); DLCD v. Klamath County, 25 Or LUBA
355,363 (1993); Heceta Water District v. Lane County, 24 Or LUBA 402,419 (1993);
Sterling Mine Properties v. Jackson County, 23 OR LUBA 18, 22-23 (1992); BenjFran
Development v. Metro, 17 Or LUBA 30, 46-47 (1988).
Related City Policies/Ordinances:
Appeal Proceedings (18.108.110):
A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held, of Type II decisions or of Type III
decisions described in section 18.1 08.060.A.l and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with
the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay
the Appeal Fee at the time the appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect.
1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to
be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision
being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or
modified, based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the
appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing.
4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing.
5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the
request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and
conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action.
The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the
appeal.
B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the
following:
1. The applicant.
2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to
participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to
the Council.
Page 5 of?
r.,
3. The Council, by majority vote.
4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to
error .
Special Setback Requirements (18.68.050):
To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of
substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of hereinafter named
streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line
setbacks listed below instead of the lot line separating the lot from the street.
Street Setback:
· East Main Street, between City limits and Lithia Way 35 feet
· Ashland Street (Highway 66) between City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65 feet
· Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet,
with the exception of the C-I-D district.
Site Review approval criteria (18.72.070) are as follows:
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 transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
Exception to the Street Standards criteria (18.88.090) are as follows:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a
unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options
Chapter.
Variance Criteria (18.100):
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically
apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan
ofthe City.
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
Council Options:
ALVO, Section 18.108.110(5), provides the council with the following options:
"The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or
grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision
based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final
order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal."
Page 6 of?
r;.,
Potential Motions:
Option 1: Motion to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to approve P A2006-02354.
Option 2: Motion to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the application.
Option 3: Motion to amend the decision of the Planning Commission to approve PA2006-2354 by
adding the following condition(s):
23. That a seven foot bicycle and pedestrian easement shall be granted to the City of Ashland along
North Main that will allow the city, or designee, to construct, reconstruct, install, use, operate,
inspect, repair, maintain, remove and replace access improvements, including but not limited to
street, sidewalk, bike path and landscaping improvements.
24. (Council identifies any other conditions.)
The Council will need to make findings and conclusions to support the motion. The final order can be
voted upon at the next regularly scheduled council meeting on May 15,2007.
Attachments:
1. The record before the Planning Commission is attached to this communication under separate
cover.
2. Additional testimony received since the record was closed and requested to be included in the
record before the Council.
Note: Information received by staff after the hearing and public record was closed by the Planning
Commission has not been included in the Council packet. This information was not part of the
record that formed the Planning Commission decision.
Deadline:
The deadline for acting on this application is June 1,2007.
Page 7 of7
,.,
CITY Of
-ASHLAND
RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2006-02354
PLANNING ACTION: #PA2006-02354
SUBJECT PROPERTY: North Main Street & Glenn Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Raymond J. Kislter
DESCRIPTION: Appeal by the Ashland City Council of the Planning Commission decision to
approve a request for Site Review approval to construct a two-story office building located on the vacant
parcel at the southeast corner of the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn St. A Variance is
requested to allow a 10-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. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGN A TION: Employment ZONING: E-1 (with Residential
Overlay) ASSESSOR'S MAP#: 391E 05 DA; TAX LOTS: 3600.
Date
-
3-14-2007
2-13-2007
2-13-2007
2-13-2007
2-07-2007
2-13-2007
1-25-2007
1-09-2007
!Wn
Paae #
Mailed Findings and Orders for PA2006-02354dated 3-13-2007, and Planning
Commission approved Site Plan and Design 1-18
Planning Commission Minutes 19-20
Continued Plannina Action from Januarv 9th meetina to Februarv 13th
Staff Report Addendum and Exhibits A-E
Historic Commission Review
Exhibit1 - Submitted by Jerome White
Applicant's revised submittals
Written comments received since 1-99-2007 meetina
Email from Colin Swales dated 1-16-2007
Letter from Philip Lang dated 1-16-2007
Letter w/attachments from Philip Lang dated 1-28-2007
Letter from Philip Lang dated 2-7-2007
21-79
22-38
39-41
42-45
46-62
63-79
64-65
66
67-77
78-79
Januarv 9. 2007 Plannina Commission Meetina
Notice map and related criteria mailed 12-20-2007
Planning Commission Minutes dated 1-09-2007
Staff Report dated 1-09-2007
Tree Commission Review dated 1-04-2007
Historic Commission Review dated 1-03-2007
Exhibits entered into the record at the 1-09-2007 meetirla
Exhibit 1 - Letter from ODOT dated 1-07-2007
Exhibit 2 - Design and site plan from applicant
Exhibit 3 - Materials presented by applicant
Exhibit 4 - Letter from Philip Lang dated 1-09-2007
Exhibit 5 - Powerpoint presentation by Colin Swales
Applicant's Findings
80-155
81-82
83-85
86-97
98
99
100-116
101
102-106
107-108
109-111
112-116
117-155
March 14. 2007
CITY Of
ASHLAND
Raymond 1. Kistler
2025 Butler Creek Dr.
Ashland. OR 97520
RE: Planning Action #: PA#2006-02354
Dear Mr. Kistler:
At its meeting of February 13,2007. the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request fl)r a Site Review,
Variance and Exception to Street Standards for the property located at N. Main St. and Glenn St. __ Assessor's
Map # 39 IE 05 DA; Tax Lot 3600.
Orders document. adopted at the March 13. 2007 meeting. is enclosed.
1.
A final map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year of the date of
preliminary approval; otherwise. approval becomes invalid.
2.
A final plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval
becomes invalid.
o
CD
G
There is a 15-day appeal period, from the date of this letter, which must elapse before a building pennit
may be issued.
All of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met.
Planning Commission approval is valid tor a period of one year only, after which time a new application
would have to be submitted.
'e feel free to call me at 48R-5305 if you have any questions.
LL
cc: Colin Swales 461 Allison Street. Ashland, OR 97520
Art Bullock 791 Glendower Ashland. OR 97520
Philip Lang 758 B St., Ashland, OR 97520
Jerome White 253 Third St., Ashland. OR 97520
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel 541488-5305
Fax 541-552-2050
TrY 800-735-2900
rj.'
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 13, 2007
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2006-02354, A REQUEST
FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY
BUILDING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN CORNER
OF THE INTERSECTION OF N. MAIN ST. AND GLENN ST. AN EXCEPTION
TO THE STREET STANDARDS IS REQUESTED TO INSTALL A CURBSIDE
SIDEWALK ON THE GLENN ST. PROPERTY FRONTAGE. A VARIANCE IS
REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE SPECIAL SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR
FRONT YARDS FOR PROPERTIES ABUTTING AN ARTERIAL STREET FROM
TWENTY TO TEN FEET.
)
) FINDINGS,
) CONCLUSIONS
) AND ORDERS
)
~
)
)
)
)
)
APPLICANT: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
I) Tax lot 3600 of391 E05DA is located at the southern corner of the intersection ofN. Main St. and Glenn
St. and is zoned E-I (Employment).
2) The applicant is requesting Site Review approval to construct a two-story building. An Exception to the
Street Standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage. A
Variance is requested to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting
arterial streets from twenty to ten feet. The site plan and building elevations are on file at the
Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for Site Review approval are as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements ofthe Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
e. 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 transportation can and will be provided
to and through the subject property.
4) The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.090 as follows:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique
or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
P A 2006-02J54
N. \1ain St. & Gh:nn Sr.
Pagt' I
2
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity:
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty: and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Perfonnance Standards Options
Chapter.
5) The criteria for a Variance are as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan
of the City.
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self:imposed.
6) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held Public Hearings on January 19,2007,
and February 13,2007, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning
Commission approved the Site Review, Exception to the Street Standards and Variance to the Special
Setback Requirement application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the
site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings. the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission tinds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the StatT Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposed development meets the approval
criteria for Site Review approval. An office is a permitted use in the Employment (E-I ) zoning
PA 200o-023S4
!\O, Main 51. &:. Glenn 51.
Page 2
3
-
district. The E-I zoning district requires at least 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground
floor to be used for permitted or special permitted uses. In this case. all of the ground floor
building square footage is designated as office use which is a permitted use in the E-I zone. The
site is located in the R-Overlay which allows residential units as a special permitted use.
Residential units are permitted at 15 units per acre. The residential density of the site is two units
(.136Ac x 15 = 2.04 units). The proposal is to use the second story for office spaces. two
residential units, or a combination of office space and a residential unit.
The E-I zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel
abuts a residential zoning district. The subject parcel abuts a residential district at the rear (east)
of the site. A ten foot per story setback is required tor a rear yard abutting a residential district.
The proposed building is 50 feet from the rear (east) property line. and theretore exceeds the
required 20-foot setback requirement t()r the two-story building. The building is angled at the
northwest comer of the lot adjacent to the intersection ofN. Main St. and Glenn St. so that the
structure is located outside of the vision clearance area as required. The proposed building
height is approximately 26 feet which is under the maximum building height of 40 feet in the E-I
zoning district. The proposal will result in 22% of landscaping on site which exceeds the 15
percent minimum for the E-I zoning district.
The Planning Commission finds the proposed development meets the off-street automobile
parking requirements of Chapter 18.92, Off-Street Parking with the attached condition of
approval number 19. The original application required six otf-street parking spaces for 2,700
square feet of general office (2,700 sq. ft. / 450 = 6 spaces). The off-street parking requirement is
satistied by providing five spaces on site and with one otf-street parking credit available for the
two ~paces on the Glenn St. property frontage. The revised proposal, which is the approved
submittal, increased the building square footage by approximately three percent or 89 square feet.
As a result, the off-street parking requirement is increased from six to seven spaces (2,789 sq. ft.
/ 450 = 6.20). In addition, the applicant revised the second floor to have the flexibility to be used
as office spaces, two residential units, or a combination of the two. Here again. the off-street
parking requirement is slightly over six spaces increasing the required number of off-street
spaces to seven. The Commission finds that the building square footage and combination of uses
on the second floor can be revised so that the required number of off-street spaces does not
exceed the six spaces provided without a significant effect to the site or building desihlJl. This is
addressed with the attached condition of approval number 19. Two bicycle parking spaces are
required, and the site plan shows the two covered bicycle parking spaces located under the
exterior stairs in the front of the building.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the public utilities and transportation system have
adequate capacity to serve the development. Public facilities and utilities are in place to service
the project in the N. Main St. and Glenn St. rights-of-way. Water, sewer and storm drain
services are available in Glenn St. N. Main St. and Glenn St. provide access to the site. N. Main
St. is a state highway under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT). N. Main St. is classified as a Boulevard (arterial) and Glenn St. is classified as a
P A 2006-02354
'\. ~lain St. & Glenn Sf.
Page J
4
Neighborhood Street. Sidewalks are in place on the N. Main St. frontage and a portion of the
Glenn St. frontage. The applicant will install a sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage
connecting the existing sidewalk to the east of the property on Glenn St. to the existing sidewalk
on N. Main St. The bicycle facilities are a shared lane on both streets. Bus service is provided
on N. Main St.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the project is in compliance with the Basic Site
Review Standards for Commercial Development. Detail Site Review Standards and Historic
District Desib1J1 Standards. The project lies within the Detail Site Review Zone and the Skidmore
Academy Historic District.
The proposal meets the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development. The primary
orientation of the building is to North Main Street using a recessed entry feature. The front
entrance is accessed by the public sidewalk as required. Parking is located behind the building as
required. The proposal will result in 22% of landscaping on site which exceeds the 15 percent
minimum for the E-I zoning district. The parking area includes 19.4 percent of the area in
landscaping which exceeds the minimum requirement of seven percent of the total parking area
in landscaping. Additionally, one tree is required for each seven parking spaces to provide a
canopy effect. Two trees are proposed on the north end of the parking area and the application
states that the existing walnut in the southeast comer will also shade the parking area. Two street
trees are proposed behind the sidewalk on the N. Main St. and three trees are proposed behind the
sidewalk on Glenn St.
The Commission finds the proposed building satisfies the Detail Site Review requirements. The
recessed entry is generously sized, and accented with structural steel columns. The front (west)
wall ground floor includes 44 percent in glazing and the Glenn St. (north) wall includes 37
percent in glazing which exceeds a minimum of 20 percent of the wall are is required to be in .
display areas, windows and doorways. The front entrance to the building is emphasized by the
entry alcove and awning. The Detail Site Review Standards prohibit bright or neon paint colors
on the building exterior. The applicant provided exterior building materials and colors including
Moss Green stucco for the second floor, Mountain Brown polished-face CMU block f()r the
ground floor, Charcoal Black split-faced CMU block for the base and Vintage III (dark grey)
Zincalume Roofing.
The Commission finds that the proposed building meets the Historic District Design Standards.
At an aven~ge height of 28.5 feet to the ridge of the roof, the proposed building is a similar height
to the one and a half and two-story structures surrounding the subject property. The building is
broken into two modules which creates a residential scale and reduces the mass. On the Glenn
St. side of the building, the ground tloor store front exterior treatment is wrapped around the
comer of the building. (n addition, an awning system has been added to the ground floor
windows on the sides and rear of the building. The awnings and change in materials on the
Glenn St. elevation serve to provide relief in the massing. The mass of the rear of the building is
broken up the recess in the middle of the building. The proposed fac;ade line is in the same plane
PA 2000-02354
,. \Iain St. & Glenn St.
Page- 4
5
e
-<
,<'C!..
.,'..-
as the facades of buildings in the vicinity. The steep pitched gable roofs match the surrounding
historic buildings. The windows have a vertical orientation which is compatible with the fa<<;ade
patterns of surrounding historic structures. The base of the building is differentiated by using a
different material with a different color (i.e. split-faced block in Charcoal Black). The two street
facing volumes directed towards N. Main St. match the orientation to N. Main St. of buildings in
the area. The ground floor front doors are located in a generously-sized entry alcove which is
connected to a plaza and walkway area to the public sidewalk on N. Main St. Finally, the
proposed building design is a contemporary interpretation with different materials and
architectural details. As required, the building is clearly not imitating the style of an older
period.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the propose development meets the approval criteria
fc.)r an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property
frontage. A curbside sidewalk is in place on the south side of Glenn St. from the eastern
boundary of the subject property to Orange St. Additionally, a curbside sidewalk is in place on
N. Main St. and the comer ofN. Main St. and Glenn St. The opportunity for a parkrow on the
Glenn St. frontage is limited to approximately 50 feet in length between the wheelchair ramp at
the comer and the proposed driveway apron near the eastern property line. A transition from a
curbside sidewalk to a sidewalk with a parkrow uses approximately ten lineal feet. One
transition would need to be installed from the comer and another transition to the curbside before
the driveway. After the transitions to and from the curbside sidewalk would be installed, there
would be a relatively short length of parkrow installed on the Glenn St. property frontage.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the proposed development meets the approval
criteria for a Variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties
abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet.
The unusual circumstances which apply to the site are the surrounding historic development.
pattern, the comer lot location, the bend in N. Main St., the configuration of the lot, and access to
the site. The proposed ten-foot setback from N. Main St. matches the fa9ade line in the vicinity.
The average distance to the historic front fa~ade lines in this area is approximately ten feet. The
subject property is a highly visible location on one of the main gateways in the City and the
prominence is accentuated by the location on a comer lot and the bend in N. Main St. From the
perspective of traveling south on N. Main St., the side of the building facing Glenn St. will be
visible. The site has a short lot depth for a commercially zoned piece of property. There are
commercial and employment zoned properties throughout Ashland (e.g. A St., Clear Creek Dr.
and Russell Dr.) that allow similar mixed-use types of development and these areas have been
configured with adequate depth and area to accommodate parking on site. Additionally, alley
systems and shared driveway systems are in place in these same commercial and employment
zoned developments that provide vehicle access and back-up areas outside of the individual lots
and building envelopes. There is 50 feet available between the back of the building and the rear
(east) property line. The building footprint can not be moved closer to the back (east) property
line because the parking area and landscape buffer are at the minimum dimensions. The parking
P A 2006-02J54
:\. \lain Sl. & Glt'lln Sl.
Pag\: 5
6
fJ
is required to be behind or to the side of the building. Finally. the safest access to the site is rrom
Glenn St. Glenn St. has lower traffic volumes and better visibility than N. Main St.
The unusual characteristics of the site being the surrounding historic development pattern. the
comer location. the bend in N. Main St.. the configuration of the lot and access to the site have
not been created by the applicant. Therefore. the circumstances contributing to the request for a
variance are not self-imposed.
The Planning Commission disagrees with the interpretation of the variance criterion proffered by
opponents as it relates to self-imposed hardships. The Planning Commission finds and
determines a hardship is not self imposed merely because there may be an alternative way to
build a development without variance requested. In this case. the alternative proposed required
an administrative variance to address compliance with historic standards. There is no
requirement in Chapter 18.1 00 Variances to pursue the lesser of competing variances. (e.g. a
standard requiring the minimum variance necessary such as that used in the Administrative
Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards. ALUO 18.72.0890.0. and Exception to the Street
Standards, ALUO 18.88.090). It is true that a hardship may be deemed self imposed because it is
created by the personal desires of the applicant to maximize use of the property in terms of
density and intensity. Clearly, in this case, the difference in square footage between the plans is
inconsequential. This case is not so crude a choice; the Planning Commission strives to give
meaning to each and every provision of the Code, reconciling conflicts between competing
provisions when necessary. The Planning Commission finds and determines that a hardship is
not self created when compliance with all the provisions of the City's Development Code creates
essentially a no-win situation. The Planning Commission made an informed decision between
variance alternatives based upon the peculiarities of the site and superior design.
The positive benefits of the proposal are maintaining the historic fal(ade line, streetscape and
street enclosure ofN. Main St. The Historic District Design Standards require historic fal(ade
lines of streetscapes to be maintained by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plane
as the facades of adjacent buildings. The front fa<;ade line is an important component in creating
a historic development pattern and historic streetscape. If the proposed building is setback 20
feet from the front property line, the building will be set back further from the street than the
existing historic rront fa<;ade line on N. Main St. in the vicinity. As a result. the proposed
building setback 20 feet rrom N. Main St. will stand out rrom the historic fal(ade line and will not
be compatible with the historic development pattern.
Another positive benefit of the proposed building location at ten feet from the front property line
is maintaining the streetscape and street enclosure ofN. Main St. The proposed building setback
at the required 20-foot special setback for front yards abutting arterials is too far from the
sidewalk to provide pedestrians visual interest from the rront of the building or a sense of safety
from moving vehicles. The streets that pedestrians find most comfortable and safe feeling are
those where buildings rront directly on or near the street. In contrast. when buildings are set
farther from the street pedestrians tend to feel isolated and unprotected. Additionally. the
PA 200o-02J54
'\j. 'lain Sl. & Glenn Sl.
Page 0
7
"
'fI
building setback at 20 feet will be further back from the street than most of the front facades on
the east side ofN. Main St. in the vicinity thereby making the street more open in this location.
The building front fa.;ade should maintain the historic fal;ade line because vertical surfaces such
as building fronts close to the street encourage drivers to slow down.
Concerns were raised at the January 9,2007 public hearing that approval of the front yard
variance may prevent the installation of bicycle lanes on N. Main St. at a future date. County and
city maps provide general information about the N. Main St. corridor. Based on county
assessor's maps, city aerial maps and the Ashland Street Standards. there appears to be adequate
space between the proposed building and the building on the opposite side of the street at 493 N.
Main St. for a future reconstruction of N. Main St. as a tour-lane Boulevard including parkrows
and bicycle lanes. Additionally. the street corridor is partially located in the Skidmore Academy
Historic District (i.e. from the downtown to Maple St.). The Skidmore Academy Historic
District is on the National Historic Register. and the associated federal regulations could affect
street widening projects in listed historic neighborhoods. The 20-foot setback intrudes into some
of the building footprints on both sides ofN. Main St. A street widening project could
potentially impact the character of the historic district by reducing front yards and removing
historic buildings. and thereby altering the historic development pattern.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
application for Site Review approval to an office building, an Exception to the Street Standards to install a
curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage, and a Variance to reduce the special setback
requirement for front yards for properties abutting arterial streets has satisfied all relative substantive
standards and criteria and is supported by evidence in the record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions. we approve Planning Action # 2006-02354. Further, ifany one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, tor any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2006-02354 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
I) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modi tied here.
2) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations
of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary
equipment. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department prior to
building permit submittal, and the approved plan submitted with the building permit application.
Additionally. the placement of any portion of the structure in the public utility easement shall be
reviewed and approved by the Electric Department. Transfonners and cabinets shall be located in
arcas least visible from streets and outside of vision clearance areas. while considering the access
needs of the Electric Department.
PA 2()()6-()2.~54
...... \hin 51. & Glenn SI.
Page '7
8
e
-
3) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk improvement shall comply
with approved plans. and submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and
Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of a building or excavation permit. The concrete color
and surface finish shall be the city standard in accordance with the Ashland Engineering
Specifications. Additionally, evidence of approval of the Oregon Department of Transportation
f()r any work in the jurisdiction of the state shall be submitted with the engineered construction
drawings.
4) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall consist of the City of Ashland's
commercia\!historic streetlight standard. and shall be included in the utility plan and engineered
construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Ashland Street. That the property owner
shall install public pedestrian-scaled street lights to City specifications on the N. Main St. and
Glenn St. street frontages.
5) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division
and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building pennit. The utility plan shall include the
location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the
locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm
drainage pipes and catch basins.
6) That if a fire protection vault is required. the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk.
7) That all public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees and street lighting
shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy.
8) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those
approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in
substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this
Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
9) That a Tree Protection Plan in accordance with the requirements of 18.61.200 shall be submitted for
review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. The Tree Protection
Plan shall include an analysis from the project landscape architect or certified arborist of the impact
of the installation of the pervious paving on the walnut tree to be preserved.
10) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission with final approval of the Staff
Advisor shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall
be included on a revised tree protection plan. landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the
time of submission of building permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed
in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
PA l006-0l354
N. \1aill 51. & GIl:llll 51.
Pag\:' X
9
-
-
II) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division
prior to site work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to
inspect the installation of tree protection fencing tor the walnut tree in the southeast comer of the
property. The tree protection shaH be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance
with 18.61.200.8.
12) That public utility easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals.
No portion of the structure shall intrude into a public utility easement without approval by the
Ashland Engineering Division.
13) That the finished floor elevation (FFE) of the building shall be at a minimum, the same elevation
as the public sidewalk in front of the building in the N. Main St. right-of-way. Verification of the
FFE being at or above the elevation of the public sidewalk shall be submitted with the building
permit tor review and approval by the Staff Advisor.
14) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from N. Main St. Location and
screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals.
15) That the windows shall not be heavily tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into
the interior of the building.
16) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit
submittals. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are
prohibited in accordance with the Detail Site Review Standards.
17) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately
shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties.
18) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall
be developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit
submittals. That a sib1J1 permit shall be obtained prior to installation of new signage. Signage
shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96.
19) That the building size and number of residential units shall be revised so that the total number of
required otf-street parking spaces does not exceed the six spaces provided (i.e. five on-site spaces
and one on-street parking credit).
20) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Statf Advisor
shaH be incorporated into the building permit submittals.
21) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including fire apparatus access and tire
hydrant flow requirements shaH be satistied prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
PA 200(,-02J:;4
,. \1ain Sr. & Glenn St.
Page l)
10
e
It
22) That the new structure shaH meet Solar Setback B in accordance with Chapter 18.70 of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with the building
permit and include the required setback with the formula calculations. an elevation or cross-
section clearly identifYing the height of the solar producing point from natural grade and the solar
setback in site plan view called out from the solar producing point to the north property line.
-3J!ia
PA ::!OOh-fl::!354
,. \lain Sl. & Glenn St.
Page 10
11
P A2006-0 2354
ATTACHED SITE PLAN AND
DESIGN WERE APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AT THEIR MEETING ON
FEBRUARY 13, 2007
12
El
\,
vl
- ~
,
~
i., ,I
'UOBS\KiItIer Jobl\North M.., IWcIng\SOiEMDES\SP1.dwQ. 1123/'1lItf113:56:54 PM
I -
o
In ~
"7! '
--~ L
Z
(p
~
.
- -- .-.- - .-.' L.
--- ~
1) .
1> (
~~
-- - ~
1)
1>
---_/~.~
- ~
I
_.~
_/
/-1'
/
/
/-
(~
(~
--~ (p;.-' "..
.. .D _ '~~ IJ'
..... ~~
~~ m,<
:::~ -0 0
~ i r ...,,~.
... ... J> ;.>
Z (f)
111':":.'~
"P:"'~ .J
............
$)>
n-e. ~. .tncI .". leIM. MClI
~I~~
· f ~
~ iI ?
I
/
I-
I
/
~I
_ __ _b0.0FT I ~ ~~ /
L-~ ~~__-
111 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z / )' /' /' /' /' / '~ /' Z ./ / I
\ >.. >.. >.. >.. >.. '\. '\. '\. !'A')..' . '\. '\. '\A. >0(\. '\. '\. '\. "< ...s
tZZZ7Z//L )'ll~rzrZZZ['f ~
'. ~ ').. ').. ').. ~ '\'\. ~1:"\S .'\. '\. 'X. '\. '\. '\. '\. v'\. .'\. . &=
~; ,\!{f{-({{{{{{{!{{{{<<::-0.~
· Y7Z/TY./JTZZZZ2IZZI 'fZ///,,(l'}'
.. % .---/ \"50.. '\. '\. '\. V' S '\. '\.' . y< . '\. '\. v'\.. '\. '\. '\.' >.. '\." (p
liit _- V////Il/'YYT..xJ 1ZZ~?ZZ...(l/Z.l1J:
~ I- - ~ ~). >.. ,'\. '\.. '\.. >:. >l>.. "\,'\. '<.( '\.. '\.. '\.. ..x .').. ~ '11>
q,- ~ Jt \( Z Z J Z Z Z Z Z f( Z Z f Z Z / /.4 2 '/ /' it ~
\ CO 1 0 ~ ;U '\ '\. '\:'\. '\. '\. '\. '\.~ .), ~ '\. '\.' X .Y .'\. '\. I 0 ~ /
- -- --- -- 6~ V/{{-0Z"Xf'~{{{~ i{~~~ I> ~ /'
-- J~ VZZL1/~?A.11ZIZ/:i....r ('" '"
- U / "~'>: v'I"><f). :;'z'z~>>~ /it 1;:"".
o t!! ~ ~ <<>.. ')., '<.J<>. '\. :V<). '\. ~ ')., ~ '1 "-
~ ~-- ~{~<<~~J----
t / / /'~VZ Z /Z .l1~'
A" /;R /' /' /~
- -\879- ----- Jt oY":m / / I ~
-- AjiOX_/
~ /----/ ~~~ // lr
-/ ml>~ / ~
----1 ~:z~ / ~I ~
~ ~;:R~ // // O!
III !6~i/ / 1_ ~ ./
_-~m / t
_---- 1ft II )~
~--, I I '/' '/1
no.\ - - / ---' \))
/ I
/ I ~///
'-0 I / / I\)
J: JI ~
/ S
o
0/ I ~
I ~-/ ~
IRl / 0
Y.J /( ~
vCV I ~ /~
,;,-- ~
}/~ ;
/ ~
/ I
/
/
LAND5CAPE
-
/'
......\C011--
/'
----
/'
......----
/'
zf--
~
r-~
I :t:
/ (p
i
o
~ --
z-~
r-
I
/
I \V/~-
rf-t:"- -- [7~
~ ~I~ rill ~
~LW m
I ~ ~ m_- _\8,0------
/~~---~ ,~,
--..------1-- -- .
z I
m
E
~ I
o r~----_
fThv'" ,,/
E
-- /~ I
7f..
I ~
I '* --~ "---
V"\0j~ "
-
/
LANDecAPE
-
-----
I
I
'11
~
~U~
!Id
i&l
.J,
~ ~
, tf
.
~
"
I
I'" " "
\ ~---~
'1-- "-
I
...-- -- - ---.....
-\'~ ----- ----------
'11
r
t1J
m
r
m
:<
..
.
. .. ~..
'. "...
--\
~
~
'... .,
. ....
.. '.".
. ~.]'. ,.... '
J. :.
Ir ):
I~' b'
.l~~
,. . 'I .
;.r
-.
~
'"
"
~$, "
7."
IS" ,
"'1- "
~ '. " - . ..,..."
~- . . .. . . ~ :'. ."
~... '... ..
~ ~ .. .', ... ..
'" ~"", ~..~ ..'J~T~Y ~~.~.:/ :, . /' /'..- r
'" " ~, ., " .. /' 1>
~ ......., Z
.~~ '" . ...., ~ 0 I
'" . :. J ~----
~. r -~ ~ - - - - ~-..:.- -1886- '.<'-::'. '~~.;~. ~ - - vr -~-
~ I ", . :. .:. ,. .. rt Jv
/ - - ~ -- ~~~~' .}--'--=--=--=-=--=-=- ~-~ ~
l -188,/_ EXISTING SIDEWALK
I
I
~
I
~
.\...-- -
::D1
~ m/'/
~o
t~/m
~<
::J m
01
..... -...... .. ..- of ",of__' ...._, ..... "'-IV of ---100.... -.... - .. - .... -.. --., ........ ,., .... _ ",._.._ ... ...._ ._,..._ ., ..~ 1C:1..1er ...............
~ o~I~6~E~~~g,~G I JJgM I n
-----
-----
,--
I
-- - - - - -~~ - - - ---.-J
~;n~~
~~~
;HZ!:
~~~
~
'-----..
--..
NO. MAIN ST.
15
---rr-,'
'U085\_ Jaba\Nafth ~ 8u1d1ng\5CHEMDES\FP1.~ l/24rJD07 10:36:34 114
44'-0"
18'-12)"
8'-12)"
18'-0"
,3'-4" ,3'.4"
,3'-4" ,3'-4"
,3'-4" ,3'-4"
4'-8"
,3'.4" ,3'.4"
~ t..J
-
I I
~ 01
~ 11 ..
-
~ IU ~
I
~ (J) ~
~ --i x
..
I 11
-:: \JI \JI
I
& r I I
. 0 ~ ~
.
0
IU ~ ~ ~
I ! I \)>>
~ ~ t..J
X X I
~ ~
.
I ~
~ \JI \JI
I I I
~ ~ ~
.
~ ~
I 0~
~ x
~ ~
I I
~ 01
..
~ 0
I
:;;:Gi ~ ~
I
*~ ~ ~ 8 ~
~~ I I
-.-' ~ ~
m~ ..
.,!l 0
0 8 " /
~
~
"- ---- J
14'-0" 4'-0" 8'-0" 4'.0" 14'-0"
\>>t..J....
-"""0
~Ol....
~ (J) l>
m-r
xZ..
........
mm
~~ 44'.0"
~~
"ffl is'-0" . 8'-12)" 18'-0"
~.... 5'-12)" 1'-ltJ.in 5'-1!" S'.0" 1'-1I!" 5'-~"
(f)
(f)
~ (J) 0 8 8 8
m ~ -";
~ () I I
01 ~
~ 0
. z
, 8 8
. G
&
.
11 ~ ~
r , .
0 ~ ~
0
IU
8 8
~ ~ ! ~ ~
I I
I ~ ~ I
-..... ~ ~
~
0 ex x
............
~fIJ
~ C- ~ ~
0 :-~ I I
Z ~ ~
....~
)> t..? 8
8
c/)
~~
WW7':";.J ( ,
....\"..~ \J! \J!
p> -,)
I I
:J ~ ~
"'" BALCONY
t* e
m~ 5'-,3" ,3'-6" 5'-,3" 5'-,3" ,3'-6" 5'-,3"
.,-.
~l 14'-12)" 4'-12)" 8'-12)" 4'.0" 14'-0"
44'-12)"
'.... -. - - _. - -.... .....,......- -...........- of "''''--, ----. .. - "'-ow 0' ""-,,,1Qol,.. ...-..... _.. _ 10'" _. '" _." '"......,." """ _ "'0_'''''''' _ .,,,_ '_'''''''' .r __ ~.,'" .._,_,....
i ~~ '/l I ~~.RE~ I n
w f ~ KISTLER BROS.
. ! ~ ~ OFFICE BUILDING
~ ~ 16
:\North -. ~R.dwv. 113l/2D07 11:06:59 AM
~ Z ~
1> ()
r
m AI r
~ --f !!I
. r. ~
,
:
I ,
& m -:
,
. &
r .
m
-<
J>.
--f
-
()
z
~ !I r; I ~ ~
~
I ~
~ ~ II I.
I~
: I; I I i' i Ii
. ~ i , I r
I I ~ I
I I I I ,
I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I
,/ I I I I
'; /' I I I I
/~./~
~ --
/'
tHW-tH ~
r--- I
r-'
I --
- '-.- -.
-------.-----------
-
--
- -- .--
-
- I
-
- 1--
- I
-----------------
~
r---
~
~
r---
~
~ I
-
I
-
- --
CIJ ~-----
I
- I 0 I
-.1
() I
-""""v
r-r""",. :0
...__....-.i
... ~ rn
a
r--- C) R
~~,.~~ _.J
)-~ --- .i7j I
( r; ".
."..,.....
,...-. ",. ~~
~
....
;~:~1
'-""t
E ~ rf. ~ t
m I~
(j) ~ I r ,4
--f I~ , Ii
m
r I I
m I I , I
-< II I
J>.
-f I
- I
() I
z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
o
DJEE
I
I
I
I
~I
~~
I
i
I
M
I
''''' -.. - ... -. - -.... --... _...., .. ...-.. ......--. _v_. .........-.., ""_ICIol_ ...-...... - .. - .. 1M - .. _ _ ........ ,_ .... ._ "'..jeC'''_ ... wlI... ''''-'''''_ or ""~ 11;'.,... ...""',...,....
~ ./i ~i I O~~6~E;U~~,~G I ~~J1nE~. In
:\NoIth MIIIn ~R.dwa. l/31/7lK1111:05:45 >>l
. I I
I
I
I
~ I
I i I
I D . .
I
CD .. I 1 ff. l t
,~
, ~ ,t
I Ii
. . I I~ f
I ,
I--- .. I I I I
I--- I I I I I
I----- I I I , I
- ~ .
.. I
~
I /''' I I
~ , I I
~ , I
~ ~~
I--- I ~ I
. .'
- ,
r--- . . I : I
-. '. "- m
~ - I
'.
r--- - I
- -. I
- -
- I - ~
=r.... -
- I ..m.
t------ ~
f.- t------
~ o-o-trD :R '\ r--
//
" ,/, I //
I I ''Y/
,
I I
, I I , I
I II I I
I D
I I I I If ~
I I I I I ,'\..
I . ~
! jl IJ ~ , .~
I I~ L- m
I I' t------
~ 2; , I M ! It t------
~ t! IS)
I J t------ ... )
r--
r--
-
~ (J) ..m~
~ a f
!!' c:
~ -I
I
I " J //
I m
~
. r
m ~ m
- '< l>
~ l> !!' (J)
-I ~ -I
a "
I m I
z I
~ r
. m , I I I
l. ) '< i
l> I
,~ J R
1 . :1) -I
~ """i"' a ~ ~ I J
c . ;~ ~"T
~ ; I Z i
r ('')
-, ."
"
.. ,
.,
.. ..'
r
no. -. - IN _. - ~ ---.... -.. 1ft -- of "'-_1 owv..., .. IN....-'II of -......1CIo.. ""'-'we _ 10 _ \0 1M _ .. _., ......~'Of ~ _ .......,.. _ IN _"OM -_''''1001 or "'~ !(JOliet ...__
I ~ m~i II o~~6~E:J:~~G I kt~RE~r I n
-.-.
2. That an access easement for the portion of the driveway on the property to the east shall be recorded and submitted prior issuance
of a building permit.
3. That the area of disturbance for the private storm drain trench shall be landscaped to prevent erosion and shall be addressed in the
landscape plan submitted with the building permit submittals.
4. That a landscape and irrigation plan to re-vegetate the area between the driveway and the top of the bank shall be submitted with
the building permit. The landscaping shall be installed and irrigated prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
5. That the storm drainage from the roof and driveway shall be directed to a retention and water quality treatment system including
but not limited to a planter box, vegetative swale or a filter strip. The retention and water quality treatment system shall be reviewed
and approved the Ashland Engineering and Building Divisions.
[00:29:00J
6. That the public utilities shall be moved more than 20 feet from the top of bank from Wright's Creek Drive.
7. That an encroachment permit is obtained for work in the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Dawkins/Morris m/s to approve PA2006.01784 with the seven Conditions as outlined. Roll Call: Dawkins, Dotterrer, Mindlin, Marsh,
Morris, Dimitre, Stromberg and Fields voted "yes" and Black voted "no." The motion carried.
[00:31:00] PLANNING ACTION: 2006-02354 (CONTINUED)
SUBJECT PROPERTY: N. Main Street & Glenn Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to construct a two-story office building located on the vacant
parcel at the southeast corner of the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn St. A Variance is requested to allow a
10-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.
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Since the last meeting Stromberg, Black and Morris had another site visit. Morris called Ray
Kistler after the last meeting and apologized to Kistler for the lack of civility he was afforded at the last meeting. They did not talk
about the planning action. No other Commissioners reported a site visit this month.
[00:35:00] STAFF REPORT
Harris reported this action is continued from the January 9,2007 Planning Commission meeting. After reviewing the applicant's
request, she suggested the Commission focus on the Variance to the Special Setback Requirement. Staff believes the site design
standards have been met. She showed the alternate site plan that changed the footprint of the building.
The Historic Commission's original concerns have been remedied. Their list of recommendations is in the packet. They
recommended approval of the revised proposal with the ten foot setback, but because they did not have enough design details, also
recommended a condition that the plans with architectural details are submitted for review of the full Historic Commission prior to
submission of the building permit application.
[00:43:00J Harris explained the Variance.
[00:50:00J Harris said if the Commission is moving toward approval, Staff is suggesting 19 Conditions with two added Conditions.
20. That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be incorporated into the
building permit submittals.
21. That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including fire apparatus access and fire hydrant flow requirements
shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
[01 :OO:OOJ The Commissioners asked Staff questions.
PUBLIC HEARING
[01 :10:00] ART BULLOCK, 91 Glendower, said he believes the alternate plan satisfies the code and the fact the revised plan exists
means the Variance is self-imposed. The 12 percent grade is not a unique circumstance. The negative impact is that with a ten foot
setback, this will diminish the light, air and space, landscaping and pedestrian friendliness. The Variance would set a precedent. He is
supportive of the Historic Commission review of the details.
[01:16:00J JEROME WHITE, 253 Third Street, read from the LCDC Infill Redevelopment Handbook regarding variance criteria under
Review Procedures. He spoke about how applicants are required to maintain the historic fa~ade line of streetscapes. The Commission
has to balance several issues. He also read from The Pattern Language concerning building fronts, and light and air. He showed the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2007
2
19
- -
various building setbacks along North Main and if there is a 20 foot setback along North Main, seven buildings would have to be
clipped and if there was a ten foot setback, only two buildings would have to be clipped if the street is ever widened.
[01 :23:00] COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, believes the question is whether or not the ordinance should be obeyed. He referred to
the Historic Commission minutes stating that additional right-of-way for turning lanes at Wimer and North Main Streets might be
needed someday. He believes White took The Pattern Language discussion of light and air out of context.
[01:27:00] PHILIP LANG, 715 B Street, handed out his comments. He believes the ordinance needs to be fIxed and enforced. Most of
the buildings along North Main meet the 20 foot setback. He would recommend they only approve this application if it meets the code.
Rebuttal [01 :34:00]
RAY KISTLER, 2025 Butler Creek Road, said the 20 foot setback on arterials has only recently come up. The unique circumstance is this
is a lot in the Historic District on North Main Street and somehow a 20 foot setback is being applied that came up in the 1960's but not
used to his knowledge for building along Main Street. He would ask the Planning Commission make a determination on what kind of
setbacks they would like to see on Main Street and Lithia Way as they reflect the community values.
[01 :38:00] COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
MarshlMindlin mls to approve the application (the revised plan that has been submitted, not the alternative plan) for Site Design, Variance
to Street Standards, and Variance to the setback. Marsh is satisfIed the rendition presented is both high quality and satisfIes the
historical criteria imposed on the site. She particularly likes the way the application treats the comer by opening up that area. It is
important this go back to the Historic Commission to let them look at the details. With regard to the Variance to Street Standards and
curbside sidewalks, this neighborhood has curbside sidewalks and it would not be appropriate to do anything else. Concerning the
Variance to the setback, variances are a matter of judgment. There are variances because we want to be able to accommodate
peculiarities of every site.
Marsh addressed each criteria. 1) Unusual circumstances -The historical overlay is signifIcant and on a prominent comer and the
design needs to relate to that. The slope and the importance of access to the site from the back is an unusual circumstance. 2)
Negative impacts on adjacent uses - There are no negative impacts to surrounding uses because there is an historical pattern
documented in the maps. And, she believes having the buildings closer to the sidewalk is better for pedestrians, giving them a sense
of safety. It also mimics the historical pattern of the street. 3) Is it self-imposed? The criteria does not say you have to prove you
can't do it another way. We are looking for a way to accommodate good design and a way for the site to be able to relate to all the
circumstances on the site.
Dawkins has a concern with the setback on North Main. The historic houses were always along the west side of North Main and
commercial development on the east side. As a pedestrian, biker and runner, North Main is very unsafe. A bike lane on either side of
the road is essential for safety reasons for those that are trying to commute from other places (from the rest of the valley). Dimitre
agreed and believes the criteria for granting a Variance is a much higher standard than given in the motion as well as the building
being too big for the lot.
Mindlin sees a conflict in the rules. There is a rule that there is supposed to be a 20 foot setback and there is a rule that says the
application has to meet the historic fa~ade. Either way, a Variance will be needed. The applicant has been guided by the Historic
Commission and perhaps by Staff in determining that the historic fa~ade line is at ten feet and that's how the building should be
designed.
Fields believes North Main can't be widened anyway, the 20 foot setback becomes a stumbling block, and therefore, the decision has
already been made by the other buildings and the existing street width. The historic compatibility and integrity is better served by
making the building deeper front to back than it is wide. It's a balancing act.
Stromberg noted that a 20 foot setback is required. There was a prior ruling by the City Attorney that the setback takes precedence
over the historic design standard. Nevertheless, the design standards are in place as an expression of something the community has
decided and part of something the Commission is supposed to apply.
[02:02:00] Roll Call: Marsh, Dotterrer, Mindlin, Fields, Morris voted "yes" and Stromberg, Dawkins, Dimitre and Black voted "no."
PA.2006.01787, 479 Russell Street has been postponed until March 13, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. The Commission took a five minute recess.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2007
3
20
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
PA2006-02354
Action continued by Planning Commission from
January 9, 2007 to February 13, 2007 meeting
21
. .
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Addendum
February 13, 2007
PLANNING ACTION: 2006-02354
APPLICANT: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
LOCATION: N. Main St. and Glenn St.
ZONE DESIGNATION: E-l
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: January 2, 2007
120-DA Y TIME LIMIT: May 2, 2007
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.40 E-l Employment District
18.72 Site Design and Use Standards
18.100 Variances
REQUEST: Site Review approval to construct a two-story office building located on the vacant
parcel at the southern comer of the intersection ofN. Main St. and Glenn St. An Exception to
the Street Standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. frontage. A
Variance is requested to allow a ten-foot front yard setback where a 20-foot front yard for
properties abutting arterial streets is required.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
The planning action was reviewed at a public hearing at the January 9,2007 Planning
Commission meeting. The action was continued to the February 13,2007 meeting by the
Planning Commission.
B. Description of Revised Proposal
A vicinity map is included for reference at the end of this report as Staff Exhibit A.
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 1 of 12
22
..
1. Site Review
'"
The applicant has submitted a revised set of drawings addressing the design
concerns raised by the Historic Commission in their January 3,2007 review of the
application and in the January 13, 2007 staff report. Additionally, the applicant
has submitted an alternative design which meets the Special Setback Requirement
of a 20-foot front yard.
a) Revised Proposal
The revised set of drawings includes primarily changes to the building
design and exterior materials. The change to the site plan is a slight
modification to the building footprint. The previous proposal includes a
notched corner on both front corners of the building. The revised footprint
has the north corner angled at the vision clearance area, and the south
corner is squared off. The second story of the building is cantilevered over
the north corner of the building. The overall dimensions of the building
including width and depth are unchanged.
Exterior building design changes include the addition of awnings on the
north, east and south sides of the building, the doors on the west elevation
are facing the street rather than being angled, the window orientation on
the north, east and south sides of the building has been made more vertical
than horizontal, the diagonal steel bracing has been eliminated on the west
elevation, the middle section of the east building elevation is recessed and
the saddle between the two gable roofs has been lowered. The exterior
building materials have changed on the second floor to stucco plaster.
Previously, a combination of cedar lap siding and galvanized metal siding
was used on the second floor.
b) Alternative Design
The alternative design meets the Special Setback Requirement of a 20-foot
front yard. It is Staff s understanding that the applicant is requesting
approval of the revised proposal, and the alternative design is provided for
illustrative purposes.
In the alternative design, the footprint of the building is approximately ten
feet wider and ten feet shorter in depth than the revised proposal. The
effect of this change is the proportion of the building as viewed from N.
Main St. is wider, and the sides of the building are shorter. The front yard
is increased to 20 feet and the side yard adjacent to Glenn St. is decreased
to five feet. (The front yard in the revised proposal is ten feet and the side
yard adjacent to Glenn St. is 11 feet.) The total building square footage is
reduced from the revised proposal by approximately 9 percent. The
alternative design includes a residential unit in the second floor.
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 2 of 12
23
.
.
2. Exception to the Street Standards
The revised proposal remains unchanged in that the application continues to
include an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the
Glenn St. frontage. A curbside sidewalk is in place on the south side of Glenn St.
from the eastern boundary of the subject property to Orange St.
3. Variance to the Special Setback Requirement
The revised proposal remains unchanged in that the application continues to
include a request for a V arianc~ to the Special Setback Requirement which
requires the front yards for properties abutting an arterial street to be a minimum
of 20 feet (18.68.050). The front of the building is located ten feet from the front
property line adjacent to N. Main St.
II. Proiect Impact
The applicant has made changes to the building design that has resulted, in Staff s
opinion, in an improved building design addressing the Historic District Design Standards
regarding massing, roof shapes and rhythm of openings. The applicant's revised proposal
maintains the building footprint in the original location. As a result, a Variance to the
Special Setback Requirement to reduce the front yard adjacent to N. Main St. remains in
the application request. Finally, an Exception to the Street Standards for a curbside
sidewalk on Glenn St. is also requested.
A. Site Review
1. Requirements of the Employment Zoning District
a) Off-Street Parking
The square footage of the revised proposal has increased approximately three
percent. As a result, the off-street parking requirement is increased from six to
seven spaces. If the application is approved, the building square footage will need
to be reduced by a minor amount to satisfy the off-street parking requirement.
Staff believes the square footage could be reduced without a significant affect to
the site or building design to remedy the situation, and a condition has been added
to this affect.
b) Residential Units
Though not explicitly addressed in the application materials, the applicant has
expressed interest in the possibility of using the second floor for one or two
residential units.
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 3 of 12
24
. .
The E-I zoning district requires the first floor of the building to be used for
permitted or special permitted uses. In this case, all of the building square footage
is designated as office use which is a permitted uses in the E-I zone. The site is
located in the R-Overlay which allows residential units as a special permitted use.
Residential units are permitted at 15 units per acre. The residential density of the
site is two units (.1 36Ac x 15 = 2.04 units).
With the current size of the building, the total required number of off-street
parking spaces will increase to seven spaces. Again, this is resulting from a slight
increase in building square footage from the original proposal. If the building has
residential units on the second floor, the square footage will need to be reduced by
a minor amount to satisfy the off-street parking requirement. Staff believes the
square footage could be reduced without a significant affect to the site or building
design to remedy the situation, and a condition has been added to this affect.
2. Site Design and Use Standards
In the previous report, Staff identified concerns with the building design not fully
satisfying the Historic District Design Standards regarding massing, roof shapes and
rhythm of openings on the Glenn St. elevation. The Historic Commission reviewed
the original proposal at the January 3, 2007 meeting and recommended a continuance
based on similar concerns as Staff and concerns about the type and color of exterior
materials. The Historic Commission had not reviewed the revised proposal at the
time of writing.
In Staffs opinion, the revised proposal addresses Staffs concerns with the Glenn St.
elevation. The ground floor store front exterior treatment is wrapped around the
corner of the building. The windows have been changed to a vertical orientation.
Finally, an awning system has been added to the ground floor windows. Staff
believes the three adjustments to the Glenn St. elevation serve to provide relief in the
massing and reflect the fa9ade pattern of the historic structures in the area.
B. Exception to the Street Standards
In Staffs opinion, the Exception to the Street Standards meets the approval criteria. A
curbside sidewalk is in place on the south side of Glenn St. from the eastern boundary of
the subject property to Orange St. The opportunity for a parkrow between the sidewalk
and curb is limited to approximately 50 feet between the corner and the proposed
driveway apron. After the transitions to and from the curbside sidewalk would be
installed, there would be a short length of parkrow installed.
C. Variance to the Special Setback Requirement
The request is to locate the building ten feet from the front property line adjacent to N.
Main St. A Variance to the Special Setback Requirements for front yards abutting an
arterial is required. N. Main St. is classified as a Boulevard (arterial). Four maps of the
N. Main St. corridor starting from downtown to the north are included for reference as
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J, Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 4 of 12
25
. .
Staff Exhibits B -E at the end of this report. The dark dashed line shows the 20-foot
setback on both sides of the street.
18.68.050 Special Setback Requirements
To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets
of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of
hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof, shall be measured
from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line separating the lot from
the street.
Street Setback
East Main Street, between City
limits and Lithia Way 35 feet
Ashland Street (Highway 66) between
City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65 feet
Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20)
feet, with the exception of the C-1-D district.
The applicant has submitted an alternative design that meets the Special Setback
Requirement of a 20-foot front yard. In addition, a list of eight building setbacks on N.
Main St. in the general vicinity of the property has been provided.
If the Planning Commission is considering approving the Variance request, Staff believes
that findings could be developed to meet the approval criteria. Staff believes the unusual
characteristic of the site is that it has a relatively steep slope (approximately 12 percent)
and short lot depth for a commercially zoned piece of property. There is 50 feet available
between the back of the building and the rear (east) property line. The building can not
be moved further from N. Main St. towards the back (east) property line because the
parking area and landscape buffer are at the minimum dimensions. The parking is
required to be behind or to the side of the building. The slope and configuration of the
property is not self imposed.
In Staff's opinion, a positive benefit of the proposal is the front of the building will
compliment the historic fa<;ade lines in the vicinity. The Historic District Design
Standards require historic fa<;ade lines of streetscapes to be maintained by locating front
walls of new buildings in the same plan as the facades of adjacent buildings (see standard
with graphic below). The front fa<;ade line is an important component in creating a
historic development pattern and historic streetscape. New buildings that differentiate too
much from the historic front fa<;ade line stand out and are not compatible with the historic
development pattern.
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 5 of 12
26
.
/V-c-4) MAItrUIIn the INtorlc fllCllllle Iitw. Df
.~ "Y Iot:IttIty ,"",t -'"
of new buIItIrtp In the Nm6 fUM _
the fllClllltJ-6 Df *!J-tmt ~
.
5ET6ACI(
,f.voit/ vIoI.UntJ the _.~'" ~ (JIIttt1m by
p/M:Inf ~ ~ ", frmt or _hInII the
hhltorlc fllCM6 /IrttJ.
Another positive benefit of the proposed building location is maintaining the streetscape.
Traditional planning principles stress the importance of locating the majority of the front
facades at the same plane to enclose the street. The structures that line a street determine
how well the streetscape is defined. Specifically, the combination of the front fa9ade line,
building height and the width, and sidewalk and street width define the spatial qualities of
the streetscape. In a retail or commercial setting, buildings should normally be placed
against the edge of or near the sidewalk because the uses depend upon direct pedestrian
access. The streets that people find most comfortable are those where buildings front
directly on or near the street accommodating both pedestrians and vehicles at slower
speeds.
The paragraph and graphic below are from the publication Main Street... when a highway
runts through it: A Handbook for Ore2on Communities, and illustrate the importance of
the building facades and setbacks in street enclosure.
Buildings and trees bring a feeling of enclosure to the highway, which contributes
to the main street's sense of place. Architects see a street as public space defined
by vertical surfaces, much as a room is defined by its walls. High quality vertical
features are extremely important to the pedestrian environment because they are
the focus of human perception. Vertical surfaces such as building fronts and trees
close to the street encourage drivers to slow down.
Open spaces, such as parking lots in front of buildings, vacant lots. and
un landscaped parks interrupt the vertical plane. This can be intentional when
there is a land mark in the background that should be visible, such as a civic
building. (pg. 17, Main Street... when a highway runts through it: A Handbook
for Oregon Communities. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development and Oregon Department of Transportation, November 1999.)
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 6 of 12
27
..........-...--.-----..----------.----------
· ' , 1;2 t.J&io
. . '
._.....~---_...._._..~_._----~~.----------_.-
1 . J :,11I0 -
Human scale height-
to-width ratios {all
between 1:3 and 1:2
as measured from the
building fronts or
large trees if present,
a .a~t"
.~--.,- .. . -- - . .~~
1:3 height-to-width ratio creates a human scale Main Street
~
I
L________ __
Concerns were raised at the January 9,2007 public hearing regarding the installation of
bicycle lanes on N. Main St. at a future date. County and city maps provide general
information about the N. Main St. corridor. Based on county assessor's maps, city aerial
maps and the Ashland Street Standards, there appears to be adequate space between the
proposed building and the building on the opposite side of the street at 493 N. Main St.
for a future reconstruction ofN. Main St. as a four-lane Boulevard including parkrows
and bicycle lanes. If the Planning Commission believes land should be set aside in the
front yard of the subject property for future possible changes to N. Main St., the
Commission will need to decide what is a reasonable amount of land to reserve for a
possible future street project.
In evaluating future possible street improvement projects, a question to consider is the
likelihood of widening the N. Main St. corridor, and the associated impacts that would
result from a street widening project. The issue of the possible widening ofN. Main St. is
difficult to asses solely on the conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject
property. The N. Main St. corridor includes a variety of right-of-way widths, the street
improvement width changes throughout the corridor and the width of the existing street
improvement is not clear. The street corridor is partially located in the Skidmore
Academy Historic District (i.e. from the downtown to Maple St.). The Skidmore
Academy Historic District is on the National Historic Register, and the associated federal
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 7 of 12
28
regulations could :let street widening projects in listed hi~c neighborhoods. As
shown on Staff Exhibits B - E, the 20-foot setback intrudes into some of the building
footprints on both sides ofN. Main St. A street widening project could potentially impact
the character of the historic district by reducing front yards and removing historic
buildings, and thereby altering the historic development pattern.
III. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof
The criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.070 as follows:
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the 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 transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall
comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655,
1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999)
The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.090 as follows:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a
unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards
Options Chapter.
The criteria for a Variance are described in 18.72.090 as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically
apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of
the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 8 of 12
29
C. That the Cir~stances or conditions have not been Willfu~r purposely self-imposed.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
As in many development projects in existing historic neighborhoods, the challenge is
fitting the proposed site and building improvements into an established area and street. In
historic neighborhoods, the development pattern evolves over time. The historic
development pattern along with the current development requirements such as off-street
parking and landscaping, the size oflots and the size of the street right-of-way can
physically constrain new development. Ideally, new development becomes an asset to the
area, and reads from the present time while blending into the historic surroundings. As
outlined in the Historic District Design Standards, if new development is done incorrectly
it is noticeably different and stands out.
In making the decision on the proposal, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
focus on the Variance to the Special Setback Requirement to reduce the required 20-foot
front yard for properties abutting arterial streets. In this case, the request is to allow a ten-
foot front yard between the front of the building and N. Main St. In Staffs opinion, the
revised application satisfies the Site Review approval criteria including the Historic
District Design Standards concerning massing, roof shapes and rhythm of openings
previously raised. Staff also believes the request to install a curbside sidewalk on Glenn
St. is a straightforward request that meets the approval criteria for an Exception to the
Street Standards.
In terms of the Variance to the Special Setback Requirement, if the Planning Commission
believes there is a unique or unusual circumstance that applies to this site, than the main
decision for the Commission is whether the proposal's benefits will be greater than any
negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses. The benefits of the proposal
are maintaining a historic fayade line on N. Main St. and continuing the enclosure of the
street. A potential negative impact is the issue of providing space for future possible
street improvement projects. Based on county assessor's maps, city aerial maps and the
Ashland Street Standards, there appears to be adequate space between the proposed
building and the building on the opposite side of the street at 493 N. Main St. for a future
reconstruction ofN. Main St. as a four-lane Boulevard including parkrows and bicycle
lanes. If the Planning Commission believes land should be set aside in the front yard of
the subject property for future possible changes to N. Main St., the Commission will need
to decide what is a reasonable amount of land to reserve for a possible future street
project.
In evaluating future possible street improvement projects, a question to consider is the
likelihood of a widening the N. Main St. corridor, and the associated impacts that would
result from a street widening project. The issue of the possible widening ofN. Main St. is
difficult to asses solely on the conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject
property. The N. Main St. corridor includes a variety of right-of-way widths, the street
improvement width changes throughout the corridor and the width of the existing street
improvement is not clear. The street corridor is partially located in the Skidmore
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 9 of 12
30
. .
Academy Historic District (i.e. from the downtown to Maple St.). The Skidmore
Academy Historic District is on the National Historic Register, and the associated federal
regulations could affect street widening projects in listed historic neighborhoods. As
shown on Staff Exhibits B - E, the 20-foot setback intrudes into some of the building
footprints on both sides ofN. Main St. A street widening project could potentially impact
the character of the historic district by reducing front yards and removing historic
buildings, and thereby altering the historic development pattern.
Should the Commission believe adequate information and facts are provided to approve
the project, Staff recommends the following conditions:
1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load
calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including
transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department prior to building permit
submittal, and the approved plan submitted with the building permit application.
Additionally, the placement of any portion of the structure in the public utility
easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department. Transformers
and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of vision
clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
3) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk improvement
shall comply with approved plans, and submitted for review and approval of the
Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of a building or
excavation permit. The concrete color and surface finish shall be the city standard
in accordance with the Ashland Engineering Specifications. Additionally,
evidence of approval of the Oregon Department of Transportation for any work in
the jurisdiction of the state shall be submitted with the engineered construction
drawings.
4) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall consist of the City of
Ashland's commerciallhistoric streetlight standard, and shall be included in the
utility plan and engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along
Ashland Street. That the property owner shall install public pedestrian-scaled
street lights to City specifications on the N. Main St. and Glenn St. street
frontages.
5) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering Division and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit.
The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and
adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes,
sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch
basins.
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 10 of 12
31
12)
13)
14)
6)
That if a ~ protection vault is required, the va~hall not be located in the
sidewalk.
7)
That all public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees
and street lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to
issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
8)
That the plans submitted for-the building permit shall be in substantial conformance
with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the
building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this
application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted
and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
9)
That a Tree Protection Plan in accordance with the requirements of 18.61.200 shall
be submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit
submittals. The Tree Protection Plan shall include an analysis from the project
landscape architect or certified arborist of the impact of the installation of the
pervious paving on the walnut tree to be preserved.
10)
That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission with final approval
of the Staff Advisor shall be addressed prior to the issuance ofa building permit.
The recommendations shall be included on a revised tree protection plan,
landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building
permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance
with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
11 )
That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland
Planning Division prior to site work, building demolition, and/or storage of
materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the installation of tree protection
fencing for the walnut tree in the southeast corner of the property. The tree
protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with
18.61.200.B.
That public utility easements on the property shall be shown on the building
permit submittals. No portion of the structure shall intrude into a public utility
easement without approval by the Ashland Engineering Division.
That the finished floor elevation (FFE) of the building shall be at a minimum, the
same elevation as the public sidewalk in front of the building in the N. Main St.
right-of-way. Verification of the FFE being at or above the elevation of the public
sidewalk shall be submitted with the building permit for review and approval by
the Staff Advisor.
That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from N. Main St.
Location and screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building
permit submittals.
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 11 of 12
32
. .
15) That the windows shall not be heavily tinted so as to prevent views from outside of
the building into the interior of the building.
16) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building
permit submittals. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to
the building or use are prohibited in accordance with the Detail Site Review
Standards.
17) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and
appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding
properties.
18) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of
Chapter 18.96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review and
approval with the building permit submittals. That a sign permit shall be obtained
prior to installation of new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of
Chapter 18.96.
19) That the building size and number of residential units shall be revised so that the
total number of required off-street parking spaces does not exceed the six spaces
provided (i.e. five on-site spaces and one on-street parking credit).
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 12 of 12
33
34
~
o
35
36
37
38
..
'ttlJl
- Page 1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
HISTORIC COMMISSION
Meeting of February 7,2007
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW (2nd)
PLANNING ACTION #2006-02354 Request for Site Review approval to construct a two-story office
building located on the vacant parcel at the southeast corner of the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn
St. A Variance is requested to allow a 10-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. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment ZONING: E-1 (with
ResidentialOverlay) ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1E 05 DA; TAX LOTS: 3600; APPLICANT: Raymond J.
Kistler Architecture
Recommendation to Planning Commission:
Recommend approval of the revised proposal (Le. at the ten-foot front yard setback)
with the condition that the plans with architectural details are submitted for review of the
full Historic Commission prior to submission of the building permit application.
Architectural details to include balcony railing detail, window/door sill/jamb details, wall
section, awning and knee brace details, storefront brake metal system details, and final
material and color palette. Specific recommendations are following.
Variance
· West and East Sides of N. Main St.
The west and east sides of N. Main St. have different historic characters. The
West side has larger, statelier residences, setback further from the street.
The east side is predominately commercial and the reduced front yard
setback from N. Main St. is historically more appropriate for pedestrian
commercial interaction.
· Historic District Setback Standard IV-C-4)
Maintain the historic fa9ade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls of
new buildings in the same plans as the facades of adjacent buildings. A void
violating the exiting setback pattern by placing new buildings in front or
behind the historic fa9ade line.
Proposed ten-foot setback from N. Main St. matches fa<;ade lines in the
vicinity. The average historic front fa<;ade lines in the area are approximately
ten feet.
Community Development
20 E. Main Street
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541/488-5305
Fax: 541-/488-6006
TTY: 800/735-2900
rA1
39
Page 2
PA 2006'{)2354/N. Main & Glenn
Revised Proposal at Ten-foot Setback
· Strongly recommend a 45 degree angle on both ground floor corners to
maintain symmetry.
· Awnings on three elevations are a positive addition to overall design.
Concerned about the length and projection of the knee braces.
· Support material samples shown at meeting - Moss Stucco, Vintage III
Zincalume roofing and Mountain Brown split-faced CMU. Stucco should be
smooth sand finish. Do not support zinc aluminum roofing discussed in
original proposal because bright, shiny color is not compatible with
surrounding historic materials.
· The Historic Commission finds the revised proposal to meet the ten Historic
District Design Standards in the Site Design and Use Standards as follows.
IV-C-1) Height
At an average height of 28.5 feet to the gable ridge, the proposed
building is similar to structures surrounding the subject property. The
building across the street is 1.5 stories and the condominiums behind
the site are similar two-story structures.
IV-C-2) Scale and IV-C-3) Massing
The building is broken into two modules which creates a residential
scale and reduces the mass. The mass of the rear elevation is broken
up by the recess in the middle of the building.
IV-C-4) Setback
See comment above.
IV-C-5) Roof Shapes
The steep pitched gable roofs match the surrounding historic buildings.
IV-C-6) Rhythm of Openings
The windows have been changed from original proposal to a more
vertical orientation which is compatible with the surrounding historic
structures.
IV-C-7) Platforms
The base of the building is differentiated with by material (split-faced
block in Charcoal Black).
Community Development
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.oLus
Tel: 541/488-5305
Fax: 541-/488-6006
TTY 8001735-2900
rA1
40
-
-
Page 3
PA 2OQ6'{)2354iN Main & Glenn
IV-C-8) Directional Expression
Two street facing volumes directed towards N. Main St. matches the
orientation to N. Main St. of buildings in the area. This provides texture
rather than being monolithic.
IV-C-9) Sense of Entry
The ground floor front doors are located in a generously-sized entry
alcove which is connected by a plaza and walkway area to the public
sidewalk on N. Main St.
IV-C-10) Imitations
The building is clearly not replicating the style of an older period.
In summary, the proposed building design manages to address the Historic
District Design Standards while accomplishing a contemporary interpretation with
different materials and architectural details.
Alternative Design at 20-foot Setback
The Historic Commission recommends denial of the alternative design.
· The design is not complete.
· The vastly different building proportions (wider than deep) create a change in
bulk, mass and scale that results in a loss of the store front character and too
much of a residential feel.
· The historic proportion is having a building that is narrow and long - this
building design is the opposite. If you look at the site plan with the increased
front yard setback, it looks like an improperly site building because it is wide
and too shallow.
· If the Planning Commission enforces the 20-foot front yard setback, the
Historic Commission recommends continuation to review the new design for
mass, scale, proportions, materials and details in relation to the applicable
Site Design and Use Standards.
Community Development
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.US
Tel: 541/488-5305
Fax: 541-/488-6006
TTY 800/735-2900
rA'
41
EXHIBIT ENTERED BY JEROME
WHITE INTO THE RECORD
AT THE
FEBRUARY 13, 2007 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
P A2006-02354
42
.
.
_ r \': - - ~ " f - ... . .. - ~, .~. c ~ .l-' ..... - -
~
L
~
~
-
::l
o
en
~
s:
~
--1
I
t<)
-Q
\)~
. :> s::
~ ~.,
\-
.:!tL
"i.
-0 ~
_. ~
<f)
~
. s:: tI..
~i:
I s::~
\q<f)
.K:
s:: L L.
. .!!~~E~
N~~S:::3\q
~~S::~\-...J
~"U
~
\)~
. :> s::
~~
\-
~ ~
. .:!tL s::
iO~
~
. s:: tI..
-~ ,~E
\)011I " <f)
K:
43
. ~
-0 . ~
-. ~
<n
~-
0
Li.I
.J ::.. ,.
L <. i
( -
"'";..,
l ) U
.-1
u..
~
s::-
~
E
~
"
0-
..
'"
i(J
u
-
>>0
05
. ~ --
~ 0\-
~-
~O
02_
N
d.\.
.+.
~
~
If)
~.
""
'V
- ~
c:::Q
o ~ ',-,
:c~ 1
'" t".
<:0) '~~
'- c:: J ':~;
~.~ I~~
uo: ~~~
f: .':
.:o:g
1:
y
1
~f
u '>
~ -:s
-,1
IJ
~ .:;
j>
""(, j
1- (L
:t: \}
~~
..D
j .+-
It' t
:>
.,.
..
.
- ...(' !\~. ' "~"-:--' - 'f.. .--- .~.~- J.- ...:~
\S
L
~
:>
~
-
::l
o
en
~
s:
~
--l
I
t<)
-
"
..loo/
"i'
~
.~
If)
~
_ . s:: ~
~ or:
r-, s::~
\qlf)
i[
\itl
. ::> s::
~ ~J
,\-
s:: L L.
. .!~~E~
(\\~~S:::J\q
--tls::tl\-...J
~"l..)
\itl
::> s::
~j
tl tl
. ..loo/ s::
jQ~
-
r-
~
. s:: ~
~1:
I s:: ~
\qlf)
i[
. ~
~~ .' ]
ij)
44
a ) 2:
L.:.J , .j
::> .'.
.0
Ul ".
0 '5.
; LiJ ] ?::.
d (3
U-
~
s::
tl
. E
~
"
~
-N
t--.'
-
r--
,....
at
-
o
-
-+
o
-
+
to
-
~
'~
"
sf.,
:)
%
(!)
]
D
o
~
\-\
c
;g
P :}
KO; ~;:;/ "\\ ~:: H
\ \C!:d
\ \\
1- \\ \\
">
-y
"
45
.,
.
.
Applicant's Revised Submittals
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
P A 2006-02354
46
..
."
1-25-07
Kistler Office Building
No. Main - Glenn St.
As requested I am updating the planning file on the proposed building project being
continued at the next Planning Commission Hearing. A few items I'd like to clarify from
the last Historic and PC hearing include:
Revised Plans taking into account the following concerns from the Historic Commission:
Material samples are submitted to Planning. Stucco color samples and a metal roof
substitute finish material have been submitted if Commission prohibits the use of Zatique
metal siding upstairs and Zinc roofing.
The Glenn St. elevation (as well as the south elevation to match) have included steel
braced awnings on angled supports that were previously only on the Main St. elevation
lowering the scale @ north, south, east elevations addressing concerns of "monolithic
elevations" .
Diagonal steel seismic bracing has been eliminated at windows. Structural steel
extensions at front elevation have been eliminated. Window sills have been lowered.
For the same reason the middle section of the east building elevation has been recessed to
break up massing.
The saddle between the two gable roofs has a different roof pitch than the rest of the
building lowering it's ridge height.
Some clarifications from the P.c. hearing:
My brother (nor l) does not own the lot to the south, has never owned it, never been
offered to buy it from the Owners as it is not for sale. We do have a 20' access easement
on that property to No. Main - possibly where that misunderstanding arose from.
I was also asked to provide an alternate design which does not need a setback variance.
That design has also been submitted. The 20' setback dates back to a time when traffic
planners wanted to widen all arterial streets. That has already occurred on this section of
No. Main and ODOT has no plans to ever widen it again given community values,
historic buildings that would have to be raised
Thanks,
Raymond Kistler, AlA
\Mi!\(fi!l>
',t.~ -~ ::>
~ !I{ ~J i ':"
CM' t '.. hlalll.i
I' .' unt
:=5~2 ,cm8ou~
47
'rW
'i;,!'lIIIlII,
lP
Buildine Setbacks alone No. Main near Glenn St.
(Field measurements taken from back of sidewalk)
470 No. Main Big AI's = 4.2'
476 No. Main Manor Motel =4.2'
508 No. Main True Earth Medical Building = 10'
638 No. Main Ashland Surgery = 11'
493 No. Main Relocated Home = 12'
521 No. Main Helping Hand = 9' -6"
563 No. Main ArcSine = 6' -6"
595 No. Main Family Practice Medical = 11' -6"
492 No. Main Kistler Bros. Proposed Setback =10'
RECEIVED
,< \' <) ,-;, '! ,\; :
,:,"1 ' ., {
City of Ashland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
48
, ..
i.-
i ·
.
,
'.
t..,
49
50
\ JOBS\KistIe1- Jobs\North Main Building\SCHEMDES\SP1.clwg. 1123f'1D07 3:56:54 PM
~
r /1
m
Z- l.
Z
(p
-I
I
. - - - l
I
--- -- ,j
1)
1>
~
.. .- ~
11
1>
~.
'"J{.
~
'_/~"-l
. --.J
Uj
(~
~~ (p
. . - :....,
- - -I
~~ m
;;: ~ 1)
2 ~ I:..
'""z
.)
~; '~
~
.
I\.)
J
/J
./
-+1 ~~
r.
(p
-f
()
~
o _
~ --
-~ Z e~ ~
boZ>. oZ> FT !-- , ,\ ./,;!t'"/
- -//-: -j /'-~- - - ;}~
A>,1Y /.- / "7 ~I ~~~."...
'/)' / /)')')' / I Z.L/ /' /' /Z-Z;//U Y)I / .~,
>-. ^ ^ ^ >.. >.. '>-. '^ '\. >I.>'" '\ '\ >... '\A.. n>-. '\. '\. ~ ~)J ~ ~" . .
'Z)')')'//// 'll-/f/[/,7//,<,'~ '/~ 'P- ~"'-/-
'i ~'\>--'\'\.'\'\.~ :->"''\'<''\'\.~'\>-.'\>-.\(>... ,>...,&= '~,
Jt cJl \( Z / / L;< )' /. )')' // )' A / /, /~: ,.( '/ AJl~ ,_~
hi Sf: ~ M >... >... >... >... "f >... >... >... >... >... "i \....'\ >-. "A v..r:>.. >.. ,,)0J ~
. x7//L?/!///Il/),/, '/:///7///
0' ~ .--/ '& '^ '^ >.. >... ">f>... >... >.. >... '^ 0A >... ,,^,'y'\. '\. \.... >.... S '\ .. ~
~~ - ---- ---- Y{(/ [t.:~ ,<<{>..{{~ <Y<i 1>
IS~ 11t' '(,{j'J//)'//J( / ~)'//li'/ /~ '" "->
~~\S 3~ ~)))~m>~%'>)1Q ~ /
- ~. --- ~ ~ " '\. '\. >... ~ "i.. >... >... '>-. >.. Xl>... '> '^ >... )..., >... ).. >... '1 1> ~
/ .~J//)'//L/ '////ZXr r '.
o~ //' ~~~~~~~~..' ,
m m ~ ~ '{>.S'<J>... >... ,).lS... \.... "A"A >"'1 { , ,
0;': ____---- '-ZZ/v)')')')')'////~)
~ ~ ~ ~ ,>... '\. >... \.... Y>JI (p , ...__-
.'-- / / /~)')')'//fm. .--
_______ / ./riI / / / /~
_ _ - -187<3- JIJ (p"~m // I ~ _ /
~()~ ~
t// ~n / ~I
V/1(J ~;Z~ /1 /11 ~,tJ
/ 1> O;lJ' / /
---- 0 m Z _
~ c / 1 ~
m ~ -f I I ,
(J) 0 :$. -f / / ~ / .'
~ S}-N / - ?.-/
f- ____~m 1 ~
----/---- ~ / )!
-------- I ~
~/----I I I '/' '/J
nQ\--
--' \JJ
I
I
(;..
~~ - - - -
LANDSCAPE
/-
/
/
~
/
~~_/~
/ ~IZ V//;
./ ~ Q [ffi"
(J) Qa _
() c"
I ~ ~
/ /~ -r- - - -
I
I
~I/_ .u_
-----
_18BO-
r-N
~,
LANDSCAPE
../
/
I
~
= --'
/
/'
/
r I
I
Z ,
m
~ I
Q .1"- --- '-- --_
m\
E c-
~ I
"J{.
I ~
Q /~
- ...
I ~ '~~
'\ JriI "
'v+
I
I
\-"1 ---" '- -", -- ~
I ~s/ ,
7. "
~
_n-_- 9v
[ -\ -"- C(
, -- ~~ '.... ---- ~
I
.. : ::,
I
I
I~
jll
"
I\.J
~
S
Q
~/ I ~
r.
4l /:/,v/ ~
JIll ~/~
,,- / ~
~ m
J// = ~
-f
// I
/
I
I
I
J
I
'11
~
'11
r
~
m
r
m
:<
orllp!
~~I~
i~:.~
~i~~j
SR~
.
$i
Ip.....
._Sf:
~ ~
~ ~
.
~
Ip
-
I
.
. "
. .
ij)
(J)
-J
'.
.0.,.. " " ',:
9 ~ . .', K ..
1... "-
'0:' , '.
r:Jlr:'
fli.' OJ'
'i~r=
;.<
w-
. .
. .
. .
. "
-J
", .'
~ ~ "" \'~ ':.'4 .N1~Y ~~~,.: : / / / ,
~ ' '...., .,.. ' / ~
-3):- "- ' . . ..,. " r' Q I ~
'/" ", ':,' ~ (p / --- / ~ , ~-
, 1--~-------~,,--1886-~..,-;'-"-~--- li -.J ~----_.-
~ I ",. , '. '. ,.,. m '"
/ - - ~ ~,..'~ - - - - - ["-... -.--"
~---. ----4~--__________~
-----; ee '/ EXI5TI~ SIDEWALK
. -----
I
...
"
---.
~LI
m' ....,.i /-
':
a
\,' m
'..>\-
<
111
n
~t""
~
{
I
--- - - - - -g-mo ~ - -_ __.~_J
~;Jli1l~
l):IZ
m~G\
;lJZ!:
~~~
-f
------
NO. MAIN cT.
!!
ii1
~
KISTLER BROS.
OFFICE BUILDING
492 N. MAIN ASHI ANn OR
51
~
:\...J08S\Kistler Jobo\North M.n Buiding\SCHEMDES\FP1.dwv, 1/24/1007 10:36:34 AM
44'-tZl"
J8'-lZ)"
8'-lZ)"
18'-lZ)"
3'-4" 3'-4"
3'-4" 3'-4"
3'-4" 3'-4"
3'-4" 3'-4"
,- t..)~-
I t..)
I ~ I
(p " ~
() -
~ IU I ~
~ I
(j) ~~
~ -f ~iX
I "
I \J1
~ r I \J1
0 .l>- I
.I>-
0
IU .I>- .l>-
I ~ ~
~ ~ I \P
~ t..)
\)J X I
G' ~
I ,-
I~ f~- .l>-
I = Q1 ~
I
.l>- I
~
.I>- .l>-
I
~ x 8~
.I>- .l>-
I I
~ ~
.I>- 8
I
~Gi ~ ~
*~ 8 8 I
.I>- .I>- ~
Q><I> I I
...-' ~ ~
m~
,(t
0'" 8 8 J
Q> "- /
<I>
~ ---- .-./
14'-tZl" 4'-tZl" 8'-iZl" 4'-tZl" 14'-tZl"
\)Jt..)-i
-....J ()
.I>- ~ -i
.... U> )>.
m-r
xZ"
-i-i
mm
-;(J~
-() 44'-lZ)"
~-;(J
(;\z ie>' -lZ)" 8'-lZ)" 18'-lZ) "
-;(J~ "-I~" S'.I!" "-rri" S'.~"
() S'-lZ)" S'-0"
<P
<P
~ (j) r 8 8 8 8
)>. m ~
r () ~
~ I I
~ ~
~ 0
I Z I r/~J
, \J I A
~ I ,./
" ~ ~
r , I I
0 I~ ~
0
I
IU I
-'1<----- --
C~J [~
I "v-'
.I>- ~ ~ ~
~ I I
I ~ ~ I
~ ~
~ 8
':" [xJ LANDIN6
1j<";.'J;:".l''-'J ~
"< ~
I I
~ ~
~,. ,,"~-.'
,........... l>:J 8
"-
,
,~-" '":::0'''
\J1 .I>- \J1
I I
I .l>- I .I>-
-,..,' ~
+--- -'- BALCONY
1~-~13'-o&" M /-
Ul iji~ \.~ . ,//? -n
,~/
t* ',/ ---------. _n _.~ ____ "
}J ....--- ~ --- ----~
m<l> 5'-3" 5'-3" 3'.6" 5'-3"
,-.
o ~ 4'-lZ)"
Q>(t 14' -lZ)" 8'-0" 4' -lZ)" 14'.0"
<1>,..
44 '-lZ)"
'.., ,,=......, ..... "'" 'CIe" ..... ....'9'" ....,.""'.,.., ,....." .. .. i.,."._. or por_,,,,,,,, _vie., ,. "'" p_'~ or ..._ "'...... ...."""........ ..... '. "'" '0 be _, In ""',. .. In """. r.. '''\j 0'" POj.... wi"""" "'" "'"... 'U'_".'i"" or ~,*"c:>nd 1<,."., ....enll...''''.
.
! ~~
:: m
! ~
~
jD
~
;D
l
KISTLER BROS,
OFFICE BUILDING
AQ? N UAI~I A~UI l\Mn no
52
eN
UISTLER
~ITECTURE
~
'-----'-T
\North Milin BuiIdIng\SCHEMDES\EElR.dwg, 1/31/2D07 11:06:59 No!
.
~ Z
1> 0
r
m ~
Iii -t
" I
I
.
~ m
r
m
'<
1>
-t
-
0
z
~ r; i I
i.. ~
/.. ~I ~ ~ II I I
I
I I~ I
I I; I i' i I
i ~ ~I~
I s II
I 1
I I ~ I
i I
I I I
I , I I I
, I
I ,I I I I
I !
I
I
I - I I I
\' I
r' '.' I I
," I
" I
~ tt------ u_____n -----
Hi-tit H 1J .
- H
! 1----
'----
~j 1------_____
---,"
I -------.---.--
- J: ---.. ----.- ---.- n_____
I ---
,/if} } 1--
--
~ - n__.______.____
f IJ U I --
-i - ---- ------ _'__On ~__._ ~__u_
---
--
f-- I
f------__
--
- ---.---.--------...- -------
no ____ I
---- .'..- -. -..---.. .'--.,
--
-
I--
I--
r---
r---
- I
--
- I
-
- - - -
-
- .---- -_.__.~ - --------
OJ ------------------.--
I
~ D I ---- -----
~ --
C---_
~ .. I
,-
'.
,1'~-"~.,,, ,T' -''lJi"
.
, ..
v ~
'" I
-,.
, .",
l;Y
..
,
J
~E
~m
!?1 (J)
~ -t
~m
~r
"m
'<
1>
-t
o
Z
~
~
ij
Q
I
r; ~ t
I~
~I:" r Iq
I II S Ii
I I I
I I I
I
II I I
I
I
I
I
I
E8 I
..
..
OJ
I
I
I
;
D
rn
~i
.~
I
i
I
x
I
'''' ",-c""..., - ,... ,_. ..... -'"," ,"""'''''',,- ".'n. .. .. "'''- or ~or__, ...~I.., ",,,. ~_'v or ""_ 1<",... ......."....... ..... I. _ LeI ... _, I. _,. '" "'...... r", '''V .._ ~"J'" 0"'_' .... ..",.., .",_,..".... or ,..\/,,_ 1<,."., ........,,"",....
....... ~ a~ ~ KISTLER BROS.
· ! ~ i OFFICE BUILDING
~ ~ 4Q? N MAIN A~~I Atl.ln no
53
U,STLER
~ITECTURE
:\North Main Building\SCHEMDES\EE1R.dwg, 1/31/2fJrJ7 11:05:15 AM
l i I
~
~
I
~ ~
-< I I
5
-
!----~ 1----
DO I
[I] -- --
1 rr ~- t
.
l- f---- II~ I"
"- , ~ I I~
- 1 ~ 1\'1
- I~
-- I f~ II
'-
-- -~---- ~I I
- 1 1
I 1
- ---- 1 I I
1 I .:,',~
- I I I I
-
Ji 1----
---- I I 1 1
~t r----- -' I
I--------- I /;/ I , I
/:/ I
- f--- ;/
.::
,;/ ~ ~~" ,
- -I -- // ,
/'
- /y ,
-- I- I
--
-- 1--------- I---- I
-
- OJ
- --- c------ 1
I--------- r--------- 1
-, ,1 '------ - I
r----- I
~ -~ -
- - ~.
-'
-- - ~/
l\ r--------- OJ / ~
fi
H R \ r---------
-\ mr r---------
- H f-- 1-------- r-
, V -
I if
~, "/ I I '//
f\ '-'0- D Vl~~_
""
1 \ 1
\ 1
I \ ' I I
! \ I I I 1
I \ I D
\ 1 1 I ~ -----
I I 1 1 1\.~--
~ /3/ ~ 1 ~~
i ~I I I I~ "<;;---
'\;---
i ; -~
; A I I' -
r; ~ ~ ' M ;'ij 1\'1 -
t! I ! 'I -
l --
I------
- t----------
1----- OJ
--
(j) (p -
0
1>- 0 ./
r
m C
~ -f l---
I I ~~ V
I
~ m ~"
r """,
m p) m
-< 1>- l>
l> r
m (f)
-f ~ -f
-
0 I m
Z I
~ r
m ~ ~ I I
-< , 5
l> 'i i ~
, i ~
\~ , -f
- ~ I i
, ";':' 0 ~
J:... ~ l ~ z i
~'".,~
",
-
,". ~~ ~~r~r_~'__""I'-~'.__. ~- :::~i~~~~~~~~~ -M. "-' ~ "-'.-'-14~;~~- <,,~ k~ll
I\J ~
54
55
v
~
~
,,\
T..i
cr~
)(.....
:\
,\\
[-J
...;
~
.;
! )
.,.
r,
),.
~
>
,
'\
j
"
.....-
..' ,."J
9S
r:-
..,...
'4' ,..'
,.,.
c:-
1::0
;:--..
.r
-\
~
~
"
:;:.
\
~
.;
~
"
....
.
LS
)
J
8S
,,-...
,
:\NoltIl..- ~.dIIlg, 1fJtJ(lIK113:11:S1l PM
o
r
~
(p
:-f
~
~
~
~
~
~
(~
__ In.
. _ V'"
-0 -- -I
I .
V, ~ ~ DI
~ ~i;D
"; J>
'-z
~"::".d
, ", :. ':',:,
'.
. .
/ II.? 1.1'.1'.1'.1'.1'7 177rrr/T./7//// ~J
)., ).,).,)., '\.. '\.. '\.. '\.. r\.. '\.. '\.. Y'<... '<; 'f..."'<<. '\. '\. '\.
I / ? 17/IZZZ 'I/IZZ 1.1'.1'/2',)
, ~ \.. ~'\.. '\. '\.. '\.. '\.. '\.. '\. '>.. '\.. '\.. '\.'<'':'\..11 '\.. '\.. . ~ Y("<,.' 'I..
~ / 1:; YI./12'Z2'I '2'ZZZZI Z.J2?Z.I 1.11
/jf / M , \\. '\. '<'S'\.. '\.. '\.. '<i '\. '\. '\.'\.. '\. 'i. '<,X" '\.. ....... '\. '\. '\.'\.'
~ / - VI//fL ?)"/)" r..:?'. '/Z2'//27/.1
2 / g: i 'W' '>z.') ~ ~ '\.)y'\.,'\. >< -Z')-')-')-')-')-')-') ~
I / / I 'l..y ~ "><"\. '\. '\ V" '\. '\. '\. '\. '\. '\. .X"..'\. '\.'1 .-
.... '?: '2'. ?)"L 17.1'2' Z / Z.(?ff 2 'Z Z
g / ~ '\..~XJ. .'\ '\ '\ '<; .'\.. '\- '\-'\- '\- X.'\.' l'\. '\.1 ~
~ /// 5i //'~{{'~~<~{'<~~<{.~~ ~
JO -------/1 ., ",/ ~-(~~v~<{'~~~~~
'It ~ It / '<7, ..7 I 'ZI')" )" .I' .I' .I' .21
" f!! '" ~ ,'\.. '<,j ,'\.' .'\. '\. '\. '\. '\. '\. 'I
~ / 'ZZ'ZL.'I2 'I/III2
6 / ~'\. '\.' ,'\. '\. '\. '\. '\. '\.'1
I . ~.L777IIlI
/"
. ~. r /
'::.:':'1 ~ /0 //
'':- ,:'\-.~ * ~~ / / /
/("}~ -~ - - ~
:':;.": ~.~, :'.~ T.~..~,;.:~t~//////~ '
. . i" ~. ' .... ....
. ~ .. . : ~. . . -~ .. ~ .. . ...
I /1--'
!om
~ X / I
~'i /
/
3~~ / /
I
m;JI / ~ (j
iJi/ I .
&
,.
~ m
/~ 1'-&
, , , ,
6(J'). (J') FT
I
~--~ /.&~
~ ~~ Qf
~ 1ft. .-
~ fj ~
-
~~
~
.-
&
,.
N
~
e
o
m
(p
~
~
i1I
tJ
~
r
m
-<
m
lP
m
:I
~
'-
lANDSCAPE
- ~
/
/
/
'"
~
.
&
.
'"
.
o
TNt -..... till 1lMH........ -.-....... II.. -.,...--, -. "till ~., ........_.. .--..... ".- W IN -. "'..... "'IN'\.,..... _ ~ _ tIW _Il... _IMLleller ~ ~.. __lore
p~.!._ ' KISTLER BROS. I I4lrrSERE! I n
iI .. ~ OFFICE BUILDING \.. I \JIll;
. AO? t\I alA 1..1 ^ ~UI ^ "In no
59
........
cJ)
x-
O!
~
~
<P
&3'-4
,/
./
/
... .. ..'.
~'
'. ,:, .' ~:I
" it ','::-
~".e:. 'I
." . (p .: /
"M" ,,,
.. '.v .,..."",
.!m' .
., E.'
. ,;~"'J'
. '.~ . .
','" '..
: .- ..1
. .~..: ....... '. .. ~1
o. ... .. ,..
:'i. ;. :: :1
~, ... -0 '.
\./ ~"'.:l
. .'
..
.
,....... '.'r/
.. ~. ~ ...... ......
',: ,~; ':: ;f' "-
. . '.: ,..1 "-
. .". '. ~, .~, "-
". '" ',' "'J'
.. .6...-
.; . /
. "'."~' :' ~ / '"
: t ". . ..
'=: . ~ : /
J.ANJ:>ecAPE
-.' .I
--'I<- \J)
,-
&
.
I
v1
1-
.~
I~
I
I
"--
-
,.,/
/".
I
/
/
/
~ ~it! //
~ ~Ilo< '"
jJ ,;f
/ II if!
- / l'.
- - ;is
~., -- ~t
. i --- .
,/-,.,
)Jo-
vUl
'" .
k
i
~
~
;JI
--
- - - - - ~~.;;~i~:t
.~ ~:~ ':~:,; '.~~ . . :
f~ ~ff
.:.:. :..~:.~: 2 :., .
(.~.::.t~,
I
I
I
I
~~.
.~
~
-
-
-
-
...../
.//
,0
-
~-
I
I
)</
'\.
"-
"-
.,~
~,"-
L-J!: """
.~"""
~" '\.
,,~ "-
. ~"-"""
"-
"""
'\.
"""
- -~
. .. ......
.. \ :.. .,' I
. ,
.. ... .
........ .
.... ..~..~~:~\.l'~.
.. . .....
-
. . ..' .::
'"
"'''
". ....
.~:' . ~.~...~.
'.
3
~
~
.,
..... :
., ..:...~'~ . ':4.:
. .
.... '.
~..: .:~ . .~"
~....'. "..i,;. ":.'~'~'
..... .
EXISTING SIDEWAlK
--...:::::
NO. MAIN ST.
Oi1lo~
~;D~~
~~~
;HZ.
~~~
;\North MaOl IluildinQ\SCHEMDESI,FPS.dwg, 1/30{2007 3:21:26 PM
" "
w
jD
~
;a
l
.
~
KISTLER BROS.
OFFICE BUILDING
4~? N MAIN A~~I ANn ()R
60
:\North Main Building\SCHEMDeS\EE3.dwg, 1/30{2007 3:31:29 PM
~
---.....
~
I DO
I
~"---~---
-
I \ "J
'- //
r------" \
. ~ -tlOOttt ~ I I I
i
. J M
i
.
~
~
i
KISTLER BROS.
OFFICE BUILDING
UJSTLER
F\!rrECTuRE
~
AQ? t\.1 UAlt\.I
A~UI At-In "D
61
I
:\North Mall BuildinQ\SCHEMDES\EE3.dwg, 1/3O{2007 3:30:07 PM
mol .
I
I
l --
I I
i r I t-----------------
~- !
:i- J R:
r-
J J r- J
}~
I
I
-\ 1-ftRi1}t
'i -
I I
I ' I I I
\
I \ I I I I
, IJ ~ I
, I I
I ~ I I
I ~I
I '" I ~ I
I 9; ~ ! ~ I
I ~ t! I
~ ~ I
I
I
I~
~
"
~
~
~
l
~(J)
~ 0
~ c
" -f
~ r
~m
=r
m
-<
l>
-f
()
Z
~m
~ l>
~ (J)
~-f
l.:m
~r
-m
-<
l>
-f
()
Z
6\
Jl
I
i
j
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~I
q I:
Q ii
~~
~
EB
EB
EB
I
~
i
~Jili;_
"Ii
I
If
~
!
I
lIS
III
Q
Q
:1
~
..... .:'t("c:.......t 1M U'W ,.U "'" cHtir inCCt'FCll'.t~ ,....In. .. ." iMtr~ cr I="'Cr...iOl'\lI ...vl~. I. U''lII' jlPl"op.'llll or "'~ KJ.U.. .Atc:ttil..::t.ur. MId i. not lD'" ~. In ~I. Of In FJ'I'l. for .".,. oUWr F"'oJ"::'- ijllLhc:lut Uw llII"IU.., .vtt'lorlr..UOf'I or R.I~ond ICI.ll., Arc:hit..::h.....
~ ~~ m n
r- KISTLER BROS.
~ m
" ~ I4ISTLER
F
m m
. ! ~ i OFFICE BUILDING HITECTURE
~ .-
, An" ~I U^I~I ^C'UI ^"'In r\n
~
62
- -------- ~--- -r--.-
Written comments received since
January 9, 2007 meeting
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
PA2006-02354
63
~---
.
"
Susan Yates - PA #2006-02354 Glenn 7 N.Main
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
"Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmail.com>
"Maria Harris" <harrism@ashland.or.us>
1/16120072:03 PM
PA #2006-02354 Glenn 7 N.Main
<yatess@ashland.or.us>, <molnarb@ashland.or.us>
FOR THE RECORD #2006-02354
Maria,
(cc Bill, Sue)
Please could you let the PC know what evidence there is in the record of the applicant even attempting to
design a building that would comply with the setback requirements?
From the evidence I have seen from both the prior, and latest version, none has ever been made.
The September '06 pre-app of the current design before the Historic Commission leads one to believe that
the Applicant was unaware that such a setback was even required and when appraised of the situation he
merely got one of the commissioners to argue for a variance on his behalf.
I do not feel that a sloping site in Ashland is at all 'Unique and Unusual", while the choice of building size
and placement is entirely self-imposed.
As North main is substandard with regard to our Street Standards (and the existing Sidewalk too narrow)
what is the benefit (e.g. light and air) from moving the building closer to the traffic than required?
This project therefore does not seem to meet the threshold for the variance criteria.
I also feel it is inappropriate for the Historic Commissioner/Planning Agent to urge the PC to simply
approve the project subject to a working out of the details later by his fellow commissioners.
Also, as Richard Kistler, the co-owner of this site according to County records, also has an ownership
share in the adjacent office property, could not a mutual easement be conceived that would allow access
to both these properties that did not egress onto busy N. Main Street but rather Glenn instead?
respectfully submitted,
Colin Swales
18.100.010 Variances - Purpose
Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of
this Title may result from the strict application of certain provisions thereof, variance may be granted as
provided in this Chapter. This Chapter may not be used to allow a use that is not in conformity with the
uses specified by this Title for the district in which the land is located. In granting a variance, the City
may impose conditions similar to those provided for conditional uses to protect the best interests of
the surrounding property and property owners, the neighborhood, or the City as a whole.
18.100.020 Application
The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such application shall be
accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans and elevations necessary to show the
proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and evidence
showing that aU of the following circumstances exist:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically
""
64
.
"
apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of
the City. (Ord.2425 S I, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self imposed.( Ord.
2775, 1996)
65
.
.
RUTII M, mLL.ER
~ fA-
/ j'- (/
<L/, i
/
v
(>' /--) l>t
PtllUP C. L"-~C. LC~W
T,8 [) <1:\!rcel · Ashland. Oregon 97?'20
Re!\idl..~lIce · 482-8659
Office/fax · 48'2-;387
E-mail · f"hilip@imind.nct · rnth@mind.ncl.
January 16, 2007
To: Planning Commission
Re.: PA2006-02534 and IMPORT~~T PROCEDURAL ISSUE
This memo is to be inserted in J:he Jile .Q.~ th~ .fib~y~ ~~p.~ioned planning
act1\)n. ~ab~_to b~ in~~rt~d.J'E.....~!'1e P.~c~ Ipr~fl.~.:/~3/07 ... ....
meeting a~a procedural.~s~h.!E. ne~ to~ a]dres~da~ re~lved....::
- -..... - -- .--
~t_the PC meeting of 1/9/07, the developer presented a totally different
design for his commercial building than had been discussed or
reviewed previously by staff or the public.
TIUS IS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE, AND IF NOT PROCEDURALLY ILLEGAL, AT
THE VERY LEAST UNFAIR, PREJUDICIAL AND UNETHICAL.
The developer presented the Commission with a tocally different
structure. He did not even bother to post copies of this plan on
the board behind the PC for the public (or TV) to see, nor did he
pass out copies to the public attending.
He then proceeded to come up to the dais and have a chatty conversation
with the commissioners about his design., the materials (Hies van der
Rohe comes to the historic district in the form of Cor-Tent).
I have observed this happening for, literally_decades. It never
happens (or is allowed to happen) with Harry Hameowner, if his plans
need to go to the PC, but is always avaIlable to Dale Developer.
If the developer wants to revamp his plans, or, in this case, Ch~~Ae
them totally, s/he needs to ask for a continuance beyond the 120 ay
lfmit. and re-sub~t the plan for staff. PC and public scrutiny.
Instead, developers sneak in with new plans which they can get the PC
to buy into without any chance for the public to review or critique
them.as presented.
I hope that this does
"legal" or not, it is
;;; ne~d ,to r.~Og e
"'~acketl
not have to be pursued legally. Whether it 1s
unethical unfair, discriminatory and prejudicial.
it as such and p~evenc it from ever happening again.
~ty Administrator/City Attorney
66
~"-
"'i~
WI
RUTII M. MILLER
PIIILIP C. h'\NG, LCSW
758 B Street · Ashland, Ore8on 97520
Residence · 482-8659
Oillce/fa.:\: · 482-5387
E-mail .philip@mind.net.ruth@mind.net
RECEIVED
i'l .! d
January 28, 2007
City of AsUland
o Field 0 Office D County
To: See Distribution at end
Re.: PA 20069 (Miller/Lang Library Application)
PA 2006-02354 (Kistler app. for N.Main & Glenn)
AUaCihment.s: Ashland DT article-front page 1/26/07 - -, incorporated by reference
-Letter from David Stahlheim - 1/18/07
Reply to David Stahlheim - 1/25/07
Headlines: (all applicable - pick one)
"Corruption of Planning Process Finds Its Way Into The Press"
"PA-20069 & PA 2006-02354 - Expose Unethical Planning"
"The 'Smoking Gun' in PA-20069 Controversy Found!"
Background
This writer has for yearS1:r':i;ei;l to expose -and reform - an essentially
corrupt planning process that he has observed for 20 years.
This process includes:
1) Overlooking ordinances and laws that stand in the way of developer/
speculator interests.
2) "Interpreting" ordinances in contorted ways to favor developers/speculators
to the disadvantage of the rest of Ashland's citizens.
3) Granting CUPs and variances as entitlements to developers, rather than
special sanctioned "violations of law" compelled by special circumstances
for whom the burden of proof is on the developer/speculator.
4) Differential (and deferential) application of l~ws/ordinance$ d.ep~nping
on whether the applicant was a developer/speculator (an ";itllPor,ta~t, $Qc;!,fI,Uy
and/or financially prominent person") or an ordinary cit;l..zen - or
worse - an identified "troublemaker"(this writer included),
This has gone on for a very long time. In re~~nt years some public
spirited citizens taking exception to this modu~erandi have contested
it. When this happens, the "powers that be"adOpt a variety of tactics to
counter the exposure, including:
1) Opining that the ordinance/law is "old" "irrelevant", or "contrary to
public interest".
2) Backing up these statements with assertions that the law/ordinance
needs to be revised - or is in fact in the process of imminent revision.
3) The latest - introduced by our new City Administrator, is to isolate
the instance as unique, singular and not an example of ongoing
corruption under the rubric: "it's just a screw-up" (citations available).
67
..
.
Ht:\ it:1 v tu
1/28/07 - p. 2
City of Asnland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
4) With increasing sophistication ou~ biased bUreaucr~cy ha~ c@me up
additional methods, which have the advantage of del~ying any
structural corrective action, and the advantage of indirecti~n
(not being directly connected to anyone planning action), This is
the engagement of consultants. We would like to think that th;L$ il3
done in good faith, but the failure to implement any of the
rercommendations, or indeed respond in any formal way to the con$ult~nt
reports inspires serious doubts. In 2006 we had the Zucker repor.t
(planning management audit), Siegel report (AMC/LUD revision)
and the Peckham report (on choosing a new Planning Director).
-.
The "Almost Perfect Storm" ;- PA 2006-02354
Tnose reading this communication know the details of PA 2006-02354, so
there is no need to recount them here. The developer wants a variance
from the 20' front setback. He got immediate, uncritical support from
(senior) staff. We have detailed site review requirements - for example
those relating to air and light, which were somehow left out of the
evaluation. Staff (and the developer) justified the variance on the
basis that the setback was unnecessary since ODOT had no (current) plans
to widen North Main. So we have staff failure of proper scrutiny, and
a sophistical argument ',that 1rhe law can be violated because its reason
for existence no longer existed~
In fact the sole, core reason for the variance was the developer's
desire to "max out" his building - ~or maximum income.
When citizens (writer included) objected, the proposal became a matter
for public interest. Robert Plain of the DT wrote an extensive article
for thr the 1/26/07 edition. The article exposed the ongoing behavior
of the former planning director in a memo from him to then planning
commisioner Colin Swales (Exhibit "A") dated 2/24/03, in which "Hac"
indicated that he didn't think the ordinance (20' setback) was relevant
or worthwhile, and that he simply chose to ignore it, citing fallacious
reasons into the bargain. "Mac" repeated this performace in
the Northlight Project in 2005-making a unilateral decision that the
developers could ignore the requirement.
In doing so, he exhibited the behaviors I have cited under "Background" -
1) and 2), and also item 2) under the newer modus operandi..
~
Mr. McLoughlin is gone - but two senior staff were well-trained under
him, and understand ~.'how it's s'possed to be". They continue the
tradition. What's worse is that our new Planning Director, David Stahlheim
gives all indications of continuing this practice. In his letter to
me (1/18/07) he states that (he) "will work with staff and the Planning
Commission...." What this translates into is the continuance of staff
arbitrarily and whimsically running the process according to the specific
planning action and the applicant, rather than in obedience to ordinance
and law.
68
VJJII
\f!I
nr:\ lei u r:U
1/28/07 - p. 3
City of Ashland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
It is interesting to compare the applications (and applicants) asking
for the same type of (setback) variance - and the outcomes:
1) PA 2006-02534 - North Main and Glenn - currently under discussion.
Staff ignored historic site design stds. and support the variance.
2) PA 2006-00069 Rear-758-B street. A Type I administrative variance
for a small intrusion was allowed by law - staff kicked it up to a
Type II hearing, followed by an appeal. It turned out that a variance
was not required. in. the first place.
3) PA 2002-106 - 916 East Hain. Staff supported the application on
the basis of the existing arterial setback encroachment of two adjacent
non-historic buildings and sideyard non-conforming setbacks of
houses on the other side of the Railroad District to allow a
fourplex rather than a triplex, and thus increase developer profit.
4) Northlight - previously discussed - The Planning Director colluded
with the developer to violate the setback requirement by d~claring the
f~ontof the building to be on N. 1st rather than Lithia Way!
Dismissal and Devalidation = Violation
I have pointed out that an essential tactic of planning is to allow
viodations of ord,in{tnce provisions regarding, in this case, variances,
by contending that they are "old", "irrelevant" or ripe for revision.
This begs the question of whether or not they are currently appropriate,
they are the law, and should be obeyed until repealed or revised.
As if this cynical devalidation were, not enough, it virtually always
turns out that once the issue has ~allen out of the public consciousness,
there is no revision or change. This has happened with many other
ordinances (cf. pav1ng) and will happen with the 20' setback variance.
One tactic not so far detailed, is the desperate one of calling in
,l'experts" - historic preservation consultants apd others with their
own interests and prejudices, to support the obviation of law. In the
DT article of 1/26/07, such an "expe'l't" (who was a consultant on the
Northlight project!) opined that the 20' setback was "bad planning".
Really? Let's take a trip back to qOld Ashland".....
Pedestrian/Vehicular Safety and Comfort. - Then and Now
Way back when, Ashland was a rough western. -toWn. the downtown commercial
buiilldings provided large quantities of basic foodstuffs, animal feed and
supplies, hardware, etc. Buckboards and wagons needed to be close to the
front entrances to load these goods. What sidewalk there was was not
"pedestrian friendly". It was made of wood - splintered, dangerous,
dirty, laden with animal fecal matter dropped by loose dogs or horses
in the streets, human expectorant, etc. Women of all classes wore long
dresses. Buildings needed to be close to the street. No one cared about
fresh air or light.
Things changed - cars and traffic required wider streets. Pedestrians
felt safer with a larger space between the curb and the building. They
69
w
. nt;::\ J'_I U L-U
I r..
1/28/07 - p. 4
City of Asnland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
They were physically and psychologically protected by "park rows"
Also, the needs of a commercial district now transforming into a
consumer goods/boutique/tourist economy commanded encouragement of
pedestrian traffic, as well as provisions for bicycles. Additionally,
geometrically expanding traffic and speed required future allowance for
street widening. A 20' front setback made perfect sense - and it
still does. That's why it is set in ~~dinance and law. Regardless,
it should not be subject to the prejudic~a~ and~autocratic whims of
planners.
Arbitrary/Inequitable/Discriminatory' Planni~Activ'ity. .:: 'E~;'wtU;.~' ~ Rule?
The issues raised over PA-2006-02354~occur agaIn and again in-otfier
planning contexts.
For those who have read this paper so far, here is another (one of many)
from my files.
Sidewalk Paving
I have an extensive file including correspondence with Jim Olson, "Hac"
Adam Hanks, etc. The issue is summed up in my presentation to the
Mayor and City Council on 2/11/04, and attachments (Exhibit "B").
It details how all the techniques I cited at the beginning of this paper
under "Background" were applied here as well.
Simply summed up:
1) Conditions for paving at OSF's new theater were never enforced.
2) Paving conditions at the l30wmer "bricks" are worse than eve;!;,
3) The City (meaning we taxpayers) face enO~OUS ~iabi~~t~es when
someone sues for compensatory and punitive damages.
4) Sid DeBoer's paving is still !n place, despite ~ts
a) violation of code
b) being built without permit or inspection,
5) There have been no changes in the ordinance,
PHILIP C. LANG
attachments - Exhibits "A" and "B"
Distribution
Planning files - PA 2006-0069 and PA 2006-02354
Mayor/City Council/City Administrator
Planning Director
Robert Plain - DT
Colin Swales
Randall Hopkins
Art Bullock
Bill Street
70
~fhf)IT It
c
..
nt:LJCI V'=.L
j !~\ ~J 2 8 2007
City of Ashland
o Field 0 Office 0 Coun
Reply from Mac:
Original Message
From: "John mclaughlin" < mac at ashland.or.us >
To: "Mike broomfield" < broom at ashland.or.us>; < colin at mind.net >
Cc: "Paula Brown" < Paula at ashland.or.us >
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 11:35 AM
Colin,
The Fire Station has an approved site review from the Planning Commission,
with the setbacks all established by that approval.
The Building Division is not responsible for determining special setbacks at
this point.
The approval of the Planning Commission is the governing decision here.
And you are correct, this was not addressed during the Fire Dept.
application.
I believe that this shows that this ordinance is outdated.
I have reviewed it and found that it is at least ,40 years old, and is on the
books to allow for the future widening of East Main Street.
East Main .is not planned for any widening in any of our future plans, either
in Planning or Public. Works. Given the historic properties abutting the
street, the narrow setbacks, and the historic character of the area,
widening would be very disruptive to the neighborhood. Further, our
transportation analyses have not indicated a need for a wider street to
accommodate our future growth.
I will be bringing this issue up with the Planning Commission and requesting
direction to'remove this ordinance from the books, due t~ it ~eing outdated
and unneccessary.
I'm sure this will raise concern from Philip Lang and possibly others about
disregarding ordinances, but I don't see the merit in this particular code.
And that's why we have an ordinance amendment process - to periodically
assess ordinances.
-- ..-.. - --- ----.- -- -.- -.---.,-.----..-----.-.-. .-...-
-_._._-_.------_......._-_.__._--_._------_._,-_._------~-
71
~ff71317
!3vV
-
Mayor and Council,
(cc Bob Plain)
Last night there was some discussion about the encroachment by the City's
Fire Station into the required arterial setback when it replaced the
original building and the Blue Mountain cafe. Also the assertion, by the PC
chair, that the north side of Lithia Way should be C~l-D (i.e. no arterial
setback, parking or solar access requirements).
In fact, the new Fire Station's corner on Siskiyou Blvd. was moved back
somewhat from the original footprint to permit a small amount of improved
vehicular vision clearance)
But the arterial setback on East Main necessitated about an additional 5 ft.
setback for all properties abutting it.
As a then planning Commissioner, I wrote to the City , during construction
of the Fire Station in 2003, to clarify this issue when it appeared the
retaining wall was not being setback the required 5 ft. [- see below]
(Note: the DeLuca project used the existing arterial setback encroachment of
two adjacent, non-historic, buildings, to justify the "averaging" of that
encroachment in order to eliminate the need for any setback variance for the
proposed fourplex )
It is interesting to note the unilateral decision by the previous Planning
Director to effectively ignore this requirement. (he. also directed
Northlight applicants to ignore the same setback ordinance in 2005).
(And also for some unknown reason, Mr. Lang's n~e popped'up '- although he
was not remotely connected with either the DeLuca or Fire Station projects
! )
Let's not ignore and/or circumvent our planning laws.
Can we instead work together to achieve a holistic plan that meets the needs
of downtown's economic health as well as ensuring the livability of the
historic residential neighborhoods that so closely surround it and extend
al~ng North Main St.
Colin
**************
emails 02/24/03
RECEIVED
J/' hj f) S ir!l~(
City of Asbland
o Field 0 Office 0 Count~
72
l4"'''
~
.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
RECEIVED
JAN '}. 8 Z(1f)!
City of Astlland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
"
January 18, 2007
Philip Lang
758 B Street
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: PA2006-02534
Dear Mr. Lang:
I am in receipt of your letter regarding the above referenced planning action
and the procedural question you have raised on this issue.
My understanding from your letter is that you are concerned that the applicant
presented a different design at the Planning Commission hearing than had been
reviewed by staff or the public. While I do not agree that it is inappropriate or
illegal, I think at times such actions could be considered unfair because the
parties to the case did not have an opportunity to review and study the
information.
In the case'at hand, however, such objections could have been raised at the
Planning Commission hearing by simply requesting more time to study the
revised plans by holding the record open. Also, the Planning Commission did
continue this matter and the Historic Commission will review any revised set of
plans that must be submitted to this office no later than January 23rd.
Therefore, any problem of the public getting a chance to review the plans will
be cured in this process.
In my experience through five different planning offices, it is common to
receive new information at the hearing. Quite often the applicant is responding
to comments in the staff report, advisory commissions (such as Historic) or
written public input submitted into the record prior to the hearing.
I will work with staff and the Planning Commission to minimize the introduction
of substantive new information at the hearing. If you feel that the information
is substantially different and it needs to be studied, please provide that input at
the hearing. And, if staff thinks the information is substantially different and
requires evaluation, we will suggest to the Planning Commission that the item
0epII'tment of Community Development
20 East Man St
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tat 541-488-5305
Fax: 541~-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
,.,
73
..
.,
...
be continued to a future hearing date or the record left: open in order to allow
that evaluation.
We will include this letter in the record for the above referenced planning
action. If you have additional procedural issues involving this department,
please feel free to drop me a line and I will look into the matter.
Sincerely,
)7~?k=
David Stalheim
Director
RECEIVED
c: Maria Harris, Senior Planner
JAN ? 8 )iJf.I
City of Astlland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
Department of Community Development
20 East Main St
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashlandor.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
[r..
r.a1l
74
..
.,
RUTII M. mLLER
PfflLIP C. IMG. LC~W
,'"
RECE,IVED
JAN 2 8 20(~7
City of AsUland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
758 B Street · A.8h1and, Oregon ,97520
Residence · 48'2-8659
Office/fBx · 482-5387
E-mail .philip@mind.net.rut.h@mind.net
January 25, 2007
Mr. David Stahlheim,. Planning Director
20 East }fain
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Re.: PA-2006-02534
My Dear Mr. Stahlheim:
I &a responding to yours of the 18th. Your response is unsatisfactory~
not just because I "don't like it", which I don't, but because it
it displays a studied insensitivity to what's going on, uses the
events of the 1/9/07 meeting in a way to j~st~fy your department's
actions, thus conflating the issue and turning it on its headt and then
offer informal ~'solutions" instead of proper structural ones.. What
foliows is an enumeration of these defects in your response.
1) Studied insensitivity - "While I do not agree that it is inappropriate
or illegal" (para. 2). According to you it is n~~..."j,~!i:P.P.ro~!~ate_..
or illegal" for a developer to come in with a ~alJ.x. different plan....;
than that initially proposed and offered for public reviewli -
Case dismissed I What can one say to that?
2) You. state 1'1~:'.::.~ that although coming in with a totally different proposal
"c6ul=d be considered unfair" (But surely no't unethical or illegal', let us
rememberl), it really wasn't even that because "...objections could
have been raised at the Planning Commission hearing by simp~y-:
requesting more time to study the plans by holding the record open. ::'
Alsot the Planning Commission will review any revised set of plans
that must be submitted to this office no later than January 23rd..
Thereforet any problem of the public getting.a chance to review
the plans will be cure,d in this process." (para. 3).
How wonderfully sophistical ana jesuitical I TOSlr comment ind:lcate.s
that you are a worthy successor to John Fregonesi and ''Mac''.
What you conveniently fail to state is:
a) Assuming the plans submitted ,for review prior to the meeting were
the plans to be considered at the meeting, why would a ~ember of
the public want -or even know to turn up and ask for a continuance?
. :~;;~:
75
.
, n l- \.....I L I " .... LI
I i\ i\i ~) 8 '/(-li!/
..... !-..... " t' L .'
Davi.d Stahlheim - 1/25/07 - p. 2
-~
City of Astlland
OField 0 Office 0 County
b) As to. the Planning Commission continuing the matter, which as you
state it implies ethical and wise reflection on their part -
in fact it was a member of the concerned public who upon realizing
the "switcheroo" immediately called for a continuance!
c) Again, having reviewed the initial plans, 'and, for the sake of
argument, being satisfied with them, how would a member of the
public who might be very unsatisfied with the totally new plans,
know that they now had another chance?
d) Your comment "In my experience through (sic) '.~f1ve~d1i.fferent
planning offices, it is common_to receive new information at the
hearing" is totally disingenuous. This was not new in~prmation meant
to respond to received comments, it wa~ ~i:otaiiy.cliIfe.r.ent project
plan. ---. - --- --. ....-
Coming in to the public hearing with totally different or significantly
different plans has happened many times before and developers have
gotten away with it. The only difference is that this, time mebers of
the public were wise to what was probably going to happen and stepped
in to stop it.
But it i.8 your final and defining comment that I find most troubling.
"I will work with staff to minimize the introduction of substantive
new information at the hearing. If you feel that the ~~fp~~ion is
~ubstantially different, and it needs to be s~udied,~ease p~ovide :
that input at the hearing (underlining added). And if sti7r'thinks
the information is substantially different and requires evaluation,
we will suggest (underlining added)to the Planning Commissionthat the
item be continued or the record left open in order to allow that
evaluation." (underlining added) (para. 5).
Much is wrong with what you propose to do.
1) The process you suggest - interacting with staff, what you and the
staff "think", what you might. "suggest" is all informal, internal,
and unregulated by rule or ordinance - or even formal policy.
I am sure that if asked staff would say that they have always done
this!. No offense meant but it is this kind of informality and
leave it to staff/I'Mact' that has gone on for as long as I have
observed the process (20 years), and it has always been exercised -
~ more correctly not exercised to favor developers and disfavor
citizens.
2) You put the onus on the individual to bring up issues of unfairness
(your word - para. 2). I am to constitute.myself as a planning staff
without portfolio, and spend my days reviewing applicati~nsl
Unfortunately I have a life to lead and a living to make; burueaucrats
-II
are paid to do what they do, whether it is "unfair, unethical, illegaL
76
..
..
. ......... --- -.. - --..,
David Stahlheim - 1/2~JfJ7 - p. 3
JI~,H 'I. 8 2007
City of Asbland
o Field 0 Office D Coun~
3) As I told you at our meeting, I was a bureaucrat running large non-profits
for most of my career. So forgive me for reviewing part of "bureaucracy
101" that is applicable in this context.
The majqr purpose and virtue of bureaucracies is that they do not
operate according to the whim, desire or personal gain of particular
individuals in the society. Rather they operate according to rules, laws,
ordinances, formal (and publicly known) policies. These are applied
equally and thus fairly to all. Making these rules, etc. applicable
only at the whim of the bureaucrat, or worse - making such rules simply
informal or selectively applied by a bureaucrat on a situation-by-
situation basis totally subverts the sociaL utility of the bureaucracy
and the attempt to build in structures that enforce fairness and equity.
Again - no offense intended - but your vague. reassurances of applying
criteria of fairness as you and/or your staff see them, and on a case-
by case basis, is extremely unsettling.
The issue raised by this application is one of many that illustrates
endemic problems with the Planning Department. Problems that can only
beitlured by clear, formal, structural (as well as cultural) changes in
the way your department does business.
cc: Mayor
Council
City Attorney
Planning Commission
Art Bullock
Randall Hopkins
Colin Swales
77
.
C~.
.
Rl'l'U M. NIUER
PUlHP C. I..\~G. LC~W
7'5,~ B ~II'ed · .\shidUd, Orc8on 97520
Residence · 482-8059
Office/f't~x · 482-5387
E-matl · ph:hF8YlRlI1d.nd ' rnth@mllld.nct
RECEIVED
. FEB 7 2001
February 7, 2007
City of Ashland
Community Development
/ 1,1_
(e<---
e 4 '.J 'f-i
;(11\..
1
To~ Planning Commission
Hisl:oric Commission
Planning Dept (Stahlheim, et. al.)
;1.00(" - <9;l.:3 54
Re. ~ PA ~~ (Kil:itler-North Main & Glenn)
This application is once again coming before the HC and pc.
This time th~ applicant has designed a project that conforms to ordinances -
specifically the 20 ft. setback required. Since this project complies
,..dth the ordinance (and other requirements) I see no other alternative
tl~n to approve it.
But wait! - Mr. Kistler offers an alternative that requires a variance
for only a 10 ft. setback!
l~.addition, the application is accompanied by photos/maps which it
seems were made by staff, as well as staff support for the variance!
This is all quite curious, for the following reasons:
1) A variance requires 3 conditions - among them that the need for the
variance not be self-imposed. Since Mr. Kistler has managed to design
a building that meets the setback requirement, it is obvious that his
earlier efforts requiring a variance ~ere_ self-imEosed! He simply
wanted a building design and setback that he: wantea -for whatever
reasons. But he obviously could meet the setback requirements with ease
by re-designing and Ie-siting the building. Therefore, the variance
was not justified because the basis for asking for it was self-imposed
q.E.D.
2) The 'lariance is in violation of the standards for main arterial setbacks,
and, as pointed out in previous communications, happens to be at a
particularly dangerous point on North Main.
3[} The question of whether OooT intends at this point to not widen North
Main in the future is irrelevant:. No-one can preQ;lc.t the future or
the need to widen North Main. There i~ no 'b.asi~' in .c~.mmorisense"n~r law
fo~ flagrantly violating tFe or~e .---- - -.J""<_-_- -- '-
4) Il seems quite irregular to allow an applicant to submit two plans _
one which meets ordinance and one which does not. He seems to want to
-1llLt-....tb.e.. onll~ far mJ'llcing A r1p{'i$inn to "', ]nw tLle uar:U.nCQ (if tbat. is
.- \ . ,
thl" Ollr('('}1'Qp~.,;,tQfr"'nQ tl:w 1>C'
78
.
.
1i~~~I~~;~ .
r
?A~2007-00090-=-r~~
, 'Kilt
'_duiopmenl
5) Following on 4), preceding, staff seems to have taken up their advocacy
rold on behalf of Mr. Kistler with gusto, including supporting his
variance request. This is totally outrageous and improperl If an
applicant submits a plan that meets requirements, 1.t is totally
improper for staff to support an alternative plan, not sapported
by the conditions set forth to justify a variance, that is ~
required by circumstances. This means that they take a position in
favor for al.(sanctioned) violation of law when in fact the project
is totally approvable and acceptable under the law.
6) As a sidenote: the actions of (the same) staff in this application
are strangely at variance to their behavior with respe,ct to
PA-2006-0069, where: (1) the impact of the variance was zero - or close
to it, (2) the varianc,"-, should have been grahted as a Type I - but
staff chose to kick it up to Type II, (3) where the same arguments
(historical secbacks) are used here to justify the variance - but
stronger historical arguments, photos, and maps accompanying PA-2006-0069
had no impact on their opposition. and, (4) where in fact had the
ordinances be.en followed,absolutely no variance of any kind was
required in the first place!
I request that you approve the application for the plan that meets all
ordinance requirements - indeed T think you are compelled by law and
circumstances to do so. I support such an approval, which is in l~.ne
with law.
Approval of a variance under these circumstances will surely lead to aa
appeal, even up to LUBA if necessary. for major legal.issues of broader
implication are involved here.
PHILIP
Hand delivered to Planning on 2/7/07 prior to He meeting and to
be distrivuted to HC and PC.
79
JANUARY 9, 2007 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
P A2006-02354
80
"411
...~
Planning Department, 51 Wir(.;,~ Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax 541-552-2050 www.ashland.orus TTY 1-800-735-2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION: #2006-02354
SUBJECT PROPERTY: North Main Street & Glenn Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Raymond J. Kistler
DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to construct a two-story office building located on the vacant
parcel at the southeast comer of the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn St. A Variance is requested to allow a
10-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. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNA TlON: Employment ZONING: E-1 (with Residential Overlay) ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 05
OA: TAX LOTS: 3600
NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on January 3, 2007, 7:00 PM in the Community Development and
Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on January 4, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development and
Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: January 9, 2007, 7:00 PM/Ashland CiVIC Center
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,
either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right
of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient
specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be
provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51
Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right
to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests
before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to partiCipate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office
at 541-488-6902 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, 541-488-5305.
81
"
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.72.070 Criteria for Approval
ft_._
\' ?:II'
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the 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 transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street
right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836
S6, 1999)
Variance
18.100.020 Application
The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such application shall be accompanied by a legal description of
the property and plans and elevations necessary to show the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall
be a statement and evidence showing that all of the following circumstances exist:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further
the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 S1, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.(Ord. 2775, 1996)
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
18.88.050 F - Exception to Street Standards
An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect
to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: .
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site
or proposed use of the site.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
D .The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter.
(Ord 2836, Amended, 02/0211999)
82
---- ~--'--"'--.~-._-------~-----
-
'IiilV
Physical Constraints Review Permit. The Staff Report states there are approximately 280 square feet of widening and paving
of the driveway outside the existing driveway surface, located mostly in the Grandview Drive right-of-way. She requested the
LUBA record be made a part of this record. Broderson explained that the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance
was not fmalized correctly by the City with DLCD. She said the Safe Harbor rule applies to the proposal. Chapter
18.62.070M has no provision for placing a driveway in the floodplain corridor or extending a driveway. A private storm drain
line and an outlet energy dissipater in a protected area violate the ordinance. Certain information that is required has not been
provided on the topographic map. The proposed development will degrade and destroy the riparian area. The proposal
violates Ashland's ordinances and Comprehensive Plan and the provisions of Goal 5 resources. Broderson is concerned with
the amount of paving there will be.
JAMES HULSE, 416 Wimer Street, said his parents divided many of the lots in this area. He was here during two floods. The
part of the road and the driveway included in this proposal were not affected by the floods.
Fields noted that there are certain impacts we allow to happen in a riparian area. Stafflooks at the impacts and whether or not
they can be mitigated.
Molnar said the Assignments of Error are included in the Staff Report in order to have it part of the record but it is not part of
tonight's review.
The drainage system was discussed. There is a perforated subsurface drain pipe under the driveway. There is a drainage ditch
on the east side of the driveway area.
Fields asked if anyone from the public who participated would like to rebut. No one came forward.
ADDlicant's Rebuttal- Giordano said the impact of the drainage is from a single family resident on the riparian area. They are
trying to take steps to minimize the impacts by using a perforated pipe, rock for erosion control and enhancing the vegetation.
They are impacting 280 square feet.
Thornton said they can pull the improvements back farther than 20 feet from top of bank. In order provide emergency access
to meet the code requirements, they are doing some improvements within 20 feet of the bank where there are no floodwaters
and no riparian vegetation. With regard to the drainage, they are taking it within 20 feet from top of bank so they don't
discharge it uphill from the neighbor. They are mitigating any disturbance.
Bartholomew said a notice is not in error as long as there is no any prejudice. Since Broderson wrote the Assignments of Error
and agreed to the voluntary remand, there is no surprise they are being considered and therefore no prejudice.
Fields closed the public hearing and announced there will be no public testimony taken at the next meeting. The record will
remain open for seven days until 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, on January 17th. Then the applicant will have seven days to submit
written arguments. This action is continued to the February 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting to be held at the Council
Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
PLANNING ACTION #2006-02354
REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE VACANT
PARCEL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF N. MAIN ST. AND GLENN ST. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED
TO ALLOW A 10-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.
APPLICANT: RAYMOND J. KISTLER ARCHITECTURE
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - The Commissioners all had a site visit. Black noticed a large, historic granite rock at the
site.
STAFF REPORT
Harris noted this application is looking for three approvals:
I) ExceDtion to Street Standards: Stafffeels the Exception to Street Standards is justified and meets the approval criteria
because the Glenn Street frontage is relatively short and the opportunity for a parkrow is limited to about 50 feet between the
comer and the proposed driveway apron.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2007
3
83
-
......
2) Site Review: The basic standards have been met. Staff has issues with the north elevation in terms of the Historic District
Standards (mass, roof shape and rhythm of openings). The Glenn Street side will be very visible. The mass and roof are fairly
continuous planes that are not broken up. The Historic Commission's recommendations are in the packet.
3) Variance to the Special Setback: They are requesting the building to be located ten feet from the front property line. Staff
believes the intent of the ordinance was to accommodate street widening projects. The applicant has submitted a letter from
ODOT stating they don't see there would be any reason to widen the street in that location. The applicant states the unusual
circumstance is the historic fal;ade line of the neighboring area. Staff felt the more unusual circumstance is the dimensions of
the lot, particularly the depth from front to back. There are two issues with regard to the benefit of the proposal compared to
the negative impacts: complementing the historic front fal;ade line that contributes to the historic streetscape and enclosing the
street and making it more pedestrian oriented calls for front facades to be located close to the street and at the same plane.
With regard to transportation, the Engineering Department did not anticipate anything being taken out along the front property
line.
Staff is recommending a continuance of the application based on the design issues and the Historic Commission's
recommendation to continue the application to allow those items to be addressed.
Stromberg said he wants to be careful about accepting the building and the building placement as a given and then starting to
talk about Variances because "there is a problem." He's looking for a different reason for characterizing why there is a unique
circumstance. Harris clarified the lot dimension is the unusual circumstance.
PUBLIC HEARING
TOM GIORDANO, 2635 Takelma Way, and RAY KISTLER, 2025 Butler Creek Road spoke.
Giordano addressed the setback issue and read from the Historic Design Guidelines concerning maintaining historic fal;ade
lines. He said they provided an aerial photo and topographic map showing the historic fal;ade line. The state has no plans to
improve the state highway. Placing the building closer to the street creates a much friendlier pedestrian environment.
Kistler discussed the setback along North Main Street. If the building was smaller, it still couldn't be moved back farther
because of the parking lot, the required five foot landscape strip, and the distance of the parking lot to the building. The
distance from the back of the building to the eastern property line, the dimensions are all City standard minimums. If the
building is moved back and ten feet is taken off, it won't meet the Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
. Kistler showed the building material samples. He added a gable to the mass, lowered the saddle and took away steel supports
on the Glenn Street elevation. He defended his original design. The Historic Commission has not seen the new color drawings
trying to address their recommendations.
Mindlin liked Kistler's original design and believes the new design is quite a compromise. Kistler explained the pieces he likes
better in the new design and those he likes better in his original design. Kistler referred the Commissioners to the landscape
plan in the packets. The street trees will be placed on the inward side of the sidewalk, instead of the parkrow.
JEROME WHITE, 253 Third Street, spoke in favor of the proposal. With regard to street widening, there has been a long history
of acknowledging that North Main doesn't have a problem with capacity according to the Transportation System Plan (TSP)
from 1998. There are buildings all around this building that don't conform. As far as affording better light and air, if ten feet
of the front of the building is cut off, it would be 2000 square feet or 30 percent FAR (in violation). White liked the first
design. This is not a big building.
COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison, said he was surprised that Kistler was unaware of the arterial setback. Secondly, Giordano
recused himself from the beginning of last Historic Commission meeting because he was representing a client, returned to the
meeting, where Kistler presented this application. He feels that was inappropriate since he is now representing Kistler for
monetary gain.
Swales argued that the setback along North Main is needed in the event it is ever necessary to widen it. He stated that he is a
Traffic Safety Commissioner.
ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, requested the record be kept open for seven days as he has not sent the new materials
that have been brought forward. With regard to the Variance, this site does not have an unusual physical circumstance that
can't be worked around - the lot does not have unusual lot dimensions, the neighborhood fal;ade is not an unusual
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2007
4
84
-
-
circumstance on the site, and how can reducing the setback make a street more pedestrian friendly. Setbacks are for air, light
and space. In addition, the City might want a right-of-way for a turn lane. Curbside sidewalks are dangerous for pedestrians.
PHILIP LANG, 758 B Street, said Ruth Miller has given her testimony time to him. Lang's written submittal in opposition to the
project is in the record.
Dotten-er/Black m/s to continue the meeting past 10:30 p.rn. The motion was approved.
Morris/Dotterrer mls to continue the public hearing, leaving the record open to February 13, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at Council
Chambers. Voice Vote: All favored. Fields announced the public hearing will be continued on February 13, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
Dawkins/Black m/s to extend the meeting unti/11:30 p.m. to work through the next action. The motion was approved.
PLANNING ACTION #2006-02357
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A SEVEN.LOT SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
165 L1THIA WAY AND 123 N. FIRST ST. SITE REVIEW APPROVAL IS REQUESTED FOR THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT AND
PERIMETER LANDSCAPING. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE FOUR TREES SIX INCHES DIAMETER AT
BREAST HEIGHT AND GREATER IN SIZE
APPLICANT: ARCHERD & DRESNER, LLC
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Dawkins, Dotterrer, Stromberg, Dimitre and Marsh had site visits and no ex parte contacts.
Mindlin had no site visit but is familiar with the site. Fields just completed a project at 180 Lithia Way for Evan Archerd and
believes he can be unbiased and impartial. Morris did work for Archerd on a different project but said he is not biased.
Bullock requested that whatever information is in the Northlight record and the Commissioners learned about the site should be
included in this record. Upon Appicello's recommendation, Stromberg/Dotterrer mls to incorporate all the minutes from all the
Northlight meetings into the record for this action to represent the ex parte influences upon all of the Commissioners who were are
part of that process. Voice Vote: Approved.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar reviewed the project as outlined in the Staff Report. He said the applicant has presented a project asking for approval
under the Performance Standards Option because the City's standard subdivision code sets specific dimensions for lots. The
applicant has said the Performance Standard doesn't require minimum lots sizes and their preference is to configure the lots to
be more consistent with the lot sizes in the downtown. They will form a homeowners' association.
Dawkins wondered if it would be appropriate to add a Condition 22 emphasizing there is a 20 foot setback on Lithia Way.
Molnar said the applicants have stated in their application that they are aware of the setback. They could also make it clear in
the Planning Commission Findings.
Stromberg asked how this can be a Performance Standards Option (PSO) application when the ordinance (18.88.070D) states
the minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standard subdivision shall be three. It seems with a Performance
Standards Option the buildings are specified to some degree. He also noted the separation between buildings. What would
stop the applicants or future buyers from purchasing the lots and consolidating them?
Molnar said they first came to the Planning Department with a Subdivision and because of the need for flexibility in lot
configuration, Staff suggested the PSO might be a better approach.
Stromberg wondered if a PSO is designed for residential subdivisions, is there a way that has intellectual and legal integrity to
use the PSO in a more creative way to create a mixed use subdivision. Molnar is not certain how much latitude we have. The
PSO approach allows for common areas and landscaping building as one within a homeowner's association. It is generally a
better product over a long term than having them maintained by individual owners.
Black mentioned a letter received from Kay Spierings requesting one of the bioswales be moved.
PUBLIC HEARING
MARK KNOX, 276 W. Nevada Street, said the site is almost 100 percent asphalted over. The engineered plans could easily be
revised to collect the water and send it over to the bioswale. The applicant is willing to work with the neighbors.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2007
5
85
AILANO PLANNING OEPARTINT
STAFF REPORT
January 9, 2007
PLANNING ACTION: 2006-02354
APPLICANT: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
LOCATION: N. Main St. and Glenn St.
ZONE DESIGNATION: E-l
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: January 2, 2007
120.DAY TIME LIMIT: May 2, 2007
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.40 E-l Employment District
18.72 Site Design and Use Standards
18.100 Variances
REQUEST: Site Review approval to construct a two-story office building located on the vacant
parcel at the southern corner of the intersection ofN. Main St. and Glenn St. An Exception to
the Street Standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. frontage. A
Variance is requested to allow a 1O-foot front yard setback where a 20-foot front yard for
properties abutting arterial streets is required.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background. History of Application
There are no other planning actions of record for this site.
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The project site is located on the southern corner of the intersection of N. Main St. and
Glenn St. The site is 5,904 square feet in size. The application describes the uses as
architectural offices, general offices and a sculpture studio.
The subject parcel as well as the properties to the north and south are located in the E-I
Employment zoning district. The area to the east is located in the R-3 High Density
Multi-Family zoning district. The properties across N. Main St. to the west are located in
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 1 of 12
86
the R-2 Low-Den!ir Multi-Family zoning district. The sit! located in the Skidmore
Academy Historic District
The property slopes downhill to the northwest at approximately 12 percent. The site is
currently vacant. A walnut tree is located in the southeast comer of the site, and is
identified as being preserved.
1. Site Review
The application involves the construction of a two-story, 2,700 square foot general
office building. The front of the building is located ten feet from the front
property line adjacent to N. Main St., and the side of the building is located 11
feet from the side property line adjacent to Glenn St. Five off-street parking
spaces will be located behind the building and be accessed from Glenn St.
The building is oriented to N. Main St. with a recessed entry feature.
Additionally, a plaza area is located at the front of the building directing the
pedestrian from the N. Main St. sidewalk to the front doors of the building. The
architectural style is described as a "contemporary/functional aesthetic." The
building uses a blend of residential and commercial building elements to provide
compatibility with the surrounding historic architecture. The proposed building
will incorporate a variety of exterior materials including galvanized metal siding,
cedar lap siding, polished-face block, split-faced block, steel columns and
preformed zinc roofing. The exterior building material colors are not identified
except for the split-faced block used in the base of the building is identified as
gray.
2. Exception to the Street Standards
The applicant is requesting an Exception to the Street Standards to install a
curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. frontage. There is approximately 84 feet of
sidewalk that needs to be installed adjacent to GleIin St. including the driveway
openmg.
3. Variance to the Special Setback Requirement
The application includes a request for a Variance to the Special Setback
Requirement which requires the front yards for properties abutting an arterial
street to be a minimum of 20 feet (18.68.050). The front of the building is
located ten feet from the front property line adjacent to N. Main St.
II. Proiect ImDact
The project requires Site Review approval since it involves the construction of a new
commercial building in the E-I zoning district. An Exception to the Street Standards is
required to deviate from the Ashland Street Standards for the curbside sidewalk on Glenn
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 2 of 12
87
. "
St., and a Variance is required to the special setback requirement to reduce the front yard
from 20 to ten feet.
A. Site Review
1. Adequacy of Public Facilities
The application findings state that public facilities and utilities are in place to service
the project in the N. Main St. and Glenn St. rights-of-way. Water, sewer and storm
drain services are available in Glenn St. The application findings state that the
location of the electrical equipment is addressed on the site plan. However, the
location and size of the water, sewer, storm drain and electric facilities are not
delineated on the site plan.
N. Main St. and Glenn St. provide access to the site. N. Main St. is a state highway
under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). N. Main
St. is classified as a Boulevard (arterial) and Glenn St. is classified as a Neighborhood
Street. Sidewalks are in place on the N. Main St. frontage and a portion of the Glenn
St. frontage. The bicycle facilities are a shared lane on both streets. Bus service is
provided on N. Main St.
2. Requirements of the Employment Zoning District
The E-l zoning district requires the first floor of the building to be used for permitted
or special permitted uses. In this case, all of the building square footage is designated
as office use which is a permitted uses in the E-l zone.
The E-l zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless
a parcel abuts a residential zoning district. The subject parcel abuts a residential
district at the rear (east) of the site. A ten feet per story setback is required for a rear
yard abutting a residential district. The proposed building is 50 feet from the rear
( east) property line, and therefore exceeds the required 20- foot setback requirement.
The proposed building height is approximately 27 feet which is under the maximum
building height of 40 feet in the E-l zoning district.
3. Site Design and Use Standards
The project lies within the Detail Site Review Zone and the Skidmore Academy
Historic District. As a result, the application is subject to the Basic Site Review
Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards and Historic
District Design Standards.
In Staffs opinion, the proposal meets the Basic Site Review Standards for
Commercial Development. The primary orientation of the building is to North Main
Street using a recessed entry feature. The front entrance is accessed by the public
sidewalk as required. Parking is located behind the building as required.
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 3 of 12
88
. .
The proposal WIll result in 22% of landscaping on site :hich exceeds the 15 percent
minimum for the E-l zoning district. The parking area includes 19.4 percent of the
area in landscaping which exceeds the minimum requirement of seven percent of the
total parking area in landscaping. Additionally, one tree is required for each seven
parking spaces to provide a canopy effect. Two trees are proposed on the north end of
the parking area and the application states that the existing walnut in the southeast
comer will also shade the parking area. Two trees are proposed behind the sidewalk
on the N. Main St. and three trees are proposed behind the sidewalk on Glenn St.
For the most part, Staffbelieves the building also satisfies the Detail Site Review
requirements. The recessed entry is generously sized, and accented with structural
steel columns. The front (west) wall includes 44 percent in glazing and the Glenn St.
(north) wall includes 37 percent in glazing which exceeds a minimum of20 percent of
the wall are is required to be in display areas, windows and doorways. The front
entrance to the building is emphasized by the entry alcove and awning. The Detail
Site Review Standards prohibit bright or neon paint colors on the building exterior.
The exterior building colors, except for the grey split-faced block used for the base on
the sides and rear of the building, are not identified.
In Staffs opinion, the proposed building does not fully satisfy the Historic District
Design Standards regarding massing, roof shapes and rhythm of openings. While the
proposed building is relatively small at 2,700 square feet in size, the site is important
because it is a visible location on one of the main gateways in the City and because
the property is in the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The side of the building
facing Glenn St. will perhaps be as visible as the front of the building on N. Main St.
The Historic Commission had not reviewed the proposal at the time of writing.
In the location of the subject property, N. Main St. is an eclectic mix of residential
and commercial buildings from a variety of eras. Staffbelieves the style of the
proposed building is an attempt to recognize the mix of architecture and uses in the
immediate vicinity. While the building has the overall form and roof shape of a
residential structure, the architectural details and materials on the ground floor of the
building are of a commercial nature. Staff believes the applicant has done an
admirable job designing a building that captures both commercial and residential
elements in an effort to compliment the surrounding structures.
Staffs primary concern is the Glenn St. (north) elevation of the building. While this
side of the building should not overpower the front of the building, the current
proposal presents a fairly unarticulated wall and large continuous roof. As a result,
Staff believes the mass of the building from the north perspective will appear
somewhat flat. In contrast, the surrounding historic residential structures have mass
and roof broken into smaller sections. Additionally, the window orientation and sizes
on the Glenn St. side of the building seem to emphasize the mass of the north
elevation. The applicable Historic District Design Standards are listed below.
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 4 of 12
89
.
M.eOMMlNbED
IV-C.!J) ~lIk up unlntef'ftfltl"6 t>oJdikrt
~ into fHPflfllt1r. VllrlNI f1IIIHH
rtNch",.. com""", l1fI ~t
INikli"6. from tM hltltorlc pttrlod
N:CO"HENDEO
r'3J
"ii. 'AVOID ;,,~:
tN\5SING
Avoit/ fJingJe. monolithk; fDml. thIIt iliff not
fIf/Jewtl ;y vllrilltlon. in m_..,.
ROOf SHAPES
AVOID~II~:;~
b/~/
'" -
~/l~~
/V-C-5) ~1It;e r.he MIV roof form. of tM
Mildi", to t:hotH: found In t.he III'M.
,~~II~
" ,
....:::::. :::::
?J;, I~\"
AYOWJ Intlw/ucl"l roof fJhlltpttfJ. pItdfH. or
mllt;erllli. not trA4tJofllllly u.ed /" r.he M'M.
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 5 of 12
90
'fill
r,~_
\~
&HYTHM OF OPENI~
1V-C-6) I<4tJpea the MltenuItion of HlI NUtJ
ttlth tJoor MIll ftIindow tlkmttmt;s In the
fllCAtle. AitIo C<>>J~r the ttfdt:h-tc-
height ntt/o of b".)'!' In the fllCMle.
B. Exception to the Street Standards
....void introducing lnaom(NItlbltl fllCllM pllt-tttt'fM
thJn; I.IptJet the rlrythm of optmil14t1 HU/7/IMttd
IJy the tJunvuMIltf tJt~.
In Staff's opinion, the Exception to the Street Standards meets the approval criteria.
There is a curbside sidewalk in place at the comer and on Glenn St. on the property to the
east. The opportunity for a parkrow between the sidewalk and curb is limited to
approximately 50 feet between the comer and the proposed driveway apron. After the
transitions to and from the curbside sidewalk would be installed, there would be a short
length of parkrow installed.
C. Tree Protection Plan
The application references a Tree Protection Plan, but does not include drawings or
specifications pertaining to protection of the walnut tree. Additionally, the application
does not address the impact of the installation of the pervious paving on the walnut tree.
The Tree Commission had not reviewed the application at the time of writing.
D. Variance to the Special Setback Requirement
The request is to locate front of the building ten feet from the front property line. In
Staffs opinion, the required 20-foot front yard setback on arterials was intended to
accommodate future street widening projects (see ordinance language below). In
considering the Variance request, the Planning Commission should consider scheduled
street widening projects in the N. Main corridor that may impact the subject property.
18.68.050 Special Setback Requirements
To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on
streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 6 of 12
91
[W'. t_
,. ~-
widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof, shall
be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line separating
the lot from the street. (emphasis added)
Street Setback
East Main Street, between City
limits and Lithia Way 35 feet
Ashland Street (Highway 66) between
City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65 feet
Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20)
feet, with the exception of the C-1-D district.
A nearby property at 588 N. Main St. (same side of the street, north of the intersection of
N. Main St. and Maple St.) received a Variance to the special setback requirement for
front yards abutting an arterial street in February 2006. That application included a letter
from the district manager of OOOT indicating that improvements and widening to North
Main Street are not include in the State Transportation Improvement Program (4-year
horizon) or in the MPO Regional Transportation Plan (20-year horizon). Additionally,
the letter indicated that capacity improvements such as widening the street would be
difficult in the future due to severe impacts to private properties bordering N. Main Street
in the Maple Street area. N. Main St. is a state highway under the jurisdiction of the
Oregon Oepartment of Transportation (OOOT). However, the current application does
not include updated information from OOOT on this issue.
To the south of the subject property, the City of Ashland Capital Improvement Plan
identifies a project to realign Wimer St. and Hersey St. at N. Main St. to a standard four
leg intersection. The subject property is approximately 500 feet north of the intersection
of Wimer St. and N. Main St. It is unclear if the subject property will be impacted by the
potential intersection realignment project.
The applicant identifies the unusual circumstance as the historic fayade line along N.
Main St. The historic setback pattern was not a situation that the applicant created. The
application states that N. Main St. setback is approximately ten feet. While the
application references a front yard setback analysis for the vicinity, the materials are not
included in the application. If the Planning Commission determines the historic setback
pattern in the vicinity to be an unusual circumstance, Staff recommends the Planning
Commission require the front yard building setback analysis including the location of the
front fayade of the proposed building for comparison to substantiate a finding to this
effect.
In Staffs opinion, the unusual characteristic of the site is that it has a relatively steep
slope (approximately 12 percent) and short lot depth for a commercially zoned piece of
property. There is 50 feet available between the back of the building and the rear (east)
property line. The building can not be moved further from N. Main St. towards the back
( east) property line because the parking area and landscape buffer are at the minimum
dimensions. The parking is required to be behind or to the side of the building.
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 7 of 12
92
" .
Therefore, the 20-foot front yard setback would require a reduction in the square footage
of the building. The slope and configuration of the property is not self imposed.
In Staff's opinion, the positive benefit of the proposal is the front of the building will
compliment the historic fac;ade lines in the vicinity and will make contribute to a positive,
pedestrian-oriented streetscape. The property is located in the Skidmore Academy
Historic District. It appears there are buildings in the immediate vicinity located closer
than 20 feet from the front property line. For example, the Manor Motel located to the
south of the project at 476 N. Main St. is a historic contributing resource, and appears to
be located approximately five feet from the front property line adjacent to N. Main St. To
the north of the project across Glenn St., the home located at 508 N. Main St. is a historic
contributing resource from 1900, and the residence appears to be approximately ten feet
from the front property line.
The Historic District Design Standards require historic fac;ade lines of streetscapes to be
maintained by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plan as the facades of
adjacent buildings (see standard with graphic below). The front fac;ade line is an
important component in creating a historic development pattern and historic streetscape.
New buildings that differentiate too much from the historic front fac;ade line clearly stand
out and are not compatible with the historic development pattern.
1V-c-4) AUinUIIn the IHt<<Ic fllCAlie w. tJI
.~ by fDatJng m",t ~
01 MW I1lMnp In tire Hme pI6ne lie
the ~ of IIIijIIamt ~
5fT6N:~
,IlIIoiJ ~tJng the ttltitJrJng Ntblld pltt(fm by
pUIdIrf new 11u114",. In "-t or #lehltu/ the
hitltorle fllCMl6 line.
The second positive benefit of the proposed building location is creating a positive space
where pedestrians feel comfortable. Traditional planning principles stress the importance
of locating the majority of the front facades at the same plane to enclose the street. The
structures that line a street determine how well the streetscape is defined. Specifically,
the combination of the front fac;ade line, building height and the width, and sidewalk and
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 8 of 12
93
. (.
street width define the spatial qualities of the streetscape. In a retail or commercial
setting, buildings should normally be placed against the edge of or near the sidewalk
because the uses depend upon direct pedestrian access. The streets that people find most
comfortable are those where buildings front directly on or near the street accommodating
both pedestrians and vehicles at slower speeds.
III. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof
The criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.070 as follows:
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the 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 transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall
comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655,
1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999)
The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.090 as follows:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a
unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards
Options Chapter.
The criteria for a Variance are described in 18.72.090 as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically
apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of
the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 S1, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 9 of 12
94
(8
I''i...........
\~
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
The subject site presents a variety of design challenges including a relatively steep slope
and small parcel for a commercial site, location in a mixed historic residential and
commercial neighborhood and prominence on one of the gateways of Ashland. Ideally,
the final product should complement the architectural fabric established by the pattern of
historic buildings in the vicinity. Staff has raised concerns regarding the Glenn St.
(north) elevation in terms of mass, roof shape and rhythm of openings. The Historic
Commission had not reviewed the application at the time of writing. The Commission
should carefully consider the recommendations of the Historic Commission and provide
clear direction to the applicant with respect to the design issues raised in this report.
The application does not include a Tree Protection Plan and does not address the impact
of the installation of the pervious paving on the walnut tree. A condition is attached
requiring the plan and an assessment of the pervious paving with the building permit
submittals. The Tree Commission had not reviewed the application at the time of
writing.
In terms of the request to reduce the front yard from 20 to ten feet, the Planning
Commission will need to decide if the application has met the burden of proof in
demonstrating compliance with the approval criteria for Variance. Staff believes there
are positive benefits of bringing the building closer to the street in terms of maintaining a
historic fa~ade line on N. Main St. and creating a positive streetscape and a pedestrian-
oriented corridor. However, the applicant has argued the N. Main St. fa~ade line is the
unusual circumstance, but has not provided an analysis of building setback in the vicinity.
In Staff's opinion, the unusual characteristic of the site is that it has a relatively steep
slope and a short lot depth for a commercially zoned piece of property. There is 50 feet
available between the back of the building and the rear (east) property line. The building
can not be moved further from N. Main St. towards the back (east) property line because
the parking area and landscape buffer are at the minimum dimensions. Finally, the
Planning Commission must balance the historic and streets cape benefits of a reduced
front-yard setback with the transportation needs in the future. Transportation projects on
city and state plans do not appear to impact the subject property. However, the
application does not include updated information from the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) on this issue.
Should the Commission believe adequate information and facts are provided to approve
the project, Staff recommends the following conditions:
1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load
calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including
transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. Additionally, the placement
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 10 of 12
95
. !;,~-
-,' ~
of any portion of the structure in the public utility easement shall be reviewed and
approved by the Ashland Electric Department. This plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Electric Department prior to building permit submittal. Transformers
and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of vision
clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
3) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk improvement
shall comply with approved plans, and submitted for review and approval of the
Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of a building or
excavation permit. The concrete color and surface finish shall be the city standard
in accordance with the Ashland Engineering Specifications. Additionally,
evidence of approval of the Oregon Department of Transportation for any work in
the jurisdiction of the state shall be submitted with the engineered construction
drawings.
4) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall consist of the City of
Ashland's commercial streetlight standard, and shall be included in the utility plan
and engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Ashland
Street. That the property owner shall sign install public pedestrian-scaled street
lights to City specifications for the historic district on the street frontages.
5) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering Division and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit.
The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and
adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes,
sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch
basins.
6) That if a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the
sidewalk.
7) That all public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees
and street lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to
issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
8) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance
with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the
building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this
application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted
and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
9) That a Tree Protection Plan in accordance with the requirements of 18.61.200 shall
be submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit
submittals. The Tree Protection Plan shall include an analysis from the project
landscape architect or certified arborist of the impact of the installation of the
pervious paving on the walnut tree to be preserved.
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 11 of 12
96
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
10)
That the re'!'mmendations of the Ashland Tree Co~!ssion with final approval
of the Staff Advisor shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The recommendations shall be included on a revised tree protection plan,
landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building
permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance
with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
11 )
That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland
Planning Division prior to site work, building demolition, and/or storage of
materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the installation of tree protection
fencing for the walnut tree in the southeast comer of the property. The tree
protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with
18.61.200.8.
12)
That public utility easements on the property shall be shown on the building
permit submittals. No portion of the structure shall intrude into a public utility
easement without approval by the Ashland Engineering Division.
13)
That the finished floor elevation (FFE) of the building shall be at a minimum, the
same elevation as the public sidewalk in front of the building in the Clear Creek
Drive right-of-way. Verification of the FFE being at or above the elevation of the
public sidewalk shall be submitted with the building permit for review and
approval by the Staff Advisor.
That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from North Main Street.
Location and screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building
permit submittals.
That the windows shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the
building into the interior of the building.
That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building
permit submittals. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to
the building or use are prohibited in accordance with the Detail Site Review
Standards.
That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and
appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding
properties.
That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of
Chapter 18.96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review and
approval with the building permit submittals. That a sign permit shall be obtained
prior to installation of new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of
Chapter 18.96.
Planning Action 2006-02354
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 12 of 12
97
-
ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
January 4. 2007
PLANNING ACTION #2006-02354 Request for Site Review approval to construct a two-story
office building located on the vacant parcel at the southeast comer of the intersection of N. Main
St. and Glenn St. A Variance is requested to allow a 10-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. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Employment ZONING: E-1 (with Residential Overlay) ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 05 DA; TAX
LOTS: 3600; APPLICANT: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
Recommendation:
1) That the applicant reconsiders the tree species for the two entry trees on Glenn Street to
address potential vision clearance issues. A species with an upright branching habit is
recommended.
2) The applicant monitor and work carefully on installation of the pervious paving around the
walnut tree that is to be preserved.
Department of Community Development
51 Winburn Way
Ashland. Oregon 97520
\\\\\\ 'Ish land llru.,
Tel 541-488-5350
Fax 541-552-2050
TTY. 800-735-2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
98
CITY OF
ASHLAND
HISTORIC COMMISSION
Meeting of January 3,2007
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
PLANNING ACTION #2006-02354 Request for Site Review approval to construct a two-story office
building located on the vacant parcel at the southeast corner of the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn
St. A Variance is requested to allow a 10-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. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment ZONING: E-1 (with
Residential Overlay) ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 05 DA; TAX LOTS: 3600; APPLICANT: Raymond J.
Kistler Architecture
Recommendation to Planning Commission:
Recommend the application be continued because the Historic Commission has
concerns with the proposal meeting the Historic District Design Standards of the Site
Design and Use Standards for Missing (IV-C-3), Roof Shapes (Iv-C-5) and Rhythm of
Openings (IV-C-6). Also, the Commission has concerns with regard to the compatibility
of exterior materials with the surrounding area. Specific recommendations are
following.
· The applicant has done an excellent job embracing the residential and
architectural elements in the surrounding area.
· The Variance for the ten-foot setback seems reasonable given the setbacks of
adjacent properties. The benefit of the proposal is the symmetrical placement of
the proposed building in relation to the existing front setback line.
· Exterior materials and colors need to be less contrasting to be compatible with
surrounding architecture. Concerned about color and shine of zinc roofing and
galvanized metal siding.
· Side and rear elevations are monolithic. The base may need more relief. Bring
architectural elements from the front elevation to the rear of the building in the
form of recesses, bays, trellises, planters and/or awnings.
· Diagonal steel bracing may be too industrial for area. The color of the diagonal
steel bracing is important. Consider bringing diagonal elements to the side and
rear elevations. When the diagonal element is on the front alone it is too isolated
and it stands out.
· Need wall and window sections.
· Use larger windows on north elevations similar to those shown in August 3, 2006
pre-application plan.
· Lower saddle between two gable roofs to reduce mass of building.
Community Development
20 E. Main Street
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541/488-5305
Fax:541~488-6006
TTY: 800/735-2900
rA'
99
EXHIBITS ENTERED INTO THE
RECORD
AT THE
JANUARY 9, 2007 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
P A2006-02354
100
01/09/2007 09:05 FAX 154J77~1
ODO'l' wn l1.e \:1 1:7
~
IfIIUUJ/UVJ
.~
Depafb.... of Trusportatioa
Ilopc VIIIcy Office
tOO AMeIopo RolMI
While City. OR. 97D
T~ (stt) 774-1184
FAX CS4)) 71"349
bayJ/www.odot....us
January 7, 2007
Mr. Ray KIstJer
482 North MIIIn St.
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Proposed Development- SE Comer of North Main and Glenn Streeta
Dear Mr. Kistler:
You hINe inquired as to ODOrs plans to widen North Main Street. Ashland, in the next 20 years in
the vicinity of Glenn Street for a proposed development on yea property on the aoutheaat comer of
the inlel'88Ction. Ela.*dng the t'8gion's St8IB TI'8n8pOI1.8tion Impronment ProgIam ($TIP). we have
no plans to repave or widen North Makl in the rore..,8bIe future.
Aa you may know, in 2002 we completed 8 $1.3 mitiori preeervation project on North Main (Highway
99) from West Valley VIew south through the downtown couplet to Siskiyou Boulevard. This project
included grinding and inlaying the roadway and nDlIdIng ..... aidewalka.
Should you h8v8 any questions. pIeese do not hedate to caI me.
SincenIIy,
tit- ~
Art Anderson
Rogue Valley Area Manager
cc: Eryca McCaItin, Ihl8rim District Manager
Citv "f Ashland
f'lEt!OlD)'" 1: .,hibit
[''',<,; I
P;\ Z OO~~ '::Jt'2j5"t
'-::,' 1."\.0'3:: S'AFf M.~.
Co.
7671 0ete/_9"4J
.......
F.._
101
ZOi
l-+. ~~t-O--.O)OQl.. '. . .;: - 'I
l..'~~ -.~'.:::;
I. "", .:;: ..=\_.{ "-;1-1
;'~ ';. ;' '\.:,)
,.-.:-_.;;.;.;.."~-
1'1
C"\
EOl
~
~
A
r'\
vOl
SOl
:\..)06S\KJstler Jobs\North Main Building\SCHEMDES\SP.dw9. 1/9/20073:20:09 PM
"'. ,/%
~' -~w~~/
/ ~- ;; ~ ~
I-~- ~I ~k-~---
I"Y 7 7 / /' Z /' ./ "Y./ /')")"" .Y)"" ~//."7 /" "Y Z './1 / ~\'"
). ). ). ). ).').. ').. ').. ">- ';/\ '\. '\ '\ '\. '\:A. ~ '\ '\ '\. "- '\. '1 ~ ~'~"'."
Y/77 7 7 7 7 / /ll~/71 /'777 '/ '7)1 'P- ~-
Sf; ~ \. '\ '\ '\ '\ ",Y\>,J "'\:'\ '\ '\ '\ 'Z. y\ '\. '\ v'\. .'\.',
~~ ~~.(.({.(<<<<{{{{{{<'\ ~~1e ','--===
. Sf: Y? // ./...L/!J"/ 7 7 7 Jf7 77 7/? /,( Z/l? m
" ~ .--/ \>:>:>-. >-. '\ "'^ '\. '\. Y ,n'\ '\ v'\. '\ \.. '\. '\ '\.' (P
1m - - ~;r/7'//Y ,/17[7777 /7}11:
.st- V77y>>m~>>~ .):>)1~
\ 8i8"'" ~"1J '\ '\. Y...[<... '\ '\ '\ '\,\ '\~ '\ '\ '\X'\. '\. ,'\. '\ ') ~ ~
~"'" ~6~ ~<!.{~<{<i\r<<<A"'~~b ~./
~ Vz/ ?// 1/7 17 /nt- r '
~ ~ '\. Y\..',\ 'Y";..' ,'\.''\ '\ "" '\. '\. '\....... ~ 'i'"
1I ./ '<0, /;;r 2" /)j)"" 2' ./ P /?)j '.
~ ~ .-/ ./ ~ :s.. '\ V ,,\' ,'\X "'\. '\. '\ 'i '
0, ___ --- 'V 7/)1)' Y//Z Z)" //' m)
~ ..-- ~ '\ ~ .'\. '\ '\ '\ '\ '\. 11 l> '>_.....
~// ./~~Zll~~
/~ ./ ./ /ffl
~ JI / /z
- -1879- ~ ~ / I'
"-- ~o~ /. ~_/'
~ ,..../ ~ ~ ~ / I If'
iji // O:IZ /
-/ m~[i\ / /
~/1fJ ~tz~ / //;(1
___---- 1) m;JIz v
Q- m ~ ~ ~ / / ~
(P 0:$.,/ / I ~ ./
~ $)-k / - ~ j
_~m / ~
44' lZ)" __ - - - --- ~ / &'_lZ)" /~
I / 7 '
/ /
~~. ~ FT
I
~~
I-----....
.....
LANDSCAPE
-
-
ii"'"
.....\8
-
-
-
..........
/
~ ~J~ I~~
r / J:
m ~ / (P
,
~.L L. 0
~
Z - ---
CJ --- ---
(J) f --- --- ---
1 ~~ r.z _/~
I
-~.'l
........
I
{
- -- - - --"-J
11
l> (
~ I
.Z --J
(;\
11
l>
.' ~
~
'/".J
I J
.-~
f.
.--_.-..J
.....
-
(~
(}
(0
~ "'= (J)
. I' _
- - 1
~~ m
.......... 1)
= IV
2:!..~ r
~ ~ J>
Z
~
.
I\.)
~L~.~\~~ --
/ :t..1~ :/~
/ ()) 0
- (P
o
I ~ _19
V/; 0 I
~
./
-
I 1__-- I
noi- ----
./
/~~f;?"
~ ~
/
/ I
/ I _-' ~.
v 1-
[!] j/
~JI
(j) I ./
I(]/ /1 \>>
~ I ~___
=-
J / /
//1
I
I
---r-- ~
I ~
I
LAND5CAPE
~
-----
/
z I
m
E
~ I r---,--_
m, /'
EV
- ~ I
7\
I
/
I
,
t~j~
!Iil
i:~
.~Sf:
i i
Sf:
.
r
~
o _----
~ '
I fo ~
/\ J ~
\ m
\..-t
-.....-.,
,.
;Z
,.
r
~
m
r
m
:<
10>
~
\p
lI'
, \
I
I
~---~
\-T-~-'
I
-\
, ..
"
II
, .'
-. ... . . - ~
~.~ ',' ....~..,
1"~i'I" '. "-
1). ;.
I.e' ':'
I~" P,'
.~~~
~
\
\
iji
())
-J
\
\
)
/
V
I
"
~$"
, ,
J...'
z~ .
U..t.:'
9v"
C(
~~
. .
.. . -
.~ ;
~~
~"
'.---- -- "L: '. . ..' ;". .' :
~" \{' '. :NTRY F='~AL~'1 :. ./ /
"" " '. '" . ..,. ./ r
~ " .. ...., '. ,'. ,... , ./ ~
.~~ " . " .'. .'. .'. ~ tJ I ~
"- ~ -~ ~ - - - - ~,- -1986- .... .::~":~:-r.- - - ~ ~ ~~--- --- "" i~_
'" f ".. .. m -..;:::
- - ~ - ~ ,'~' - - - - - "'-. ~--
I ~ ::: - - - -4e..aw' - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ ::".
------1 ee /' EXISTING SIDEUJALK
------
::c"
-----
-----
/-
I
-- - - - - -g-m-o ~ - - - _---.-J
~;!l~~
l):IZ
m~[i\
lJZC
mOCi\
~~J:
,
/"
/
-......---..
,./
NO. MAIN &i.
./
./
!!
"'
~
KISTLER BROS.
OFFICE BUILDING
..tQ? ~ UAI~ AC:I-II At\.ln "D
106
UISTLER
~'TECTURE
~
-
""
(:)
~
o
m
(P
1:
- l>
~
o
l>
r
r
m
~
~m
l>
(p
m
::I
m
z
4
- --------
--.----.-~-..-I--..~-'--i~...ilt""'JI~-
({)ADVINCED_
A;~~
--
i l' : ,,' '!' \ -: ",' "1
I ; , ,',' " :: ': <t
r.>., .3 ,
l-p!'. c: ZOOID- 02. '3'S""t
<~:. L "i'~.!:"__.._,___,:,-.H.
Pedestrian Friendly, Environmentally Advanced
The Aqua-BricHJ Series
Advanced Pavement Technology (AP7) presents a pedestrian-friendly stormwater
management system featuring Aqua-Bric™ permeable pavers. The smooth, flat surface
created using Aqua-Bric meets ADA standards and is a superior choice for areas with
high foot traffic-even for pedestrians in high heels or wheel chairs. Ideal for plazas,
walkways, entrances and parking lots,* Aqua-Bric is used by APT to implement the
environmentally sound Bio-Aquifer Storm System (BASS C"). See back side for more information.
Benefits of BASS. with Aqua-Bric~
. Meets pedestrian slip resistance standards from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Architectural
Guidelines, as well as EPA stormwater requirements
. Provides smooth surfaces with minimal openings to make walking more comfortable
. Allows for rapid removal of stormwater through void openings
. Eliminates standing water for plazas and walkways without sloping
. Maximizes design flexibility by enabling a wide range of creative patterns
. Simplifies maintenance in climates with ice and snow
Aqua-Bric'
Type 1
Dimensions:
Nom, 5" x 10" X 23/B"
Aqua-Brie
Type 2
DimenSions
Nom 5" x la' x 2?k'
Patent pending, AdditIOnal sizes available,
"May be used in light vehicular deSigns with 4" x 8" X 31;4" pavers,
see APT for site-specific deSign details,
107
ii' '. .,' ';-.t",:;, ~. ~.~~', ~ ~XI :,r;' ,'" . .::- I
# .f ~- r ,_'- :,.. ' - _ ' "' , .,
l..,; "",', " "" '>. J, '. '., '1
- ::~~~~.~,~~ ....~4....~~ -:_'~"'Jl"";,"...~~_..._
' r"."-.,..,._,....., .ftf. "~1 ,.,.......,..- "-...,
~/~ ./,:',J'~!;;!-::"~'.., :':~"r!
~- . "''if. E......., -"~<,M.~,~'
. - ,. j":;"-=." "", ~~. ~"'.:,~ <,,,~,~]l ..... .. .., "
t' ~.i..t;,4-;.~;.:'., " C; '>, i
~............... -,', ~'~-,.~~
~ ,": ". '.,j; ,""'. .~. . .." . }
-.~ ", '-..Jt-..;..... ..._.J L...:-..,.. :.,,:.-,.
/: ....~ -~,...- -- '1
j. ~ .
1',,' , l - - ---....,
" II
I l" i "
-~._', l~--=-;'____
1! .
· ~ .i. j
..........:.. . -~~ ..;~ 1'-:::......
I
I ~',
~:"~1i;.'"
,\
, ",;, f
...",.....-
When used as part of APT's exclusive BASS"" method, these pavers allow for natural storm water drainage
and groundwater recharge, making the paved surface ecologically sound and economically smart. In fact, the
BASS method is an acceptable post-structural Best Management Practice (BMP) used to meet the federal
stormwater management requirements. Roads and parking lots created using BASS with these permeable
pavers offer vast benefits:
· Meeting EPA stormwater requirements with a
superior solution for NPDES Phase II
· Delivering maximum strength to handle heavy
vehicular traffic (Aqua-Loc and Eco-Brick)
· Achieving significant savings and fostering eco-
logical integrity through enhanced land planning
· Producing remarkable curb appeal and
convenient maintenance access
· Outperforming other systems in harsh climates
with freeze/thaw cycles
· Providing outstanding results on a 3D-year life-
cycle cost analysis
Aqua-Brie, Aqua-Loc and Eco-Brick are licensed shapes, available only from APT or selected
national manufacturers. The pavers are manufactured according to ASTM C936 specifications. They
can be produced in a variety of custom colors and installed using manual or mechanical methods.
The new paver shapes can also be combined during installation to achieve a number of attractive patterns
in a permeable system.
BIO.AQUIFER STORM SYSTEM
ECQ-SWALE'"
_FlU
PAvtIlUlm
2~ IEDtNNG
12" SUI.IASE ..
"'"
......
_lID ...
Ecologically sound. Economically smart. And exclusively from APT.
For more information about the BASS program, please contact APT toll-free at (877) 551-4200 or visit our
website at www.advancedpavement.com.
mlOVANCEQ_
A ~,!~~
Ecological Paver Systems Division
67 Storeh';, Road Oswego, I!;:o,o!s 60543
Toii-free 1877) 551-4200 (630) 551-4200 Fax 1630) 551-4225
CRT@advaro,ce,ipavernent,corr www.advancedpavement.com
e
~: 2005 ':"m'Jnc~d Pal'it:;,:?,'t r-;,o/':'\)I,:{JJ' ';,1;
t15r;f,'e(.' B~SS f{\,'.Sl~/ALE ~i.7iJaB"t :'(/U2 ,-.-;:;0 f:;:'-Rnc~ .HE' ,'.'Jtli--'n'ar~':;:]1 APT
108
~ LIn ~vl. ~\'IILLEQ
(~)
'S<~<'"
"'~',:i~~~
.~~~~~<_-..- ~~
-"-:;:~::-~._;:::::--
PtlILIP C. L'C::\iG. =D~\r
~~.
758 [13tre~l · _\~hland, Ore2J)n Q7::;20
ResIdence · 482-8b::;q
OtRce/fax · 482-5387
E-mail .rn.i!ip:g mllld,neL · ruthG!;mind,net
~. h....~..."'_'._......'._. _.. _._ ')
( " .: ....\
fie, '':'.i (, ,1
E.., ,4 .r--"J I
,o.~~ l.j:;l~~~,~J1J
January 9, 2007
To: Planning Commission
Re.: PA2006-02354
I am opposed to the development as proposed. It has many serious
defects in addition to those soft-pedaled in the staff report. In the
larger context it represents the ongoing prejuidicial and discriminatory
behavior of planning based on who the applicant is and their "status".
The proposed project bears the marks of minimum design effort/talent,
and maximum greed. The building is essentially an ugly, out-of-place box
meant to meet the convenience of the owner in renting the space, and
ma~imizing the income potential.
What's wrong with this? We like to think that in Ashland we have
"pride of place" - meaning a community -or neighborhoods where there
is coherence, integration, architectural and community wholeness
providing comfort and meaning. This is especially so for our
older residential 'and commercial neighborhoods, now designated as
"historic" and for which special site design standards have been
developed. These are excellent - but maintaining integrity and
"pride of place is not a building-by-building affair - it is the
result of a consideration of the total neighborhood. The current
approach allows a building-by-building assessment that allows individual
buildings to get variances, CUPs, etc. that may not be individually that
bad - but which in aggregate result in anerchy, disorientation, placeless
"nowheres".
.. o.
I commend to you James Howard Kunstler's The Ge911raphx-of~he~e. in
which this phenomenon is described and analyzed. -'-
The deficiencies of this building are cited in the Historic Commission
a nd staff's concerns. The architectural style "contemporary/functional
aesthetic" is ':mowhere to be found in the lexicon of architectural
definitions. It translates after inspection at the proposal to: "an
ugly, cheap box for commercial activity".
Worse - and more closely related to the limited p~anning criteria is
that not only does this box focus entirely inward - on furthering its
interior commercial purpose, but it sabotages the exterior envir0nment
and its needs.
109
,
;..-'"
PA2006-02354 - 1/9/07 - p. 2
The applicant wants a reduction in front setback from 20' to 10'.
This will further undermine any .possi~~lity of bri,N~.ing ..thisI??rtJ.C?n of
North Main up to standard (See Cit.y of Ashland Stree.t Design Skandards).
This now a dangerous portion of-North H~iTn ~gofiate - ...'tOr-pedestrians
and bikes. It should have a "safety stop" median for people attempting to
cross, properly sized bike lanes, park rows to protect and set off the
~idewalk from rushing traffic, etc. The applicant (or staff om their
'behalf) argue that:
1) ODOT has no plans in future to bring North ~ffiin up to standards.
2) Other buildings intrudin~ into the 20' setback requirement make
upgrading too expensive and impossible.
These are specious arguments. It is impossible to predict that the
street upgrade, far more desirable than serving the applicant's needs,
will never:,be implemented. Nor is it reasonable to make such an upgrade
even more difficult and costly by allowing yet another intrusion into
the setback.
Criteria for Exception~S~t Standards
The applicant has not met these-criteria. The only "dfficulty(C. r is
the applicant's desire to maximize size and profit, and to say that "the
variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and
connectmvity"is, as demonstrated abDVe, absurd. The variance is also
inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Performance Standards
option Chaper (D.)
Criteria for a Variance
A. Unique and unusual circumstances. There are none. There are
circumstances~making it difficult to achieve maximum profit potential.
B. nGreater than anyneg.5rtive impacts...." Again, demonstrably untrue.
C. "Not \vilfully imposed" The circumstances or conditions facing the
developer are displeasing to him and compromise his personal goals.
The variance is a result of the developer's wilfull imposition on
the design for the site of his ~lans Rnd desires.
Staff points out the difficulty of the commercial development the
developer proposes because of site size and slope: Developer bought
the site and presumably was aware of or should have considered these
limitations before purchase. Now he complains that he cannot profitably
develop the site without give-aways that violate the rules and have
negative impacts on the rest of us. He wants to mitigate the problems
and "socialize" his risks by having you abrogate the rules.
If "caveat emptor" exists anywhere it exists in real estate.
The Larger Picture: Discriminatory/Preiudi~ial Pianni~process
Earlier this year PA2006-0069 requested a variance to intrude 6'
into the second 10' setback of a total 20' setback at the rear of
a residential building in a historic district. Staff decided this
required a variance. It then turned an Administrative Type I variance
into a Type II facilitating its rejection by the Hearings Board and
subse~uently, on appeal. Subsequently it was discovered that staff had
misled the applicants ~nOvariance was required. The structure was less
110
, ,:if/
PA-2006-02354 - 1/9/07 - p. 3
intrusive into the alley that it backed on than other buildings on the
alley. It fitted into the "alleyscape". It had neighbor support.
Contrast this treatment with that offered the applicant. Support for
the setback variance in the face of public interests and policy issues
that mitigate against it - and on a project in a most public setting with
huge impacts.
There are major differences between these two projects affecting why one
was opposed and even sabotaged by misapplication of ordinance, and
why the other, despite its obvious major shortcomings is blandly approved
for a variance by staff. That difference lies in who the applicants
are/were. Examples of this abound in planning history.
Along with all the issues specific to this project is the larger one of
the need to reform the planning process to be open, fair, equitable
and j us t.
PHILIP C. LANG
111
"'",,,,~J
Susan Yates - N .Main/Glenn powerpoint
P~'i'~1ii,lt,u}"~~~~~S.~~~"I"-l'<iY~''''''''';~''''''~:;!,,,,"~;~''''~;~~fW$'~.liJlt~~AKN<<~~~~'!\'\iI'tfPW1"liit!t~~>lii:~~M"''''~
From:
To:
"Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmai1.com>
<molnarb@ashland.or. us>, "Maria Harris" <harrism@ashland.or.us>,
<yatess@ashland.or.us>
1/10/2007 7:52 AM
N.MainlGlenn powerpoint
Date:
SubJect:
Bill, Maria, Susan
As requested, I am attaching the PowerPoint file with images that I used last night, for inclusion in the
planning Record,
Colin
City of Ashland
Plennlng Exhibit
Exhibit ~ _
PAIt ac~", - r>~?:'5'-f
Dale {-,- c1 Staff
f';lo.IIr<.\n~~H_,~._L_ _u -' '"
112
~
"0
~
~I
U I
o !t
-.........-.
\/l
aJ
~
.~
~
-.........-.
~\
o
.
"0
o
ro
~
~
\/l
ro
.
~
~
~
\
.
\
I
.
,
'\ I
.=-i>,
.. ....0.
.~\
.
'p'
....:
'.
-
~~.
y
. .
~
..
~ ) .. \ ~v:-
t 't. ~ ~
~ ....-.
,~~\.. -I ...
" _ .... c.o.. )
.. \ .If"-
.-~
..--
,-
"Z.
"Z,
..u.
J
\,!:.
-
~
.r;~1
~.
\
I,
~~\....~
r'J ~'. ~ .-
.....::1 r
C -41' -
".
7L
~
~
~
(~"
~
/~
// /1,
.'~ V / I
?- / "
/ I,
I I.
/ '
/ 1"" "
r
....
.
~
"..
'Or.;';"
- ... .
.. ....~
\
\-
.. Q..,T."""' -i) \
~ .~. -~ ~ \
~ \? \~
\, M:.' ~,
.:'!= ~
\: .....J
....d--. .... fI'
/:~~~_.~
". ," " '~i:'
."i" f!..'~
. "" r
I.
), \ \
\'\ I r-4
,I \ I
I I \
\ \ .1.... \ 'I
I \ I" I I
\ \' ~ \ ~ \ ~ \
I I ~ . " .... \
I..... \-- I,lt
\ ~ I ' ...... \
l,\~ i .\'10"
I \ ~ \ \
U\l ~,
\' . ~ \
, ~ \
\ ~ I
10 ~I ~--y
, ~.
I .._-,. i"- ._~--
~.-
- ...
..",....
,.~-
/r' ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
~
.\
t'"
~
..,..-.-.... ~
~
I_ J
f ~ "
I I
I I
I I
l,..------,- - \
'::'~l
,_ . I
I ' I
. "=. I
I I
1..,..----
-~...
- .....
. ....-
, ...~--O\
~~.\
\, ~j
113
vll
""'"
r'l
~
0,)
~ ~
u t\\
- ...J
::s.
Otl)
[Q
..
~., ,P t:-
~-
, :t:. ...
f-.J ~ tf)
IL
~~
" Vi
~~
Jtn
115
~
.....
s::
Ci
E
>-
'"
..
...
~
~
~
o
o
(/.)/
~
~
C\S
~
~
C\S
~
(/.)
o
N
~
~
0)
0)
~
~
(/.)
-......
(/.)
0)
~
.~
~
-......
(/.)
~
.
~
o
.
~
~
~
~
(/.)
C\S
.
~
~
~
:::::::
. .
~
~
~
"iJII1
...
......
fII'!f"~"'I." ,.
'flt
..
,.... _a.,:,.':t
..~ .~-,..~ ' -
~E"':'
'..~ 'i,..> -, .
.~ .11I r:;,.
.&i
?~~-
If''''; ~
i'lt. ".
.M. '1
II ""
- 1lIIIiIIiIt, '"
.
.
- &,'1.
.-1. ~"w1'
.~-
w ,"
..~~r 8! ~
.
~Viif
.
'"'
: t
"'"
- ..
ill
- . ''"'.1
...
~:.
>>Ii
...,,- ...
.,
L.'I _
~. ...
.. I ',' ".,,'
, .....
j. . \., .~.%'.'~ ".~.jLt
....,.:t'l<.
... .,~ :" .,
~~ - ...~ "-' .~. r' ....
1. :.... i{
'J ~
...
i: -
"J 'iI/.~':':"
-
. .~
'yo
.
.-
...
.. ,
; :~;..:
''I c""--,"
. -",~. .
. ... ",'"
IrK: ~ :'~, ~ .,"
~" :~~:... ... ..
,.. . .,'1iP
~..,... "":
-:~ '
-
III' -~
.. ! . '1;'.......
,."....,..... Ii....
. ,,"'" f ... .- ft. .'" ~.
r':~ ~. ~i - .';~~;ii.
"". '-1 :.. ....
.4,: ~,. .... ,.....~...:~:....:~. ,.11 -r~
.~ . , ... . .;W'. '.'," .
~. ~: y;'" ~ ; . .. ."" ..
,."f', ..
-~:'~' _)....! _" - I
... .. i -
.'
..
'l(:'
t" · ~
I: "'
''''M' ~ ... . ...
~, '"" {"." .;).... .. .. ....- ........... ~., ,-'.
r", ... '.f, fJl t". f,,! _. ':'.
- ,.
... ~
~
.....
-.
..
...:'
.~
!
.
'-I
..
-;..
. -
.. . _ il
.. ... - ..
'I
...
'C
L..:
.~ I
..
~ I
tJ "II!
.\.
..
.-
.'.
.
.
~
&
...,
" .J, ·
.
...;.
~ i
, .
.' I
116
APPLICANT'S FINDINGS
JANUARY 9, 2007 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
P A2006-02354
117
,
.
ARCHITECTURE
LAND PLANNING
PROJECT NARRA TIVEIFINDINGS
8 December 2006
PROJECT NAME: Kistler Bros. Office Building
TYPE OF PLANNING ACTION: A request for a Site Review Approval (Chapter 18.72),
Administrative Variance (Chapter 18.72.090) and a Variance (Chapter 18.68.050 and 18.100)
for an Office Project in the E-l Zone District (Chapter 18.40).
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Owner/Applicant! Architect:
Kistler Brothers
2025 Butler Creek Road
Ashland, OR. 97520
541-488-8200
Planning Agent:
Tom R. Giordano
2635 Takelma Way
Ashland, OR. 97520
541-482-9193
REC~"\ ~:r-D'
.." ~_~. i :", ",", 1',,'.
, "..,."~!,
, f -- _~.
\/
City of As!:; land
o FielQ 0 Office 0 Count}'
Surveyor/Civil Engineering:
Hardy Engineering
2870 Nansen Drive
Medford, OR. 97504
541-772-6880
Landscape Architect:
Greg Covey
295 E. Main Street
Ashland, OR. 97520
541-552-1015
2635 Takelma Way, Ashland, OR 97520 . Phone and Fax (541) 482-9193 . E-Mail tomarch@charter.net
118
.
~
Project Address:
492 North Main Street
Legal Description:
39-1E-05 DA Tax Lot 3600
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Employment
Zoning Designation:
E-l
SITE DATA:
Area of property
Paving (ParkinglWalkways/etc.)
Landscape/Recreation
Building Foot Print
5,904 S.F.(.135 acres) 100%
2,883 S.F. 38.8%
1,504 S.F. 22.64%
1,517S.F. 38.56%
Parking Required:
6 Spaces
Parking Provided:
5 Off-Street (1 ADA)
lOn-street (2 available)
6 Total
Bicycle Parking RequiredlProvided:
2 covered spaces (under stair)
SITE DESCRIPTION:
Land Use -
In the general area of the subject property there are a mix of Low and High! Multi-Residential
Units, Commercial activities, Health Care Facilities, and Office Uses, see Vicinity/Zone Map
and Aerial Photograph. There is also a mix of zone districts which include R-2, R-3, HC and E-
1, see ZoneNicinity Map. The Historic Skidmore District and the Detail Site Review Zone
.t'i"'~~~'~ _w"':,t:""1\ ~... "";''''''~:,.,:: ~"~'':'''-
Overlay District are also included along North Main Street. ..:.: ':
f.i"'t. ,
2
() .'.;' \.,; ,',
c .'
I ~
> ..".)
\--~1 j-", ...
I .Ii..;,
119
, 4>'
'''{, '!
~. )r< .
, .
.
.,
Land Uses and Zoning Districts immediately adjacent to the subject property are as follows:
North (reference) - Glenn Street and Single and Multi-Residential~ Zoned E-l
South - Office and Visitor Accommodations~ Zoned E-1
West - East Main Street and SinglelMulti-Residential~ zoned R-2
East - Multi-Residential~ Zoned R-3 and E-1
The subject property is Zoned E-I, Employment with the residential overlay, see Vicinity/ Zone
Map and Parcel Map. The purpose of the E-1 District is to provide office, retail, and
manufacturing in an aesthetic environment while having a minimal impact on surrounding uses.
The R-Overlay Designation in the E-1 Zone allows for residential development at 15 units per
acre. There are no yard requirements for this Zone Designation except those required in the Site
Review, General Provisions and Solar Access chapters. The maximum allowable height of a
building is 40 feet.
Physical Characteristics -
The small vacant .135 acre property is approximately 5,904 S.F. in size, see Photographs and
Parcel Map. The property slopes down to the northwest approximately 12.3%, see City Topo
Map.
Access to Property -
Vehicle access to the property is from Glenn Street while pedestrian access is from both Glenn
and North Main Streets, see City Topographic Map and Site Plan. North Main Street is
classified as an Arterial by the City while Glenn Street (local) has a 50 foot ROWand 33 foot of
paving. Both the ROWand paved portion of North Main Street have been increased in width
due to recent road improvements, see State Survey. The applicant also can share the 20 foot
wide easement located on the south boundary, see Site Plan. There is a sidewalk on this block of
North Main Street and a partial sidewalk on Glenn Street, see Site Plan. A major public bus
route and bus stops are located on North Main Street. Marked on-street bike lanes are on North
Main Street.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request -
The applicant wishes to develop a 2,700 S.F., two story office building. The office building will
provide for architectural and general office uses as well as a sculpture studio.
Employment District Zoning Compliance-
r<~'t;, "If'''~'''~
'~.~..., ',~ '\ ',' _.<~.~ ....~"":'1''''
k,
3
l;, ':.'J crf j ~,
'i r ,. .~ ".
. ',,"" . ',., ," ")
L."j r'::jt, L,J \) ~ .' j
, . 'i
,
1"-'
120
.
~."...
ViIJ'
The proposed uses comply with the E-l Zone District (Chapter 18.40) in regard to permitted
uses, setbacks, lot coverage, and height. The office project, however, does not comply with
Chapter 18.68.050 regarding a 20 foot front yard setback required for properties abutting
Arterials. The applicant believes there are a number of reasons to not comply with this
requirement and will request a Variance, see findings.
AccesslParking -
The off-street parking ordinance requires six spaces ( one per 450 S.F. for general office use).
The applicant is providing five spaces on site (one is ADA) and one on-street credit (two are
available), see Site Plan.
The applicant will utilize the existing sidewalk on North Main Street. This sidewalk was
installed as part of the recent improvements on North Main Street by the state (ODOT). The
applicant will install a new sidewalk along Glenn Street. The applicant will request an
Administrative Variance for an exception to the street standards to allow the sidewalk to be
adjacent to the curb and align with existing sidewalks on Glenn and East Main Street. There is
both public transportation and on street bike lanes on North Main Street.
Covered bicycle parking will be provided under the stair, see Site Plan.
Landscape/Open space -
The applicant is providing landscape around the parameter of the new building, and in the
parking lot, see Landscape Plan. The landscape areas will be used to accent the building and
provide a permeable surface 22%. The site and landscape plans show a pervious surface for the
paving area under the drip line of the existing walnut tree. Except for this walnut tree there are
no other significant trees on site. There is however, a large boulder on site, see photographs.
This boulder will be used on site in the landscaping, see Landscape Plan. The proposed street
trees will be located in the landscape areas, adjacent to the sidewalks.
Utilities -
Existing sewer, water and storm sewer lines are located within the ROW of both Glen and North
Main Streets. The electrical/CTV/telephone utilities are located underground for both streets.
The applicant intends to connect all on site utilities to the above mentioned existing lines. The
applicant has met with the electric department for the location of utility vaults, see Site Plan.
Architecture -
As mentioned above, the site is within the Skidmore Historic District and the Detail Site Review
District. The applicant has provided Exterior Design Elevations for the proposed building that
has a contemporary/functional aesthetic but utilizes historic residential building elements, see
exterior elevations. The residential elements and form are used to show c~~. wf!.l\: ' ~<<
4 i ,'".' "
C,+,c,,:' j
. ;\ Y I. ...J.., .......'.,-..
. . _.~_. -.. ",.' ;, '
121
.,
.,
adjacent buildings, see photographs and Site Review Findings.
FINDINGS:
SITE REVIEW (Chapter 18.72)
The Planning Staff/Commission can approve a Site Review when the following criteria have
been addressed:
A. All applicable City Ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
EMPLOYMENT ZONE DISTRICT (CHAPTER 18.40)
Permitted Uses-
The City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map shows the subject property to be Employment
E-l. "This district is designated to provide for a variety of uses such as office, retail or
manufacturing in an aesthetic environment and having a minimal impact on surrounding uses."
The applicant is proposing an office building. The proposed development is consistent with the
City's designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map which shows employment. The
proposed project is also in conformance with the City's E-l Zoning Designation, Chapter
18.40.020 which permits outright office, retail and manufacturing uses.
Setbacks -
As shown on the Site Plan, the proposed project meets or exceeds the area, width, and yard
requirements of this chapter (18.40.050).
Maximum Building Height -
As shown on the Preliminary Exterior Elevations, the average height of the proposed building is
26 feet, seven inches, which is less than the maximum height requirement of 40 feet.
GENERAL REGULATIONS (Chapter 18.68)
Fences -
There are no fences proposed. However, there is an existing six foot high woodJ~.~wthe,
;~ --'I ';>, "1
\
'.
5 ~ c
I ,_ '~J
\~ ; ~'~^ ~ ~
122
.,
.,
adjacent parcel to the east.
Vision Clearance -
The sight plan shows the vision clearance on the comer of Glenn and North Main Streets.
Special Setback Requirements -
North Main Street is classified as an arterial thoroughfare which requires a 20 foot front yard
setback. The proposed front yard setback is 10 feet which is less than the requirement. The
applicant is requesting a variance, see findings below.
OFF-STREETPARKING/DRIVEWAY STANDARDS (CHAPTER 18.92)
There is 2,700 S.F. of interior office space. The parking requirement is therefore six spaces (one
per 450 S.F. of office). The applicant is providing five otfstreet spaces (one is ADA compliant)
and requesting one on-street credit (18.92.025). There are two available on-street spaces
available, see Site Plan
Two covered bicycle parking spaces are required (one for every five auto spaces). The applicant
is also providing two covered bicycle parking spaces under the stairwell, see Site Plan.
SOLAR ACCESS (CHAPTER 18.70)
The solar setback does not apply for the proposed project since the shadow is on the public row
on Glenn Street, see Site Plan.
STGNAGE (CHAPTER 18.96)
A sign program will be provided by the applicant prior to receiving a Building Permit. The sign
program will be integrated into both the Site Plan and Building Design.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
Submittal Requirements -
The applicant is providing a Narrative and Findings as well as exhibits for written
documentation. Graphic Document includes: Site/Landscape/Utility Plans, Floor Plans,
Proposed Colors and Materials, and Building Elevation drawings. This information is provided
in the Application Package and addresses the submittal requirements of Chapter 18.72.060.
Lot Coverage/Landscape/Open space -
",~~;;,:-..,. ".."
6
C:'1jc:
r I f:I'r~i.:d" \....;
L.J. ...... L._.J 1.~;
, ..~
r"
123
.
"
The Site and Landscape Plans delineate the paving, buildings and landscape areas. The area of
pervious surface is approximately 22.64%, see Site and Landscape Plans. The E-l zone district
requires a minimum of 15% of the lot area to be landscaped. The applicant is providing 22.64%,
see Site and Landscape Plans. The applicant is also providing pervious paving under the drip
line of the existing walnut tree, see Site and Landscape Plan.
Trash/Recycling -
The applicant has located trash/recycle area adjacent to the ADA parking space, see Site Plan.
This area will be screened from view by a 5 foot high metal sliding gate.
Light and Glare -
The applicant is proposing wall mounted lights. All building lighting will be directed away from
adjacent properties.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
the implementation of this Chapter.
II-C-l. BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS
Approval Standard: Development in all commercial and employment zones shall conform to
the following development standards:
ll-C-la)
Orientation and Scale
Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area.
Building entrances shall he functional, and shall be shall be accessed from a public sidewalk.
Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street frontage.
Buildings that are within 30 feet of the street shall have an entrance for pedestrians directly
from the street to the building interior. This entrance shall be designed to be attractive and
functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours.
These requirements may he waived if the huilding is not accessed hy pedestrians, such as
warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices, and automotive service uses such
as service stations and tire stores.
As shown on the Site Plan, Floor Plan and the front Building Elevation, the entrance is oriented
toward North Main Street and the public sidewalk. In addition to having an entrance door and
windows on the frontage, the applicant is proposing a small front plaza area within the required
front yard building setback. Further, the applicant is recessing the front entrance of the building
to visually denote the entrances to the building and to provide shelter from rain an~n.""A~~ .~".. '.,
~ "/
t ~"~ i1
'!;' ..~_.'.:"". ",.
7
(~':'" '" .
j~.. '. ~ d .
J" .
124
..... .
~
\1'~
,<;'JIIJ.'
see Floor Plans and West Exterior Elevation.
ll-C-lb)
Streetscape
1) One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for
that portion of the development fronting the street.
The applicant is providing a minimum of two street trees along the frontage of North Main
Street and a minimum of three trees along the frontage of Glenn Street adjacent to the
sidewalks, see Landscape Plan.
ll-C-lc) Landscaping
1) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90%
coverage occurs qfter 5 years.
2) Landscaping design shall use a variety of low water deciduous and evergreen trees and
shrubs and flowering plant species.
3) Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10 feet in width,
except in the Ashland Historic District. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view from
adjacent public rights-oI-way, except in M-I zones. Loadingfacilities shall be screened and
buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land.
4) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success.
5) Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as
possible.
The Landscape Plan has been designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90%
occurs after five years. Further, the plan shows a mix of low water use deciduous and evergreen
trees, shrubs and flowering plants. The irrigation system will conform to the City of Ashland's
Standards.
The setback for the new building adjacent to North Main Street is 10 feet and 11 feet on Glenn
Street, see Site and Landscape Plans. There will be no outdoor storage areas allowed for the
project.
There is only one tree and a large bush located on the site, see Site Survey, Landscape Plan, Tree
Protection Plan and Photographs. The bush will be removed but the walnut tree will be saved.
To insure the health of this tree, the landscape architect has prepared a tree protection plan as
well as proposing a pervious surface under the drip line within the parking ar~~.J., s~~: L~dsc~pe
Drawings and Site Plan. The pervious surface specified is capable of supporttbi 44JJ(,lOpouhdS.
~ ~ '
8
C/. '., ',;,
,--, '0" .
f I t-Io "d [........: r~ c,'
-J. j\,:.I, LJ u;
125
'1!8
rt~
.
II-C-ld)
Parking
1) Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides.
2) Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential
uses and screened from non-residential uses.
As shown on the site plan, the parking area is located behind the proposed building with access
off Glenn Street. The existing walnut and proposed trees are deciduous. There is also a five foot
wide planter area (buffer) along the east boundary, adjacent to the existing residential
development.
II-C-le)
Designated Creek Protection
Designated creek protection areas shall be considered design elements and incorporated in the
overall design of a given project.
Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance the
creek habitat.
Not applicable
II-C-lf)
Noise and Glare
1) Special attention to glare (AMC18. 72.110) and noise (AMC9. 08.170(c) & AMC 9.08.175)
shall be considered in the project design to insure compliance with these standards.
There will be no activities performed outside of the building, also see Site Review Finding B,
above.
II-C-lg)
Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings
1) For sites which do not conform to these requirements, an equal percentage of the site must
be made to comply with these standards as the percentage of building expansion, e.g., if building
area is to expand by 25%, then 25% of the site must be brought up to the standards required by
this document.
Not applicable
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 screeq~ a$.{91J.QwS:
'ilii "..
9
(_':'\' i '.
r~ll"", '...-)
126
.,
\,i~
""g
ll- D-1)
Screening at Required Yards
1) Parking abutting a required landscapedfront or exterior yard shall incorporate a sight
obscuring hedge screen into the required landscaped yard.
The screen shall grow to be at least 36 inches higher than the finished grade of the parking
area, except for required vision clearance areas.
The screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and plant materials.
Elevated parking lots shall screen both the parking and the retaining wall.
The Landscape Plan and Site Review Finding A shows compliance with this Finding. None of
the parking areas are elevated.
ll-D-2)
Screening Abutting Property Lines
1) Parking abutting a property line shall be screened by a 5' landscaped strip. Where a buffer
between zones is required, the screening shall be incorporated into the required buffer strip,
and will not be an additional requirement.
The Site and Landscape Plans show a five foot wide (plus six inch curb) adjacent to the east and
south property lines. The landscape architect has specified plant material that will both screen
and buffer the parking area from adjacent development.
ll-D-J)
Landscape Standards:
Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 7% of the total parking area plus a ratio
of 1 tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect.
The tree ~pecies 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
parked cars and pedestrians.
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.
The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and/or living ground cover to assure 50%
coverage within 1 year and 90% within 5 years.
Landscaped areas shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area and parking
perimeter at the required ratio.
That portion of a required landscaped yard, buffer strip or screening strip ab1!UJllgpgrkirzg Cd
10
'" '.
(';',. r'
v. lJ d\
127
r>_
""
\::.111
stalls may be counted toward required parking lot landscaping 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 parking stalls.
The parking area is 3,000 s.F. of area and the landscape portion is 582 s.F. which is 19.4% of the
parking area. This is greater than the 7% minimum requirement. The existing walnut tree and
proposed trees show a greater number of large canopied trees than the one tree per seven parking
space requirement.
ll-D-4)
Residential Screening
Parking areas acfjacent to a residential dwelling shall be set back at least 8leetlrom the
building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen.
Not applicable, residential development not proposed.
ll-D-5)
Hedge Screening
The required hedge screen shall be installed asjallows:
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.
The landscape plan shows compliance with this finding where appropriate.
II-D-6)
Other Screening
1) Other screening and buffering shall be provided as follows:
Refuse Container Screen: Refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screened from view by
placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All refuse
materials shall be contained within the refuse area.
Service Corridor Screen: When adjacent to residential uses, commercial and industrial service
areas shall reduce the adverse effects of noise, odor and visual clutter upon adjacent residential
uses.
Light and Glare Screen: Artificial lighting shall be so arranged and constructed as to not
produce direct glare on adjacent residential properties or streets. ,; /'
"
1
j -i.,
11
C, ','I,
id LJ C . ~ ,
"";- .'
~..'. ;..,
128
,.
(~.
The Site and Landscape Plans shows the location for a trash/recycle area to be located, along
with the HV AC heat pumps, adjacent to the ADA parking space in the north east corner. This
area will be screened with a five foot high metal gate. All wall mounted lighting within the site
will be directed down.
E. STREET TREE STANDARDS
APPROVAL 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 recommended list of street trees found in this section.
II-E-l)
Location for Street Trees
Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a designated
planting strip in the right of-way, or the sidewalk is greater shall include irrigation, root
barriers, and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of Community
Development.
ll-E-2)
Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees
1) All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which may, for reasons such
as scifety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff
Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as
follows:
Street trees shall be placed the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees shall
be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacingpermittedfor specific site limitations, such as
driveway approaches.
b) Trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of streets
or alleys, and not closer than 10 feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of
the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles.
c) Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public
safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than 10 feet to any existing
street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant.
d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2Y2 feet from the face of the curb except at
intersections where it shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area.
e) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen ~lK1tw,W.fWt irJJerf,ere
12
'lI '"
.' -,
1
,
C',',
,t vl.i. I .J," U
129
h'.
~V
f'J!M
""-'
with those lines.
f} Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard surface paving or
walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least 10 square feet, however, larger
cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root system and add
to the health of the tree. Space between the tree and such hard surface may be covered by
permeable non-permanent hard surfaces such as grates, bricks on sand, or paver blocks.
g) Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of clearance above
sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces.
h) Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from the development
which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks C?fvariable width and elevation may be utilized
to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor.
II-E-3)
Replacement of Street Trees
1) Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer with
those from the approved street tree list. The replacement trees shall be of size and species similar
to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor.
II-E-4)
Recommended Street Trees
1) Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission.
The site and landscape plans show both the existing sidewalk on North Main Street and the
proposed sidewalk on Glenn Street adjacent to the curb, see exception to street standards for
sidewalk design below. The applicant is proposing two street trees on North Main and a
minimum of three trees on Glenn Street. These streets are located behind the sidewalks, see
Landscape Plan. The Landscape Plan also shows compliance with the other portions of this
finding.
See Landscape Plan for compliance with other portions of this Finding.
EXCEPTION TO THE STREET STANDARDS
An exception to the street standards regarding location of sidewalks is not subject to the variance
requirements of Chapter 18.100 and may be granted if all the following circumstances are found
to exist:
A) There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requireents of this chapter
due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
B) The variance will result in equal or superior transportatin facilities and connectivity;
C) The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; ai,!r~'""1 -, ..
~.. \
13
CtjL" 1
;'" 1 r-,' " 1....1 r',.~
130
,.
.".-..
1.:':=,
D) The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance
Standards Options Chapter.
The site and landscape plans show the existing sidewalk on North Main Street and a proposed
sidewalk on Glenn Street. Both of these sidewalks are located adjacent to the six inch curb. The
street standards for property on neighborhood streets is a seven foot wide parkrow between the
six inch curb and the five foot wide sidewalk. Glenn Street is classified as a neighborhood street
and therefore would be required to meet this standard.
During recent improvements to North Main Street, ODOT installed a new sidewalk that increased
the radius at the comer and continued the sidewalk down Glenn Street adjacent to the curb, see
Site Plan State Improvement Map and photographs. The existing sidewalk along the frontage of
the adjacent property to the east is also adjacent to the curb. In fact, all the sidewalks on both
sides of North Main and Glenn Streets are next to the curbs, see photographs.
It must also be mentioned that all the property on the east side of North Main Street are zoned E-
1 which is a commercial/employment type zone. Commercial/employment zones normally have
sidewalks adjacent to curbs to accommodate on-street parking. It is the applicant's belief that
this sidewalk location is appropriate and consistent with both the zone designation and existing
conditions.
II-C-2.
DETAIL SITE REVIEW
Developments that are within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to complying
with the standards for Basic Site Review, conform to the following standards:
II-C-2a)
Orientation and Scale
1) Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ration of.35 and shall not exceed a
maximum Floor Area Ratio of. 5 for all areas outside the Historic District. Plazas and
pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum floor area
ratio.
The FAR for this project is .457 which is less than the maximum of.5 and greater than the
minimum of .35
2) Buildingfi'ontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other
distinctive changes in the buildingfacade.
Not applicable, all building frontage are less than 100 feet in length, see Site Plan.
3) Any wall which is within 30 feet of the street, plaza or other puhlic open space shall contain
at least 20% of the wall area facing the street in dif>play areas, windows, or doorways.
Windows must allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entranqes 01: 4Jsplay
14
.a
L .:'.,1'
131
~
\:.
areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40% of the length of the
building perimeter can be exempted fro this standard if orientated toward loading or service
areas.
As shown on the north and west exterior elevations, there are numerous windows and doorways.
The percentage on the north elevation is 37.4% while the west elevation has a 44%. Both
frontages are greater than 20%.
4) Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass surface of finish to give emphasis to
entrances.
The west exterior elevation, site plan and floor plans show the change in mass and surface of
finish to emphasize the entrances (both first and second floors).
5) If!fill of buildings, a4iacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and
desirable.
Not applicable.
6) Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awning that protect
pedestrian from the rain and sun.
The building roof extends to over the entrances, stairwell and small entry plaza. This extension
will protect pedestrians from sun and rain as well as provide focus to the entrances.
II-C-2b)
Streetscape
1) Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials
could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grass crete or combination of the above.
The applicant is providing a small public plaza in the front of the building, see Site and
Landscape Plans and Finding II-C-2a above.
2) A building shall be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is
used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. If more than one structure is
proposedfor a site, at lea"t 25% of the aggregate building frontage shall be with 20feet of the
sidewalk.
The building setback on North Main Street is 10 feet while Glenn Street is 11 feet, see Site Plan
and Variance Finding.
,',. ~~"';"
II-C-2c)
Parking & On-site Circulation
it
15
l ,
L J
C',.
" J.
j'~""7 "'.' ~
I.J
132
1;18....
"9
"~
\ "!'III
1) Protected, raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of 50 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 walways at least 10feet 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 to a level where the system can be used at
night by employees, residents and customers. Pedestrian walkways shall be directly linked to
entrances and the internal circulation of the building.
Not applicable.
ll-C-2d)
Buffering and Screening
1) Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent
lot. Those buffers can consist of either plant material or building materials and must be
compatible with proposed buildings.
2) Parking lots shall be bufferedfrom the main street, cross streets and screenedfrom
residentially zoned land.
The above Finding 11-D-2 and Site Plan (Ornamental Screen) and Landscape Plan.
ll-C-2e)
Lighting
Lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaledfor pedestrians by including light standards
or placements of no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian path ways.
The applicant will provide wall mounted lights on the building which will be placed no greater
than 14 feet in height at the entrances of the addition. Further, the existing street light on North
Main Street will be replaced with the "Sternberg" model for city specifications.
ll-C-2f
Building Materials
1) Buildings shall include changes in reliefsuch as cornices, bases, fenestration, fluted masonry,
for at least 15% of the exterior wall area.
The applicant is providing Exterior Elevations of the proposed building. These elevations show
compliance with the Historic District, see Findings below.
2) Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are
prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skPa.--
16
'"
('':: 'j ,
. J. ~.j ...,..1
133
, .!!IIII
f,.
\.
See Historic District Findings Below
C. HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS
In addition to the standards found in Section II, the following standards will be used by the
Planning and Historic Commissions for new development and renovation of existing structures
within the Historic District.
IV-C-l)
Construct buildings to a height of existing buildings fro the historic period on and across the
street. Avoid construction that greatly varies in height (too high or too low) from older buildings
in the vicinity.
IV-C-2)
Relate the size and proportions of new structures to the scale of adjacent buildings. Avoid
buildings that in height, width, or massing, violate the existing scale of the area.
IV -C-3)
Break up uninteresting boxlike forms into smaller varied masses which are common on most
buildings from the historic period Avoid single, monolithic forms that are not relieved by
variations in massing.
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 or behind the historic facade line. Avoid replicating or imitating
the styles, motifs, or details of older periods. Such attempts are rarely successful and, even if well
done, present a confusing picture of the true character of the historical areas.
At the November 14,2005 Historic Commission Meeting, a prior design was presented, this
design concept was a flat roof, parapet form. As a response, the applicant has designed the
proposed building to be compatible with existing development along North Main Street Between
West Hersey and Maple Streets. The form of the majority of the buildings within this area is
pitched gable roofs, see Photographs. The flat, parapet roof urban form found in other E-1 Zone
Districts are not indicative in this location because of the Historic Development pattern of single
family homes. In fact, the majority of structures within the Skidmore Historic District are
residential. The proposed building form was confirmed by the historic commission at a pre-
application meeting. ., ,_
,_ _.,J.;,~.
J
17
(' '.
..;. i i ~
r< .~? t.,~'Z, J r~ \"-'~1;"~ ~, .
134
.
vr.,
The proposed building is also in conformance with the above findings, regarding size, scale,
proportion and height, see exterior elevations and photographs of existing buildings.
The applicant is proposing a ten foot front yard setback which is consistent with the historic
facade lines of the street scape in this area of North Main Street, see photographs, ariel
photograph and city topographic map. Unfortunately the proposed setback conflicts with Chapter
18.68.05 which requires a 20 foot front yard setback for properties abutting arterial streets. The
applicant is requesting a variance, see findings below. J
The floor plans, site plan and exterior show the proposed building design to have smaller varied
masses and is not a boxlike monolithic form.
It is important to note, the applicant/architect did not want to produce another faux-imitation
craftsman style building compose of fake siding, asphalt composition roof, tapered columns, fake
divided plastic windows. The applicant/architect is proposing a more environmentally responsible
building that has historic design roots but also a contemporary/modem style. This design concept
is achieved by capturing the historic form, scale and proportion but utilizing historically
compatible materials, such as split faced and ground faced block, exposed structural I-beam at the
corners, rounded steel columns, corrugated metal and cedar siding, and preformed zinc roof with
water catchment system.
The exterior building elevations and color/material samples are included in this application.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
developmen(, electricity, urban storm drainage, adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
As shown of the survey and site plan, there are existing utilities and services in the ROW of both
Glenn and North Main Streets. The applicant will connect the proposed on-site utilities and
services to the existing lines in te ROW of these streets, see site plan and irrigation plan and the
existing lines were upgraded when the improvements to North Main Street were made.
The site plan shows the location of electrical service equipment. This equipment has been located
and screened to minimize visual impact from the streets. The applicant/architect is also providing
an electric distribution plan and load calculations, see attached. Further, if desired by the city, the
applicant will replace the existing street light fixture with the "Sternberg" model.
Vehicle access to the proposed project is from Glenn Street. The 20 foot easement from North
Main Street will not be used. The existing sidewalk on North Main Street and the new sidewalk
on Glenn Street will provide pedestrian access, see Street Standards Exception Findings, above.
There are also bike lanes, and public transportation on North Main Street. Covered bicycle
parking (two spaces) is located under the stairwell of the building, see Site and Floor Plans.
""'J''-
VARIANCES (CHAPTER 18.100)
18
~
I
....... .!'
,
J ~ .~ ~,~".:,',',. 'I '-.7 t >".
; _J ~.
135
:":'
.':':!JII'
.,
The planning commission can approve a setback variance when all the following circumstances
exist:
A) That there are unique or unusual circumstances_ which apply to this site which do
not typically apply elsewhere.
B) That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and willfurther the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City (Ord2425 81, 1987)
C) That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-
imposed
Chapter 18.68.050, special setback requirements dictates that..."front yards for properties
abutting all arterial streets shall be no less tan twenty (20)feet, with the exception of the C-I-D
District." The subject property fronts on North Main Street which is classified as an arterial
street. The applicant believes a variance is warranted due to the circumstances of the Site
Conditions.
The subject property is located within the Historic Skidmore District, see Historic Findings,
above. The Historic facade line of the street scape along North Main Street is approximately a ten
food front yard setback. The applicant is providing setback dimensions for properties on North
Main Street in the vicinity of the site, see attached. Further, the city aerial photograph and
topographic map confirms this established setback for this location. One of the Historic Site
Design Standards states "maintain the historic facade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls
of new buildings in the same plane as facades of adjacent buildings. " "Avoid violating the
existing setback pattern by placing new buildings in front or behind the Historic Facade Line ".
The proposed setback for the new building matches the historic setback pattern of the area along
North Main Street.
The proposed setback will also not adversely impact development of adjacent uses or prevent
future expansion of this ROW for increased traffic flow. The existing development is well
established and vacant land does not exist. Also, the state (ODOT) has recently made
improvements to this portion of North Main Street. These improvements included widening the
curb to curb dimension, providing sidewalks and bike lines. Land has already been taken from the
frontage of these properties to accommodate these street improvements. Future expansion wilJ
not occur or would be desired by the City. The 25 MPH speed limit and slowing of traffic into the
downtown would be jeopardized with another increase to the ROW.
ti
19
t)h' .
'--1 r'~ I I ."
L, '" ;co [J
136
l
";,..:."
~')~~';'<>'l'
~'
i/i\,!".
..; '}:''. ,-J
""\",, f~- ,
~~6;~4. _" .' .'
?!~;;''''I-'' '
'}"'\-",1G __os,,_..'to1- - ~::
1>-
,-,,$
-...,;!~,j
0-
t,
"f.-:r
."1
1
J
.,rJ/'
,\-
,-t.-
'v.:;~;~ 'j,.,
.-~~.~.\.~.
~ r;- ,
O r:Md~';r~ I ~
\fr.;- l_.l ~~
137
~\~'~ ~ ~~; ,~.~.
VA-f~ \.\. (;> ~... - ~~ @18" ~ ;~:
-d> ....\. r: ~,.("( ~ ~~ 18J.J...
o ~o~f ~^:..~~~ -J)'
,,,,_J ~~\,.. ~ ~<~ R \71P~ ~
"\..~\ \\\." '. - /./.,.{ ~ ~c \.?' v
esl r;>T'\..\..........l\...:..-...... C~.~~ \' ~~ ~ '\ ~~/ . ~
Q ~ ~ t ....'i~~... ". ,,," 01890 18594/ ~ ~ ',J
'" ( ".1" U "\ ,. d
1\ ~ ~~ ~ \.\. .....' ~'~~ X \
\ ~ h " ~ '. ~"'. ". ~'}
~\ v'" /..\: ~ ~~ ~
~~""\1 E- .\~
~'V . ~ ~ ~ f'j-~~ \ 7~~ / -"<S>'"
" ~ ~I ~ \~~ f'r.~" .... . ~ ~(,- p ~ "
~~~ ~3-~r~.~ 8 (\\ '4fP
,,~----- "~~-~~'~~ ~ ~~
~ f~('; -----1 1~ ~ 0 ~~ ~, ~ :>
- J ... .j ~ ~ \\-.~ G~ y ~ A.
----- ----- ~ l:a " '\. ~ . '. 0 \~ ~ J
~ /" -~ST. ~ :- +) )_~____>+ ~ ~ '
~v--:=--) ~ ~ 1 ~ >---_:\ " . \..' ,- -;.; _~
~ ~l:\~1L f'~~~ "'" +,. , '~
~~~~l~~~~\~~ . J .~ _ ~~~
~ ~ "-/ ","~' "f1. ( " ---; ~~ 0 '. '" ~ __ --1 .J ~
~ ,-~-. - f\~ ~ ~ \.. ~ ~o > ~
,~ _~~:-<I_~ =\\ '\ \ r>l~::, '\' ~r:~
_~3' ~~~\ l:", ~ --- --- ~~ <J'. 0
~ ~i ~':J; "i\ V~;::.. "\J; ~ \l~- )\ \ ". 18875 \ __ --T\ ~ ~
- - ,,:-~~I \....:.."'- 1 ~ \ ~, ~.Ii ~( ,\ ~ \.l ,
] ..J \~ \, y r-- ~~ )?r,~t/r 1\ . ~ r;., ... ~-
~~--':'L \[\ 6 / .1)\ O' / ~ , ,7-,' b. __ >
)Jd:,--- J-^~ ~ \ ~ "
J (( J ::n+. \~ j~ ). \\\~\, V~~ .--- \ V
..~
.,
,\
+
"
<er.
\9
'"
1
,
:\
:\
~ c-..
786;
138
~J, .: '
I <''l'i}y
"fl"
20
\
~. 37:71 ~ u P'f:
36~ \"
MA
\
\
,36391 'E
\
359
357
3'
OR u- 18m
4 5
-
112 '
548
3 5
, I
5900 It' Ii'
6001
~14818
J 6
551
8000
2
-~-
. ~\ 95 66\)0
~~ :.. 75
.
....
~ f 16' Ii' W
's
COOLIOOE sr.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
, ,
\
, ,
, ,
,
,
,
,
486
464
482
\
L
9200 II~ ' 9100 9000 8900
..
..
466 7 .. 70
... 96 60
476
460
480
/
/
--~SU
I
-~~
3') 3
:o~
NURSERY ST.
~- . H'
9l'
8100
~ 108
4
423
8000
0,37 Ac
, ,
._1. .
99
~tt~; '.
6 :,~,~.
~
'"
139
/ li~ I "'0 I
ZG) I
, Oel
I ~", I
I
I :J: < ,
I ~>I
I rl "'f ~i
"'f o~~ T~~I
-- i !i I pp ~~
00 ~ I z-< I CIIlQl
g~ ~~~ , ~~ j~
I
:- ?I Ii: -t U):J: I N.... .
m~ O~(Il I -4- ~~ :;:0
'l'f ~i 001 z ~ I :::0 G) I ~~
"":I: I
p p r;I"1l I ", ~ I ~
~~ Ie , 0>,
C ClD _ ~.. I ClD -<I
00/' OD~. .
"'1\.) 0 , (,f
/O't t.I t.I 0 ~ I\,) 40J
1"'11"'1 +90 40'1 ~
9(y ~!i> I
Sir I
I T I
~(yt I /
I I
I I 'i'f ~ I
J I 00 ;.r
I c.-""
~, I ;:~ j..
I CIl...,. .
1\,)..., i
- OIl Ii:
I ~~
,
T I ~
I
I
36.1 +30
L:
'l'f ~i Glenn Street
'I' f ~i pp ~"1l
~~ a
pp ;.r~ !DP j..
0)01 I
fD& 0 Gl8' ·
!D. ~.. ~-li:i T
88' · ~fR
0I(,f o~
~p ~
"1l
C"\
~f ~J 'i'f ~i
00 ~
-""k 00 f;f
~:- j.. -""i 1"'1
I\.) jo
Ul...,. . ...,..., ..
~~ ~M ~:... .
I; oi
- ~i ~fR
...
Cll
+ ~
8
'i'f ~ i !! ~~
00 ~ ~/
-...,,,, ~ill
-- J
Ul_ ..
(,,:...,. .
.~ i~ fD....
(,f_
'p GG i~
JI
.~ 30,
!:! ~~
00 I
~~ Ifj
:~ .tq
~,
~.'
..
---.
NUrsery
Street
~
j;;
~
./
'i' f i!1~
-.. ....
00 J"I1
~~
:-~ j..
si' ·
~~
117+-;J.t
N-10 .07 p.o
t-10'f!~.tJ8J .7'.
''''''VIJ.2a 1
~
-
$;' .
".~,
t. ,
\.-_t ""'..".
-: i :~.
r','\ '
'," ,:
..
MONUMENT A TION SURVEY
ROGUE VALLEY HIGHWAY (NORTH MAIN STREET)
AT MAPI F STRFFT SFrTION
140
",
)(
"1l
~
~ rl (
.;
~,
'-" [J P''"' :.J r
.,~ r I
r
<
0;'
:;:
-
o
Z
o
::4
::r
,
~~~J
r~
"",\ ',;<'-;-'1"
t (~
"",~~
t ',~
-, ~~
:1 '~~
~"
,\;_. to
lvl
~-
"
,. "'.,t.
I' . ';.
~
J ..
<
ClI
:;:
-
o
r/1
o
~
-
::r
r"\
A
Zvl
V L_'
- .- "'. '-'-
r
. r , ."",, , I;)
~"
\
(
'l "
.," r
~.
Ii
5 5
ClI
:;: ClI
- :;:
0 -
0
~ tT:1
ClI ;~ ~
V> V>
- -
e. :::...
0 0
=:l II =:l
(JQ U (JO
z Ii z
0 0
::4 ::4
::r ::r
~ I 3:
II
~ " ~,
5' I, =:l
r/1 r/1
- V -
""'l ""'l
ClI ClI
ClI -, ClI
- '* -
~~'
c.~
C\,
Evl
t)
,)
, ,~, ~1 ~" InlilWO:)
O~AiJ~'::;d
vvl
~'Io ,nUlWO:>
(.; _1/\; :::l~) ._: ~~
(J
C1
Svl
l"
'" ,f ., ILliO:)
. J
r . -, , '::- ,-~.. !
- .-- I
~~ -
'"-~ -
-.i '--'
~~--'~, ~r
- -' i ~ r_ _
()
9vl
~kH~lll:-;'l !U f\...J
C3 \,l-:":'JU
. -'
I ~
.-- ~
"'
_..1
.-J
~
, I
r'
--'
I
()
C1
Lvl
()
,:>
"
Cl
8vl
n
LJ
::-..
L.
()
~)I
i
i
~)I ~ ~~~I~ ~
I(I~TP~ lu. ~~ ~
~\~~ ~ a:III!I~ _
~ "~~ ~~~ ..I~ JJ 0
~ 0 =~~ Z ~
~ ~G 0 ·
z Z -I JJ
-~ I
.
~~\. --- II
(p
-<
"'~ '~~i~~ "
1 ~~ !t ~
~ ::I ",. ~~ i JJ
~ fl'IJ~ ti ~
@~~ ..i~ M :;
"1J
Q1~""
~~~ J ·
~ 0
]II ~ -I
~ ~
~
! ! ;~ ;~ I~~ I~m ~~
~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~I Q
~ ! I~ Ii !I~ ~IE ~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~;~ ~ ~
~ 2 .~ .~ ~ ~ i;~ ! ~
; ~ ~ ~~R ~~R ; ~
~ ~ ~ ~ : ~: ~ 0
m ~ 2 2 ~ 2 ~
; ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~
i! <P ~ !i ;I (P
~ ~ i! i! ...
~ PI
II~g~ :I
~~~~~ 10
!~m I ~
..~~ I g
I ~ ; _
o - Z
f1I lj .
" ..
JJ
ilia ~ARGE 6CAUI C.TAI~ MATRRI~&::I il
:i/rJ ~il~0~~DI~1 ~ U
luhqqp IPqn I i Jim II
liP 2 ~! a i ~ ~ I a M I I 10 I' I I 11!2
Il. ~ I i I, il I I I !':
(P I II I _ I I lj
r dj i U ~ -, 0 n 0 18I1S1~ .] ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
'J~'DeIAi.II~lfi~F~~~ii~ ~ U ~ ~ /7 J[
m
i;i I~il Iii ',- ~ i! I ~ III i III ~ III II i' I I I! tp
II i .Ii I II ~ I! I ; II 'I
1~~~3IJ!'I~.,~,.~t~~li'~~B~Jft~I~JAji~~iiI2aO.I.~i~11111~~~li~rt~ijft"lli'~e!WI~'!~C~aJI~.aag!IIII~~~eeBR!BS8.e'~ktll
Ili.III~!!~IIIIIJ'lliiilillllllillill;I!IJIIIIIiI;'IIII'111Illtlilliltf!!'IIIIIiIIIIIIIIII'llllllllillllllllllll'III'lilli!111 Ii
Ii Ii' III id 'IP I ! I I' t I ill I ! r 1@lil II IlK' i. I~
: I I II Q~ I rl ~ II ' I I II ~ ~ :::!
I p it I I I I 2
i ~ J I ~
~~~~ICPI ~
s: i!~ JJ
... ~ c
i" ~ 0
illli ~
- i If~ :
8~ ~
~ Z
.
.
~~~~_i ~ .
~~~~~~ E I;
!~~~i; z !l
TC~! i ~
~ & I r
~ ~
z
.
.
I:ll!!e!l!~ef!E:~t~~Gi
i~ i
~~~~iC ~
~~!~. i E ~
O ~~~~a~! ~
M cri: i 5
I> ~; ~
E ~
i
1111~IIIIIJli!! ~
i~llIml~~ I
j mll'~
ill..
z
"
0 a::;.~",;:;i:"':i ~~l: l!1l!
'Tl ,; J
-- roo w'-'- ill II I~:
.~"j~
-f:.- a. q ; ~ .
o .';- ~.~~ ~~s
' '<.: i~
0 c ';.} .', g gi Ii..
-",,, 0, "'~ i
~ ~ .. ..
,~,. ...... , ,- j
\,'~). ; i~
CD ~ " iff
.,,,,.....
I: p
:~ ,;j ". i
1--1 0- -'~
'4 , ~
111
.......'
~~l~~ g ~
~~~~~ - ~
~ Utii j ~
~ i ~ I E
B ~
D ~
^
~ --
coen
I\.) ~
-
~(O
s::-,
~" OJ
::J -,
~O
"en
)>-
~O
~~
a. --
-0
0(0
...,
~OJ
g c
co --
-...J -
CJ1Cl.
I\.) --
O:J
co
")... .::::lO.;....,...l ,~ lht 1011.. Ind cs.rgnt inc;orpcr'\ed ......1". .. ." Iftttl'\lflllll'l\ "r prOr"'IO!WII ...vl~. it l.N p".",..-,v 0' ~ 110.1.".. ArChlt<<:l.lM'. MlCt I. l"lCl" lC:l N ~. 1ft""""'" or '" p*t.. ror A"'d ou.r prOJect. wl\J"QJt. u-.. _IU., .ut.I'1orI:r.t.lOfl or ..~ K,1.1I.. .....d"Iltectur.
u~ ...
~
0 ~~ r- KISTLER BROS. I4ISTLER
m
m m
. ~~ OFFICE BUILDING ITECTURE
~ ;~ 492 N. MAIN ASHLAND. OR
202S BUTLER CREEK RQI\D P (541) 4IN3IO
149
---_._._..~
J:\Nolth MIlin Ilulldlng\SCHEMTopoREV.dwg. 1217/21106 3:21:32 PM
P: '~ptol\aU-01-08'~\a.nr.Str- Topo.dItq
'"
<l)
..--- .-
./"
~
//~~/
/'~ ../ '\
_/-;.~~// ,-/'-\\
/. /.. / , "
/' -:-.' /,,, / \ '\ f5>
~ ../ ~ /"" ~'~ ~~
~ /' ./ \-~O ,,,/ l tj!!!7 /,,- '\\ :
/'/. ~0,,/ :' ~"~'" \ ~
~.' >-\\'<:\;. ~ /. ,( i
~ /' . / -:e,{:; \" ,,,/ -~7'''W-7-~~" ,/ ," \ ~
/ /. , )) / "r~:' ~tI!'.._~'J.:' ,::~,: ;' \ \
~ '.- >-," ,~-7 s ,/ .~.:-.::- '\ ,"' ,
/ / ~ ...y~:;;'" "'~.3....', \~,. ,
. ~" "-~~~/'" .Leo'--.' ..-" "" "" 1>".6 9 {6'ioI \ ",''v', / \ \
. ~ /;;.-r-;;diJ -- -- - 1 - """ , \
/ / '\ ......~~~ y.... /o.~"\,~......" ~----~.." ':,\/ #..("
..'" ~ ,,~P' . ~),/ // '_ ':~:\ /J ,
'\ :-<<;;~ ~/ ~q~ ~-\;",-- " /-' \-/ ~ -"1:,'" ,"- \ \
~ ..~~~..",- .. ~............ .... .... '\c''' \ ':' '. " ..
_______' ,~~e;: ~\ 4"-;'-' .....#/' ,/ // '\\ \~. 11'~' \
.,/ '; .......X .. ..~.., ....)>.) iV/ ,,/'--' \ \~,\, /;",' \
\ ,~,,<-:.. ~'1 ,- ,/' .. " .. ,/.~'.:\,' .' .. \ ..
~> '.<' .......,.,; " , .":, ",/ ,/ ~\ '::.;,.' ,/ \
~";... .".r:.. ..."" I ' .. ~ \ ,\\ , loot \
...~;.\" -- .. ,.,/" .- .... ~.,,: ....:;,.- (// ~/ Q \ \~ \ ....'
/.-~"'\ ,,/' ~", !,' /'" ,~-_.---.. '\.. /'~\ '. / '
/ ./::--- ",,4,,' " , , \~... , " , -' ,..-,\ "
~'/,/ f \ /~ ,/ 8 ,':.Jt: '::.,: "."Y' ~<\\'
~., ~~.=::~.. Ii ""v'\ ! \ ,:' ""v/ ",--\\ ':~.\ ..' ~-t \
.... .....-#... 00-, ... I.. ~- ...." \ 1'\ \ , \
~ -../' '. '" ',I ,-' ,,--'- ','" .. I '::." ,-' .. /1~
\ ~ " ,.,.' ,/ \/\ \~~\ /"" V ~
\ / " /' .,.'.,.' ..........~o~\ ':~\ ..,-,,'I( ...
-' ' " ) " ,,'" ,," p\~, .. /.:, \ ,/ 0',>. \
f " ,/ /"/ ~~'.<, '::f~' ___ 1J.' \
,/ . .,/ .." ...... t, ~ ' ," ~ ~
.."",\ ..,...... .' ~ .... "....".. \ \ /\~~ ?.... fJ.'\'" (<'" ~
\:' "",// /' , /~ ~ ~ '::. \ j....' /-, \
\\ ,., .,,' """.,// // /", \. '1:;\ 't':ofl. ,/ \"
\ --- ,._" , ...." ~\ \: \~\ \ 11_'1C LL.-'\"" ...
,.-1,. ,/ ,/ ,// II '\):. '\,\ /\q: , \
... :,.:f // ..,"..)0 /" \\:, '\ ~\~\I:;I\ / __\
\ D /",/ )J-.~ ~ ,," x'. \" , \\ ' ~ ........ ..
\\, ".....\ J ,II' ",,/ / ,/ ,..'" ~:\ \~ \~ \ ... _....~ '\
~. .. J ",,-< ;','.-- " -- ,K" '\ .. ./cr.. , \
" ,..0(8 I " " ,/ , \ \ \, ~ '\
"\ ,.. ,.",1,/ /" /" ! // :\\ \" :\\\ ...... \.
, I .. Iii I 'J," ~ ,~.y" \;
';~ I ' .' i ' ;./ ';" \~,/ , \
... / / (' -, ,,-As i\.\.. \::\ ... \ \
/ \:~~ / ' ,i'", I ~ \,(\\\/ \ \
\ \ ( .,./ ,~ ...Ii l:l .'l>1- ~ l;"""" \\\~:\'\ . <;
, \ \01: ,,' ,,/' ,l..t.. Z' ... \\ \:~\ to
; / l:I 5! ,/ ./-i r-- ~..... ,/ .:. . && ~ \
1 # I it:'" ", \\(' ~ce
,/ .-!r:iJ< \ !i; \
/"/\ \ >"
.
;::;
uo
o
l>
-<
l>
x
r
o
-<
'"
0>
o
o
~
\
.
g ~~~ ~
CD -
Il ()
CD i )> - -- I 0
)> If) !n I z 1I!!!!!11!
If) ~ If) &~iC I
i ::D
f'l If) , 0 .all.,.'l.
)> ~ .,,1 0 ~a ~ II1II111 i I gooEJillmfllIH r z
0 ~> '1 r 0 0
If) ~ ~la I iUliUiiUi ~ j q6~ ~ f'l < :0
'l' f'l '1 ~~ ~~! C) ~ . >
I f'l LJ .-..J f- ." z>C:>
i ~ i 9~ r 0 ~iS iep ~Hi IjJ ~~I fT1 ... ::c
CD ,Ill , i n
,;:: f.iiljJllii~ ~ il li~ Z N
~ f'l f'l ii f'l Hi j;; z 0 <; en
Z i )> < ~ ~~ ,.~ ;iq i"!\ 0 0 . ()
30. 0'1 l"
;:,. )> U~ ; ---j i.. M t ~ >
---j ::;0 Il J;; .. q -4 f,;j
If) - ~ ---j 0 Ii! !I
'c Z '1 0 n~ ~ )> 3
. ." j C) "' ~~. ; i
~ I Z ---j
If) .. If) !t: i )>
~ ~
GJ ~ ~~!
t.',~
a ;
:t',,;)J
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
FOR
RAY KISTLER
ASH~D, OREGON
Hardey Engineering &
Associates, Inc.
1-&4 ~rif-~. 't::~ 97501-0063
\'OICt: 54'-7n-18IO
r...: 541-772-9573
[NOINEE"IHG INTEOI'tTY [MNL: lnfoeMa-iftc.com
150
:\North Main BuiIding\SCHEMDES\SPEI.ECT.dwg, 12/8/2006 12:32:04 PM
6~. ~ FT
I
-l-~
'-~!\J1
! -
. I I
II (.' t-~ -
/1 ___ __ ---
~
1---.-/
-----
-----
11~
{-----
c
r
-i
G'
.Jl..
.Jl..
I
-i
~
z
<f . ~\(2;1'O
)> ------
m --- ----
L
r
~
I
I~
/~
~
I~
o
I~
.~
~-
~
./
su~
~~
i~
~t---
~j!!
I~
0.....
~
./
zf-/
"
r '1
m/
--ZJL,/
- Z
(J)
-f
,
-
,/
-
/
/
I
/
/
/
/
-~
/
/
/
II
//~
/ / I
.__ .'" --/i~// / /'
L
II ~
// tJ
(J)
()
I~
./
./
;R
~
./'
//
__ -187g- .../
(p"-im
~o~
/ l> f1I g;
// ~t~
t;;ze
Z' l>
01Jr
m Z
~mc /
Q~=:
~$)~
_~m
z
!'l
/
I
/
/
/
/
/
I
tD
x-
iji
-/
-----1
l>
()
m
(P
/
,/
/
-
-----
.- -. - --~
Q --- -------
_-18
-N
I
~
::--
/
/---
~
/
lJ
)>
~
.' .z /,J
. G\
-~
44' ~II
-
S'_~II
-----
'..-----,
--
/
I
~\)J
! -
! .
~/
I
/
/
LANDSCAPE
-----
-----
/ I
[!] j/
~ll
I
'I
~) I
/~
(~) J~
~LI
I
I
I
---
/"
;x
;a I ----- -----
>> --
~ _ _ _ -1882- - - - ~
- ---
If
"~
-----
z
m
E
(P
tJ J~-----
W\..-- /
/)> I
. r
7'\
I
-~~"
I r
/\\ j
\.+ -
I
I" "
\ "
"---
L--.- --- -~"
I
I
~~
() -
QS
~tJ
mm
Z (J)
() 1:.
. lJl.l>
I_/'-i m
/ ~ tJ
(I))>
Ir
)>r
zm
tJ ~
.f>, ')I, m
~_tff )>
',- () (P
~ ~ m
= ()::I
rm
-z
~-i
m
z
()
r
()
(J)
c
~
m
/
/
/
-----
-
./
./
-----
'''iF''''''_~I''''''''~''7'''''''-''''
./
./
./
------
;l'\~'~!';("">'>"t/(.~::.,,~:
Qr"1J~
~*!~
\11)>."
1;R:'
sc :I: ~ %
SC;,
/~~~
.~SC
.
i ~
sct
.
..../
~
/
/
1J
)>
.-- ~
~
'/'J
./
--
883-
_1
~
:'J; .': ' ~.~ :';
. \ ... .
. ~ ~ ~ .. ".. :
.:jfn~'. ..' '.
....J>~ ~ .. .",:
,,(p.' " :. .... . -
-----
-----
--
/'
/'
/
./
, /^'J
-,/
"
084-
_10
.'\
---
---
\
\
/
.-1'
"
~..\,
Q,,,
~8~
b,
.'V",
.' - - ~ c ___.',.
[~ J "-- ----- -- (~-q;~~ '--- --- --- .' : ' : -: . : ,; ,'.: .
'" ---- -- " ", . ". .... ~..
--~ ---- ~ : '. ..': .,'
,~ ~'-:'. NTRT Pl;.AI Y /
/ ~~- '- '- '- '- . : ':"':'. :'~-:'.' -- - j'- / /
~ ~- - - - - ~ -' -1886- -::: ~.. .--:-.:~
I, ", .' , . .'
" . '., '. ,.
~ "." ,,";.".
/
~
-
/'
,--
,/
...-..-'
/
I &
_...-... I
~j- ~
<,/
"
-- --------
(~
/
~~
ill/
~
/ ~ ,J
11""'j
:-:"
~---
---
~188/
-----
o
"
co.
0:(')
D~
o 9. /..
::B ;J;..
(') ~5
CD _..
D~
(")0.
EXISTING SIDEWALK
'";;-"': (J)
. . -
- - -f
~~ m
= z
-----
r ---'
I
~ - - - - -~~ - --. ___I
~;Dm~
l>::IZ:
()l>l&'
m_
1JZC
mO(i\
~~I:
-i
-----
U)
NO. MAIN &T.
'"' '"' 11
= '"
~~ r
~ ~ J>
"'z
~N8"".)i
.,;"
. .,...".
.11
or r="'or...lon.1 .....I'j~, ,. tht I"'~t~ or ...~ Kittler Arc:.hlt.:.t.ur. ,Ind ,. not lc:I be ~, Itl Ulhc:JoI. or In p.Mt. ror ,~ ex.... p"oJee.t. wIthout. u.. lUI"ltt., authorization or Ra~ond KltU. At-d"lltec.lur.
Thle dOc.Ul'I....t,.nd U"ls la.U,tnd 0..1
i
...
F
m
1
UISTLER
~ITECTURE
KISTLER BROS.
OFFICE BUILDING
492 N. MAIN ASHLAND. OR
151
~
.
I\.)
")t"I")tIl.IlIITIIC"~~AI""l6n P(~1\~
J:\North Main Building\5CHEMDE5\062+Pl...dwg, 12/8/2006 12:57:47 PM
()
~
/ \
~
~~ ~
;sJ ,'1 A 0 ... I ) ( y y y Y/./ . ~
. . .L ^ ^'A f:1
T. T.1 " I "I /I" r.t. I. . I. . I .-,. 171. ..... '.
t1
III
.(
J~
~A--~
~
~ ~
1\\--'
(
~
; ~
... ~ --- ,,,....,,
")s~ i~
~:~~~I r/
---- " " ~~~
" ""~ ~
if <e~~ =
0(
::!
J
~
/'
/
~y "
~~ (j '-
>- ~
~~
. 'I.'
~
r-o.~
~ J
v.-
. "J&1'1"
~ ~
S // ~
)("
= '-----/' = \ =,
"I"~"l.l"l"l"l"l~ ~
m
X
~
~
Z
c:
--i
--i
.., 0
() ill
m :I
;:)~
/ i)~
- _/~~;
~~
~
-
=~
J\ ~
"'-1 /'
NO. MAIN &T.
I
ir
...r,
If \II
() it
o j;
j c:
t:=--- ll3&4
>:- po
\11'886
. '"
,/ T,- 8 f
,,,,- ~ z
lD ~ ' ~~ ~ ) ..I
3 ~~~Y'~:fl
II ~ ,,"- ~ ~~ \
o ~~ .......~:)
"""-1."
J /--\
- ( 1
~ ~ ~
l B !l
~ 1Il
III
P-i>< ~
~ '\) -
.~~ --J
.
..
.,
\
/
~ ~
1: 2
~
~
~
~
;ll SI~j~~~Z~PP~o~~~~ 'V>~~~)ro "
,.,
% ~~~ ~1~~S~~ ~ ~~; ~2;ll~!i,lg -<
>
0 ~ ~ (;) Ijj>>I'~llss~~!a~~ Vl ~rooa~ -I ~-u
:11 2i'l ;;0 :J: ~>i'" ;;0
~ i'J .. ~r
11 ~~ 0 >> i2!i ~!i 2IDs ;;0 !ill "'iilf !i)>
C ~;; -~ ,",~e; "'i c ~z
ro' ~ i z ~~~Ii",~i@=!~~~!;~ tD ~il~~l(l~
rr'l C> i~~~i~ ",-I
0::0 ~ g n ~ . '~iIi~i!' ~Ori:a<>!~ilil ~
c'" 0 i~;~i>I~~~~!I" -~~ ~~! ~ ~:;
D~r ':J ~ c < '. '" 2 G)
~ J'T'I
;;0 ~~ 1;-. >g- 2 . 0 rr1
I Vl "-( ri >. -I .~- l!: ~ ~
oS ! ii ~!I ~i~i ~ i~i~ z
~ II! " ~ ~ z 0
'::~ ). ~ J'T'I -1i -1 5 ~ -~fi? ~ -
;;0 >:. ~
(") (. :. ':.lM',,:C ~ J'T'I !1 '! ~ -t;~
(\) ;. "",,s z
z
s;.' :;;
[J ::: ..!\l r-
W~~~ Vl
()o !:~~ . ~
c:) c !5 J~~!aZ~~OOOlID~!>>~ ~~~~~~ 0
,.-t(TI)li.. iH G') i
F "l):::l ;;0 z~~~ ~ ~~~~!Z~~~ ~~~>~!:l ~
;00 PI l< > G> i ix >~1;>i ~ ~;;21~ ~
0- !! ~S;~ ~~;~~~ !iSii
0 :s:;o I il Vl ...~z~ ~ z
0<!1 J'T'I i~I!~! ~
",C) -< Vl ~~~~!j~il!I~~ii~~ ~
0> g
~. ..... s~~ ~ ~~ ~>>~~i ~ ~ I;~
~~ '" ID >> ~-<il-<-< PI I ~ I;
~ i~~~i ~~ ~~ -<
:::lVl Z
:1::-< il i ~ ~ I '"' 8
"'VI
,..-. .... ~
0'" '"
"'1:1:: '"
Cl) CD"l)
c:.-
;=~
~ O! ~(J) G> NO)tr.>:--NLor II! (")
C) r: . .- I U. . . N 0
- . ~~~N~~~~~~~U~~~~~ n..., 0 . no PI
O! "l) >- .)100 n >- >- ~ <
'" ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ r":rr""'...,.... "~(1)
;0 OJ:-tcgr" CD CD f l>''-<
:I:: ~~~~~~ <> ~;:o
~ 8 :i
~ &0
01""1
~I""I
a.
Thl. do~t .tnd tt"-. lo.U MId o.6igna lneorpor4lt~ ,...In, .. .a" \Nt"...,., M pCr....1OnA1 NrVi~, I. the P.....t!:J or ....~ K1.U.. ....c:tll\actuf". Md I, no\. to t::Ie UNid, In iW'ol. or In ~rt.. ror ~ ot.h<< pr'CJect ll/.I\I"ll:Nt tiw wilt.., ,aulhorlzaUon or 1lta~ KI.tl.,. Archlleetur.
r I ~~ ~ KISTLER BROS. ~~,
~ I4ISTLER
i'.) J'lm
I: ~ OFFICE BUILDING ITECTURE
. ~ \;i~1
~ ~ 492 N. MAIN ASHLAND, OR 2Il2!l BUTLER CREEK ACWl P(541)~
~ A8HlAND. OREGON_ F(5411_1O
152
------- ~-~------ ~ ~-------- --.- I~'-
:\North M~in Building\SCHEMOES\FP.dwg. 12/7/2006 4:05:09 PM
tJ-)
~ /)j
0:0
O~
oS
=~~ '1,:,
cj." t.
ro ::
c.'
DB.
()
o
c~
f""~
p\IT
~IU
!'!1 (f)
~ ---f
,
,11
~ r
o
()
IU
~
,
~
'"
I
.....
G\
..... UJ ~(Oj
~ G\ u~/
, ,
~ ~
'"
,
.....
G\ /.
,-(oJ
~~-
UJ
,
.....
-I>;
,
~
p\(f)
l>m
J;; 0
~ ()
'Z
~O
IT
r
()
o
IU
r . T~-~
~
, -
.....
UJ
G\
..... I -
~ ~
I
~
I -
.....
C~J
IS- 0/
I
.....
....'4
~..,,'
--rl
?')
",J.; r!,
';~ri
~
I
~
3' 4" &'.8"
~1 @J
3' 4" 2' 0" 3' 4" 3' 4"
. &'.8" 3'.0" 3'.0" :".8" . :".8" -
f@-~-rm~1-1@-1
_.._:;~
""'~'.~
~'$rl
t......i&)
~
---
---
~
,
~
G\
/
G\
'"
I
.....
~ UJ
@ G\ G\
~~~
- - -
,
~
'"
I
.....
IS-
/,,- I
~ ~
UJ
I
.....
COiJ .....
I
-../ ~
!
I
~
...,
~
I
~
@
-I>;
I
~
4'.0"
fJ
10' .0"
4'.0"
8
4'.0"
8' 0"
4'.0"
10'.0"
~
144' 0"
1:0
44 lZ)"
4'.~" I ".2~" 2'f," ".2~" 4'.~"
~'.0" ~'.lZ)"
G 1 ~ U e
I ~ e
I taJ~ ...J
I
~ I \ ~
1 ~
'-- / ~- ~
-- - e --- ~ -
G\ -
I I
t..) 4'.:''' ~
""';"
L @ rL
! \.,9 9} ~ UJ ~
--- @ G\
t! 0 I I
~ m ~ ~
r~ I -
e .....
,/0'
...,
.....
lJ! ,
I ~
.....
@ IS-
e e I
.....
I I
G\
@ , @
I ~ I
--'
6'_1I~1 e I e
4'-I~" 6'.II~" ".11" 6'.II~" 6'.II~" 4'.I~"
4'-I~" 113'.11" "111,, 13'.11" 4'.I~"
-~
~- 44' ~II
@
~J
~
~
'!..... c:lcc..,.....,t .,..., I.N ide,. tIIICI deller- in::c:IrpOr.t.a ....irI, 'I ,n "'-tl'\,lllW"l\ or prO,...1""'1 .......Ice. '- Uw F"'~ty or -V"O"d ki.U.. ArChlt-=tw. MId I. nc\ t.o be WMd. In wf'lc:Ilr8., In plf't., ror ."11 oUW' "'''J-=t. witheM. u.. _'\ten "ut.horl%.Llon Dr ~~ond IC.I.U. A.rc:hlt.ectUr'e
~ o~ ;n
W 0 ~~ ~ KISTLER BROS.
,. I4ISTLER
F
ow PI
. ! ; l OFFICE BUILDING ITECTURE
I\.) ~ 492 N. MAIN ASHLAND, OR
202lI BUTLER CREEK IlCWl ~ (5<11-.&100
153
~----Y--'-
:\North M.in Building\SCHEMDES\a.dwo, 12[7/2006 4:22:03 PM
-",,!L~
--....
O' ~
CO
'..~\
I I .
1-.
o
o
r
~ Z ~
1> 0
r
m IU
" IT!
\)I -t ~
= I
I
, I
~ m .
r ~
m
-<
1>
-t
-
0
z
~ r; i ;
I~
I ~ II _I.
I I i' ~~
!
I II ;-
I
I I
I I I
I I I I
I
I I I I I
I I I I
I
I I I I
I
I
~
~" ~" f--~
II
II
-
I
I
I~
I
\ ~IIII
'!-.- L...I...U 111111
\ -- ~
~~
:'T~J
fG'""'""
~'"'<J"1
J
".J
E
m
(j)
-t
m
r
m
<
1>
-t
o
Z
--
u,
--.,:..
"""'~~o
J .
~ ~
I I
~ ~
I
X
I
" r~ ~ i
~ I.
~I:" r
; ~~
I II
I
I I I
I I I \
\ I I
I
I I I
I I I
I
I
I
Fa
~
.
I
.
I
I
I
~
I !
~ I
J I
i I
I
M
I
~. ('lc,;.......,' ."'CI u-.. i~. ."a ..ig'lt if'Il:elrpclr.l"'; .....Ifl. '1 ." I".VWllW'lI. or p'or....~l ...'Vlce, II u. pr....'~ or _~ 1(1.". ...~It_\wr. MlCII '- no\ Wt De..,..., '" iII'Il:rle or In per". tor "ftaI 0\"- prOJCL WI""""\ uw ....IU., 4lJ\hOrIZ4t.IOtl or "'~onc:I k;.lel,ler Afchl\~"Uf".
I i
I ~
I I
.'T.'l;If.",:]
'I, '1p,p
"i...":,,,
/tJ
"'J"'"
\~"'k!
-...-J
.
~ ~~
I: m
! ~
~
m
~
i
KISTLER BROS.
OFFICE BUILDING
492 N. MAIN ASHLAND. OR.
154
~
UISTLER
~ITECTURE
202ll BUTLER CREEKROI\O P (541)-.a:Dl
:\North Main Building\scHEMOES\EE.dwv. 12/7/'11>>6 4:18:27 PM
II I I I
I I I I
I I I
I
I I I I
I
---
--- l.-::::::=t::::--
........::.....-r-rr IIII1 --
111
-
I
I
- - - ~._~---
-
~
~-- __u____ __
- "==_7 --.:;jr
- - e-----------
10. -:II ==
I --
I
I
21'-1"
r----.
6UILDING I-lE IGI-lT
~ (j)
~ ()
r
!!' C
~ --I
I
I
I m
~
r
m ~
-< ~
1>- !!'
--I ~
-
() I
Z I
~
:rJ
~"'I~I
'~7)
-.'}
!'~fi
..:,7;:''::jb',t;
"p
'-"'1_,,"
~" j','''''"''~'':'
, ,.
---
U\
-. ())
J , i
1
I
I
\
~ If
I I ~
I J - I
J' 1m ~
i ~ I I
!
~
1
I
I
I
I
r~
~r
I~
I I
I I
I
*
~
f
i
t c::k'C~t .al'l(f V. IdlN. ~ a-lgnt W;cIrI='O"'llfrd ,"-_WI, .. ,,, iMt,.......... or pof'...IOfl,lI ...vlCe. I. tht P""'\~ 0' ..~ Kt.tIl.. .Atctllt..:ture MId I. no\ \.0 be..,.." .... .,.,1. or '" IM'\, ror ~ ou.- P"OJlICt wlthQut U. wriU., .l.It.hI:trlz.llon or ....V"'CftClI tC16U" Aorc::t1ltec.lUfe
~
.
I\.)
n
l;
I I
I II I
I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I ~ i
I
i
rtMR= '- I
'- I
.'-
CJ ,
I
I
.'-
~"
.~
~
'A"
~/
,'/
rf
"
'/
~
un --
,,-
,,-
,,- --
CJ --
.'\. - .-
'- '
,--J
-;)I
- '/
-- ./
.:/
./
~
V
8 J ~ I
, I I
~ i
I I ~
~ ~
m
1>-
(j)
--I
m
r
m
-<
1>-
--I
()
Z
ft g~
" ii1~
i: m
! ~
~
m
Iii
~
i
KISTLER BROS.
OFFICE BUILDING
492 N. MAIN ASHLAND, OR.
UJSTLER
~ITECTURE
155
2ll2!l BUTLER CREEK ACW)
.0........ '--':::lV'lUcnwvl
~~~~~:=
CITY OF
ASHLAND
RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2006-02354
SUPPLEMENT A
SUBMITTALS TO THE COUNCIL
PLANNING ACTION: #PA2006-02354
SUBJECT PROPERTY: North Main Street & Glenn Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Raymond J. Kistler
DESCRIPTION: Appeal by the Ashland City Council of the Planning Commission decision
to approve a request for Site Review approval to construct a two-story office building located on the
vacant parcel at the southeast corner of the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn St. A
Variance is requested to allow a 10-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 Sf. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGN A TlON: Employment
ZONING: E-1 (with Residential Overlay) ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 05 DA; TAX LOTS: 3600.
Date
4-18-2007
4-18-2008
4-24-2207
3-14-2007
4-25-2007
Item
Paae #
A-1 - A-1 5
A-16 - A-20
A-21 - A-25
A-26 - A-27
A-28
Submittal from Ray Kistler
Submittal from Jerome White
E-mail from Colin Swales to Martha Bennett
E-mail from Colin Swales to Council - Request to Appeal
E-mail from Ray Kistler to David Stalheim
EXHIBIT 'F'
North Main Tree Inventorv
SPECIES: DBH(DlAMEmtttIltEAST HEIGHT): SPEOES:
l.Birch 2" 51.Alder
2.Birch 2" 52.Alder
3.Cherry 1'.8" 53. Maple
4.0ak 1'.8" 54.Maple
5.0ak 1'.8" 55.Alder
6.Cherry 5.75" 56. Maple
7.Fir 1'.8" 57. Maple
8.Maple 3.75" 58.Alder
9.Cherry 3.25" 59.Maple
10.Poplar 3.25" 60.Maple
11.Poplar 3.25" 61.Fir
12.Poplar 3.25" 62.Maple
13.Poplar 3.25" 63.Maple
14.Alder 3.25" 64.Maple
15.Sequoia 11.5" 65.Maple
16.Cherry 3.25" 66.Maple
17.Cherry 3.25" 67.Maple
18.Birch 7.65" 58.Blue Spruce
19.Maple 5.75" 69.Fir
20.Poplar 11.5" 70.Blue Spruce
21.Maple 1'_8" 71.Ponderosa
22.Cedar 2'.6" 72.Fir
23.Cedar 2'-0" 73.Maple
24.Maple 1'_0" 74.Fir
25.0ak 2'-0" 75.Spruce
26.Juniper 4" 76.Monkey Tail
27.Poplar 4" 77.Maple
28.Ponderosa 1'.6" 78.Norfolk
29.Poplar 6" 79.0ak
30.Cedar 4" SOJuniper
31.Ponderosa 5.75" 81.0ak
32.Fir 1'-0" 82.0ak
33.Alder 7" 83.0ak
34.Alder 7" 84.Alder
35.Alder 7" 85.Juniper
36.Cedar 7" 86Juniper
37.Poplar 3.25" 87.Spruce
38.0ak 3'_2" sa.Apple
39.Ponderosa 7" 89.Maple
4O.0ak 1'-8" 90.Maple
41.Alder 8" 91.0ak
42.Maple 6" 92.Alder
43.Maple 6" 93.0ak
44.Maple 6" 94.0ak
45.Cherry 6" 95.0ak
46.Cherry 6" 96.0ak
47.Poplar 2" 97.0ak
48.Poplar 2"
49.Maple 7"
50.Maple 7"
A -I
DBH(DIAMmROBREAST HEIGHT):
2"
2"
2"
2"
2"
2"
8"
6"
4"
4"
4"
3.5"
2"
2"
2"
2"
2"
l'-4"(Tree of Year 1996)
6"
3.5"
6"
3.5"
3.5"
6"
3.5"
2"
2"
1.5"
. 1'-0"
1'_0"
6"
3'.2"
1'-4"
6"
16"
16"
2"
2"
3.5"
6"
6"
3.5"
7.5"
9.5"
1'_0"
1'.8"
1'-3.25"
~k:,I\"""""'
~~ y'~':.:.'LI
-".,~,~~...;.:
!nil
T;:,<" i::Itv ro4 AsII.., I
onyor - ,.\Y IV
~w@~,al(,i,\,';.,tt
A
>
~
~~
.
t-
(/)
G
~
::>
o
A
H\GH
I
\1
,. '" : (i .J:!!
.
'u;
REC VED
, - .'<..,,~.:" .;-,
APR i
City of ,\5; -', ,rj
Communi", L ""I
B
Ii ~,
",,'
. tp" .,..".1
A
-
. 87
.
'Vi
RECEIVED
APR 1 8 2007
Qty d Ashland
CcImnuIity Dev610j.}"0<3nt
c
..J
,4 ~ L/~
B
ITlJ
10
-0
,
28
27 2S
23 22
sn 82
M
83
85
I
ReCEIVED
APH 1 8 2007
City of Ashland
Community Development
A. -~..
...... .....,
.........;
i
c
,
D'
G
~<(;.
~~
>-
D"" ."'E-' Lu
neG "-IVIiD
-J
<(
[
[
A~~
z
z
~
C)
G
aJ)F
38
-bL
-M-
A -i
N
~
F
~
G
g
g'
)
82
83
H
..
G
!Y
.
H
~
Ii"
r.1E.CE,\lED
r-
"
')no'/
Lv I
Ii
r.:::l"
City of ,Ash!and
ComfTlurdfy De'Jc;c;,)'nent
---
___\818
---------
SIlO:
1)$
'!'~
6'Z
-f
i1jm
o ~ ------
~r-
~i!!
O~
~~
mm
0......
~
~
---
~~. ~ FT
. '\.. .."
LANDSCAFE
---
/~
!-
---
11---
___\8
---
---
---
"
;;; ~
__Z-/I
- Z l/
(J)
-I
/
-f
~
m
()
I
(J)
-f
()
~
o
f
------
/
<f-
~
....
/
/
/
~
---
---
------
---
---
. .'
.-/
_ -l87g-
/;J!
~
./
/
W-fm
~()~
/ "-~~
.....m_
():I~
m l> ".
CZE
z' l>
O-Ur
mmZ
~~~ /
O'<-f/
---~!
Z
---
-u
l>
~~
_-2:
G\
. . I
. .
.:....~~--
:. ~ ;11-',)>
. . .... Z
< 'II!. g I~;: I
. ...' .. () c~
.. " "J)> ....
. .. . . lJ
.~ '. '.' . m
.... r'
.' .~.. --
. '.
. .
.... .. ....
LD
x- ---
Gi ---
- ---
___-'(f)
lJ
--- )>
--- ()
0- ---- m
_\8 (p
-~ -
44' ~" ---
---
---
8' ~'___
---
-- --
LANDSCAFE
/
/1 ~
/
I- I /
/ ~ ../
/ ~
/ ~
'"Tl
/ -f
/ ~
I
~ ---
= ---
---
1// I\,)
~
/ S
0
I m
(p
I
41 '/ ---- )>
--- iU
m
0
)>
41/: r
r
m
~
.... ____m
~ --- --- )>
I (p
~ m
} :I
m
z
//1 -f
I
I
I
. .
. . .
: ~--------
. : ". I ..
~ ':"~
:. z .....j
. m...
:. .E' .
:;k~----
',.{)>'.'J
. ,r.
~. 7\, '.
lJ .... '. :..1 ~
)> .' 1 Z
~~ / :. :'.. o~
- .--/ z . ; . ~ .' <, f1') ~
~ "~.:. : I ~ '-
. \', J m
.....:...q
---
---
---
... ..'. ..': ". .:1
. ." .. ..
. ......~
. .' :. .: i "-
: ...~.. ..... "- -
.. ~--
'. .,~ -- "-
" '. '. 'j "-
'. '" ," "-
" ~ : ~ ~'^ ,
.... . ~, "-
: I .... ~"-
:. : ; 8"6. "-
~~~--..... -'JI'
I ,. . "- C
I :: ____ '(
. ". . . ---- ---- ~
----
-frllf,!!
~~~8
~O~
r~_,
~~~8
~riI;:'-f
~l:"'~
~~~-
~~~
~;'\ii
~~.....
;J!uo.....
'"Tl .if~
~ ~ ...,
\II
'"Tl ~ if
r .
~ '"
~
m uo
r if
m
:<
" '. .'
'. ...a ..
Gi
\l)
...J
---
---
. .
... .. -. .. .-"
.. .......:.
. I ....,. .
~c" .. .-. ". ,
"" ~ "- . '. NTRY ~LA:Z .... ./ ./ ~
~.9~ " " . :.:.:.: < . ::'j: . / 5 I l!l
"- ..' '. J (p ___ --- ~ ~
~~"7~ I-~ ~ - - - - ~~ -1886-......~.. ...~.::. - - - ~ --- I
I '" ~ ~...~~...~.... _ _ _ _~" ~
/ I "'____ -----4~-__________ ~
l I ----1&&;>-........ EXISTING SIDEWALK
~ --------
---
---
---
-----
. .
. "
~...-..........""""'-
,
,-...
L\}
(~
--
.......... .nc
. . v'" 0
. . J;:
~ ~.Ji.~
~ ~ ~~
Sf ~ . ":ft( (fJ
::; ~ 1>' ,(5' ~
'-6' 15:'
'- Z ~ 0-
(I)
::>
-
'JJ
f1l
"lIJeY
'f'Pffi
:>0 ./", <
1'.:)/ m
8 ,0
-.J
---
---
I
I
--- - - - - - - -rTR - - _ ~
-x
G\_
I<P
-f -f
NO. MAIN &T.
'''16 "0""",,",,,. ''''' ,"- ,_. ,'''' _'li!'" ,""",_"... _.... I. I. ...."....- or I""or...,,,,,,, ..,v,.., i. ,"- "'_'s or ...\/"""'" 1(1."., ."",...."'. ''''' I. .'" '0 be y...., ,. _Ie '" I. ""', ro, '''\1 0"- ",oJee. _It""", ,"- ",,","" '"""""'Z'''"" or "'!l"''''''' 1(1.,,,.,. A'''''iI.'''....
~
(p
-f
~
m
m
c o~ (l>
8 ~)> =; KISTLER BROS.
~ ... m Jr4ISTLER
r= m,.. ;JI
.. III
. ! ~ ~ OFFICE BUILDING HITECTURE
'" -:
~ 492 N. MAIN ASHLAND, OR 202S BUTlER CREEK ROAD P (1141) 4IN2OO
AllHlANO. OREGON t7l52O F (1141)481-8210
--_._..~~
, 'I "
"
I' I
I, 1
", ,,' I
" 1
I 'I
" ,~ ,
" ,
" ,
, ~I
.'
\'O'Ob
'"~W\:~":d:.
". -...
"-
"- ,
"-
"-
"-
\'0'01
"-
"-
"-
ENT
\.'0'07
"
a a_.
, ,
"
"
'- "
'-" :" '
, "1~,~6,~
, ,,-'
~
~ >rtf
"
,
NEWSI
"
6, ,
. ,
'..
,"
, '
--------
"
1887
48.86'
------
::::0~~lJ~i\i~:'; ",e
lee/
PARKROW
--7---- )~:~
---------
------------------------------------------
BIKE LANE
O'l
,"
e
.
..,
/,
/ I 1887
/: DRIV
I
___ I
--_:r=========
-------
------
----------------
---------
---------
-------
--------
m ::0 ~
~ m 6
CIJ r- .
-------------~ g ~
.... --->--......._---
G') ~ 0
n m rn
c: m ~
::0 X::O
03 en 5>
~ z
~ ~
CIJ CIJ
~ m
::0 3:
m m
-----------------_JU__z_________
-r "" ______
r-
G5
J:
~
---------
TRAVEL LANE
->.
->.
6
.
TRAVEL LANE
->.
->.
,"
e
.
---- -
->.
->.
TRAVEL LANE 6
.
--------
------
------
-----
-------
------
---------
--------
-----
------
---------
------------
------
->.
->.
TRAVEL LANE ~
------
----------
---------
-----------
-------
----------
-------
------
------
-------
-----
-------
---------
-~
~.
~
~ ,~.
~ ~:
T
f'n
(;')
O'l
BIKE LANE 6
.
~
\
C7 )'=--
CD if;
~ ~.
o ::
-g n
<5
:=l
:"'("'1
PARKROW
(Xl
6
.
.........
;:;
~...
rn
CJ
SIDEWALK
O'l
,"
e
.
Th'. """.-t. .... .... ,-. .... ....'r Incorp"....... -.... .. ... ,"..,....... ,,' pr"'"'''''''' '..vl... I..... pr.."....y ,,' "'Y"""'" 10..1.- .......,_"". .... I. "". ." ~ _. I" _,. or In P'''. 'or .... "... pr"J"'" wi""". .... ..II.... 'u._,...",,, or "'!t"""''' 1<1..1.,. ....Chlt.c.u'.
~ gK CI'
:;
~ ... ....)> m
F mr- ;I
m m
. ! ~ ~
I\.) .
-:
~
KISTLER BROS.
OFFICE BUILDING
492 N, MAIN ASHLAND. OR
U'STLER
~ITECTURE
2025 BUTLER CREEK ROAD P (541) 48ll-I2OO
ASHlANO.OREGON87520 F(541)411-82'O
/:\ I ~.'p,
"""',
--+....>
\ (~
\..1', '7:: (J)
lJ
l>
~
~
~~
-I
m
11
r
J>
Z
LANDSCAFE
-- -- --
6e>. e> FT
I~
Z
()
1:
I~
o
~
~
IZ
I
. .' . .',
. . ..'
- , :'.': '.~ I
.. ., .. ".
~
/
/
/
/
:~
~II:
"'z
iJliil
~~
Q~
0"11
~'
O~
G'Sf1
~~
- .....
0..
~~
~
/;11
;0
"-J
....
/'
/'
/'
/'
/'
/'
/
t.Il
X
ijS
<P
lJ
l>
()
m
<P
~-tm
l1Io~
l:>i1Ig;
():IZ
ml:>~
C:ZE
Z' l:>
Ol)r
mmZ
IOIO~
OS-t /
10 0 /IV
-em
~~m
~
/' !'11
/1
// I
/
/
// I
I
~
I
~
'"' '"'
- '"
sc..
- )C
~~
'-
"
r
m
Z
Z
(J)
:-I
/
/
/
/
/
/
/'
/'
/'
/'
/"
;x/"
"
"
"
~",,"
~'"
S:"
oS /C "
c~
~.I.:"
~Q' "
"'Q' "
?~ "
~ "
"
"
"
"
-~
------
~
lJ
l>
~
~
-;-0--:-::-:.-;"
.'- .....
'.. . t
.~. ,.:.,
, .
. . .
. . .
. '.
'" '. .
.~. .,:' ~. ..<."
". ".
.~ . t. .
.~ .~...; ~ ;..~.'~. ~ '~"~ -;' A"~"
.. . ..... COVERED ENTRY, ' .' '. .'
..' ~.... '. .' ~ . : ".":' ..'" . ..
.". :
/'
/'
/'
/"
/"
~
5>3'-4'
_LAND5CAFE
-~;,"'~- '-;~o;.-,,',i~-:,:..,~,\':;?;
". . ." 1'.
..' "t
.... :"".
". . .
. .
... .. .
'.' ..I
. .:- '. j
, .
1'-8'
1/
.,./
/"
! ,
/
/
/
O~~~ /
~~~~ //
~1U~8
lS ~ '" -f
/" II:~~~
/" ~SR~
~~~
~lS'"
;!IiJltJ)
."11:
- . -
~ ~ /"--
SR/"
)'--
\oJ
'"
/ ~
\)J
I
~
I~ N
~ ~
I~ ~
0
m
I <P
1:
l:>
\JJ ~
I ~ m
I 0
~ l>
t r
r
m
~
I m
l>
<P
m
I ::I
m
z
-t
-
. .'
r
l>
z
o
<P
. ... ()
-, ., ..~ l>
..' ~-
': " ....: -m
.' . .. - ... ~ ./
. . . ..
... ... ".
. .-.
\.
.'
. . .
'.
. :.
I
I
I
I
~
"-J
~
I
~
'. '
r
l>
z
o
<P
()
l>
lJ
m
EXISTING SIDEWALK
-- ----- ~--- - -----
NO. MAIN &T.
()IO-tm
-mOx
~l)IO(j)
rm-t
l:>:rz
()l>~
m_
l)ZC
mO(;\
101O!i
.... :."..t/'
:: 'z'" :..,
.' ~....
.... '<P' ...., .,.//
'. "0" ',y
.m '.'
.' E..
. .. l> . . 'J
" 'r '
:. 'Jf.. "
.... ... : 'i
.. . ...
.... . ;' . : t 'I
.. .
." . .
.: .; , :.' ./
. . .
.:: " " .,./
.... .... 'r/
. '. .
. .... '.~ .....: ,\,
.,' :. ., J "
: . : .....1 "
" . "
-
/"
r
l>
z
o
<P
()
)>.
lJ
m
-
-
-
.. '. J
. a..
:.:' ~..~ /' /'
: '. '., '. /
':: : : /
'.
""
[
c.
\
!
f\)
.
o
'''''' '*>c......". ."" .... '..... .... ....'9"0 -""".tad _.In. .. .n 'n.."",*" ",r F",r.oI,,",,1 _vi"". T."" F"PW'S ",r ...S'"..... K,.".. .""'_..... ."" ,. n,.. '''' I>e ....... In _,. '" 'n "'.". r", ."\1 "'...... F"'j"'" .1""", .... ."".., .".no""",," or "'S"'ond KI.",", .""".,,,.....
o
~ o~
~ ~)>
F mr-
III 111
! ~
~
KISTLER BROS.
OFFICE BUILDING
492 N. MAIN ASHLAND, OR
~""
~~ ""
'"::.;.';;..
::\...'
C ~~"
:::; '....f"
~ ~:
O:J>
~ ~~~~
~~;~ OJ
o :J
-0 a.
:3
(()
~
""'!}
:0
i'~',-7
c::::>
C)
---.j
IT!
<:
m
o
(J>
::;
m
;JI
~
U'STLER
~ITECTURE
202ll BUTlER CREEK RlWl
ASHlAND, OREGON 87520
P (541)481-8200
F (541)488-1210
Ashland City Council
# P A 2006-02354 N. Main & Glenn
RECEIVED
April 18, 2007
APRl 2 2C07
To: Ashland City Council
Re: # P A 2006-02354 N. Main & Glenn
City or A'.:.: ,iand
Community Davelopment
Please submit the following written comments along with the three attached drawings
into the public record for the planning action referenced above.
The criteria for a variance have been met by the applicant.
A. It is not possible on this site to meet both the 20 foot special setback and the
Historic setback. The unique and unusual circumstances regarding this site are
with respect to the conflicts between our Land Use Ordinances and our Historic
District Design Standards as they apply to this site. We have an Ordinance that
requires a 20 foot special setback, and a design standard that says we must align
with the historic setback of adjacent buildings. These two requirements are in
conflict. The City Attorney pointed out, at the March 23 council study session,
that Design Standards have the affect of Ordinance, and hence 'carry' the same
weight. The two adjacent buildings are set back from the 'assumed' property
line 9 feet (property to the north), and 19 feet (property to the south). Big AI's
and the Manor Hotel are setback less than 5 feet. These adjacent buildings do not
conform to the 20 foot special setback. Indeed, I estimate that there are some
twenty existing structures along North Main that fail to meet this setback.
B. The project as proposed, and approved by the Planning Commission, allows
for future improvements to the street in conformance with Ashland Street
Standards. It is possible, with the approved 10 foot setback, to widen North
Main Street to a 4-Lane Boulevard that includes (4) 11 foot travel lanes, (2) 6 foot
bike lanes, (2) 7-8 foot park rows, and (2) 6 foot sidewalks. These improvements
would allow for the desired bike lanes, and would provide safety for pedestrians
on the sidewalk. This improvement "will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan". [see attached drawing "North Main
Section a-a"]
C. The applicant was not involved in drafting either of these city requirements.
The conflict between the ordinance and the historic design setback standards has
not been 'willfully or purposely self-imposed'.
The attached drawings prove that street improvements that conform to Ashland
Street Standards can be made in front of this property with the proposed 10 foot
setback! The attached site plan shows that the problems with future improvements to the
street are not with this site. The proposed 10 foot setback allows enough room for a bike
lane and a park row, and allows for the street to be improved to a full4-Lane Boulevard.
Rather than widening the right-of-way by moving the property lines, the Council can
impose a Condition of Approval that requires a pedestrian easement for the 6 foot
sidewalk.
1
I
,
,
t
!
Ashland City Council
# PA 2006-02354 N. Main & Glenn
Safety concerns for pedestrians on the sidewalk are met by this street improvement
solution! The proposed setback leaves enough room for a park row that provides a
buffer for pedestrians on the sidewalk. Other properties closer to the street may require
that the sidewalk stay abutted to the curb. This safety concern is more urgent on other
lots, and is not a concern with this property.
Council must direct staff to update Transportation System Plan if there is any intent
to widen North Main. Ashland's Transportation System Plan, adopted by the Ashland
City Council in 1998 needs to be revised. Figure 9-1 Roadway System Needs, identifies
streets in need of "Street Widening (Multi-Modal)". North Main is not identified on the
map as requiring widening. Architects, Planners, citizens and others rely on this
information when purchasing, planning, and presenting projects for approval. If a
decision is made, through this planning action, to plan for widening of North Main, then
the TSP must be updated.
Exparte Contact. I hereby request that Councilor Eric Navickas divulge his exparte
contact with Mr. Phillip Lang in the lobby of the Council Chambers on the night of
February 13,2007 just prior to the public hearing for this planning action. The
conversation with Mr. Lang was witnessed by myself and two other individuals and
involved information regarding this planning action.
If Council votes to repeal the approved variance to the 20 foot Special Setback, then
you must approve a variance to the Historic District Design Standards (IV -C-4
Setback). If the plans are revised to conform to the 20 foot Special Setback, then a
variance is required to the Historic setback standard. Either way, a variance is required.
Words and ideas about how North Main could be improved and how this variance
may impact future improvements to the street are just that, words and ideas. I urge
the Council to deny their appeal (!) based on these drawings. These drawings prove that
this site, with the approved variance to the Special Setback, can accommodate street
widening that meets Ashland Street Standards, provides for 'light and air', bike lanes and
the safety of pedestrians.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerome White
253 Third Street
Ashland, Oregon
RECEIVl::D
APR 1 8 2007
City of Ashland
Community Development
2 f'!
/ \~""l
I l
;
~/
7
~
!)
o
) ~ ~ ill
3Q ::0 _
s~ ",I
f9. ~ m
II ~ flJ
-"'t-.
..~L'..w,lr
1i.
~"""""",,,
.........'~x." Z
'-..: ..
'"U i:
~ ~ !.
~ =0 :s
'Hi QlI
!~~(i)7
f' ~ f
:s
...........
I
7J
~
-^1A1,ole- 1\ \
~.. Ii,
:
~ ~
~(/)~
~
o
o
o
1
DC::;
GLENN
enc
mz
-1m
~o
0'"
"'I\)
-q
~en
"0"0
:;o~
~:;
..:- ,
Q)
~
o
[
I-
o
:::0
-
);enenc
"'tJm"'tJz
"'tJ-Imm
:;oalQo
0)>)>."
)(0'1\)
. '" 0
- -
[
5
NURSERY
I
I
I-
;Z
".~
~~
C>>:r
~i-
/"\
.... ~ t!
. or::
. Cz
:;;Om
mO
"T1i
-
m
-
o
r---,
z
o
...
~
::T
3:
D)
-.
~
en
(I)
n
~
-.
o
~
D)
.
D)
b
\
...........
---.l\
=It:
..a."
co~
=0
II 0
..a.~
-0
ON
=w
c.n
~
z
.
3:
S>>
-.
~
go
C)
-
CD
~
~
C)
o
')
J (")
3~
~g,
Ii
{
"lJlr
!Dr
m ~ Q)
S:::o .
~~ ~
T6' +
Si"'
i~
:J'<
fii
~ "lJ
~ ~
c6 .." 3
~ ~ ~ m
'go q ~ ~
6' + c:
i" e-
~ ~
'<
J>
""tJ
::c
~
m
~
o
-
00
~
Q)
6
a
Q)
6
a
en
0: 0)
~ ~
~
en
0: 0)
! ~
~
"lJ
ii'
:J
ct. .."
c5 0;
en a
s:
'0
to
f 0)
r- 6
III a
:J
CD
g
....
~ ....
r- ~
III
:J
CD
-t
iil ....
~ ....
!; ~
:J
CD
-t
iil ....
~ ....
r- 6
AI a
:J
CD
g
....
~ ....
!; ~
:J
CD
to
~ 0)
~ q
III
:J
CD
"lJ
ii'
:J ~
g- 0,
CO a
en
s:
'0
OIl
6
a
t+
~ m
m 0
~.
en ~ c:
ct. .
:J I
CO 0) -
"lJ a r- (I)
III t+
..... Cii s::: D) <
3 :r
::0 CD ~ D)
(:) :J
-
~ (I) ...
c.
co
0;
a
t+
~~
~:E
(X)::r
I _0
0.....
...... CD .
)
l
o
i
VI
~ I
CD
~
I ,,+~
Gol
i
5 :0
~... m
J ~ ; 0
D_~ _ ; m ~
L~ ~ ~!I~ .'
~ C: !~IJ-
~,~~~ ~ 'I. "- ~ 1-
~~~~~ ~~~~~;!~
~~~'-l'::1: ~ ~~~~ ~ ~
~ ~''''' ~ ~ "" 'I '\J \.. IJ
~ ~~ ~ ~ <:l ~ ~ ~ ~ I)..
!:l <:l~!:l 1- ~.J'~ ~ ;:~
.~~~~~;;! ~~'l> ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. "" ~ -@ ~
~ C')~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ......
~,~~ ~ "",,~ ~ ~ ~IJ
~~~"'~ ~ Vj",~
:t.. t.)~ ~ ~ ~~'
~ ~ " \.. ~
~~ ~ ~ "
'\ ~ ~
~ ~
~
,
~
~
CITY OF AS
TRANSPO HLAND
SYSTE:TATION
PLAN
FIGURE 9-1
~ ROA.DWAY
~ YSTEfi,{ NEEn
.uS
~s~
I ~~I ~
.
I
Page 1 of5
David StaIheim - Re: Resend: P A 2006-02354 - Request for GSPC opinion on possible ethics
violation
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
"Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmail.com>
"Martha Bennett" <bennettm@ashland.or.us>
4/24/2007 2:20 PM
Re: Resend: PA 2006-02354 - Request for GSPC opinion on possible ethics violation
"Richard Appicello" <appicelr@ashland.or.us>, "Mike Franell" <franellm@ashland.or.us>,
"David Stalheim" <stalheid@ashland.or.us>
[To be included in the Record PA 2006-023541
Martha,
(cc Mike, Richard, David)
Thanks for getting back to me at last.
Below are my responses inserted in BOLD within your reply:
On 4/24/07, Martha Bennett <bennettm@ashland.or.us> wrote:
Colin - I recognize that this issue is of concern to you, and I have asked David and Richard to be
prepared to address it.
It is my read of the Historic Commission minutes that the discussion on September 6, 2006 was an
I informal discussion with staff prior to the pre-application conference that staff holds with the
applicant. In other words, there was not yet an application. Do you agree? It is also my read that the
Historic Commission did not take any formal action on September 6, 2006 but gave staff some
general feedback. Is that also your read?
The Pre-App conference is dated the prior month.(8/23) I have attached Staff's Pre-App report,
but I do not have a copy of the initial Historic Commission's Comments from the HC sub-group
that looked at these things. A formal application followed shortly
This September extra "pre-app" before the full Historic Commission seems to be a process, often
used; to warm up all the other Historic Commissioners prior to a formal application being
submitted in order to almeliorate in advance any further concerns that these other
commissionrs might have.
In reviewing the Historic Commission action on this application on January 3, 2007, it appears to me
that Mr. Giordano stated his conflict of interest, recused himself, and physically left the meeting.
Does this agree with your recollection?
I was not myself present at the January HC meeting but the minutes would seem to suggest that
Commissioner and Planning Agent Giordano followed the correct protocol at this subsequent
meeting.
However, knowing that he would later be hired as Planning Agent shouldn't he have stated as
much at the September meeting?
Should he later have urged the PC at the full Public Hearing in January to quickly approve the
11"
fi~e://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM
4/25/2007
Page 2 of5
project, with the detaOs to be worked out later by his fellow Historic Commissioners?
Please see (below) GSPC's opinion in regard to Mike Frannell's prior request to them regarding
ethical behavior of another (now ex-) member of our Planning Commission as posted on the
GSPC website. ( Note: the applicant for #2006-02354 is also an ex-member of our PC)
As you know the Historic Commission's opinions can have a very important influence on Planning
Staff and the subsequent PC decision-makers (especially in this particular case where the historic
context seems pivotal).
I strongly feel that that the opinions of HC and Staff were influenced and tainted by the conflicted
September '06 HC discussion.
Also see Tidings Story http://www.dailytidings.com/2004/0925/092504n2.shtml
Oregon Government Standards and Practices Commission
OPINION NO. 05S-004
http://www.oregon.gov/ GSPC/docs/advisory opinions/05S-004.pdf
[extract with emphasis added]
QUESTION NO.3:
If the member of one city governing body participated in making a recommendation to another city
governing body, would the member violate Government Standards and Practices laws if that member
represented a client for a fee before the city governing body that must act on that same
recommendation?
OPINION: No, it would not be a violation. The application ofORS 244.040(6) is explained in the
opinion given for QUESTION NO.2. In this situation, the risk to the member of a city governing body
of violating Government Standards and Practices laws presents itself when the member participates in
the action by the governing body that makes the recommendation.
Oregon Government Standards and Practices laws define actual conflict of interest [ORS 244.020(1)]
and potential conflict of interest [ORS 244.020(14)]. The difference between an actual conflict of
interest and a potential conflict of interest is determined by the words would and could. An actual
conflict of interest occurs when the action is certain to result in a financial benefit or detriment. It will
occur when an action taken by the official would directly and specifically affect the financial interest of
the official, the official's relative or a business with which the official or a relative of the official is
associated. A potential conflict of interest exists when an official takes action that could have a financial
impact on that official, a relative of that official or a business with which the official or the relative of
that official is associated. In this case the impact is not certain.
In the premise of this question, the member of the city governing body might participate in action, which
forwards a recommendation to another city governing body. When participating in the action to forward
a recommendation, if the member knows that the recommendation could or would result in an
opportunity to represent a client for a fee before the other governing body, the member would be met
with a conflict of interest. If forwarding a recommendation would, with certainty, create an opportunity
for a fee it would be an actual conflict of interest. If the opportunity for a fee were only a possibility, it
would be a potential conflict of interest. In either case, a public disclosure as to the nature of the
conflict of interest, business relationship with the client, would be required before acting to approve
the recommendation. In the case of a potential conflict of interest the member could then participate in
forwarding the recommendation. If an actual conflict of interest arose, the member would be required
A ,..-~. "
. ..". ) .. ';
ex ::)0(..",,,.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM
4/25/2007
Page 3 of5
to refrain from participation following the disclosure. Once the recommendation was passed to
another governing body of the city, representing the client for a fee would not be prohibited.
Colin Swales
******************************************************************************
Thank you
Martha
>>> "Colin Swales" < colinswales@gmail.com> 04/18/07 8:54 AM >>>
Martha,
While it would seem the ethics ordinance is once again delayed, I note that
the Council appeal on *PA# 2006-02354* is scheduled for a public hearing at
the next Council meeting.
Is it possible (before that meeting) to have a response from Staff to this
request (below) that I am resending.
thanks
Colin
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Colin Swales <colinswales@gmail.com>
: Date: Mar 22, 2007 9:13 AM
Subject: Request for GSPC opinion on possible ethics violation
To: Martha Bennett < bennettm@ashland.or.us>
Cc: John Morrison <morrisoj@ashland.or.us>, Cate Hartzell <cate@mind.net>,
Eric Navickas < ericnavickas@hotmail.com>, David Chapman <
davidchapman@ashlandhome.net>, katejackson@opendoor.com, Alice Hardesty <
ahardesty88@charter.net>, Russ Silbiger <russcity@zintech.org>, Mike Franell
<franel1m@ashland.or.us>
Martha,
cc Council and City Attorney - (Forward as necessary)
I am writing regarding possible ethics violations during proceedings on
planning action 2006-02354
i The city recently received two letters on ethics from Historic Comissioners.
Quoting in part:
**
*"... **1 can imagine the potential for bias or conflict of interest between
members of the same commission...."*
Dale Shostrom, chairman of the Historic Commission
'I aJ., ~";'
f"':; ,~.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM
4/25/2007
*"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. (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 ofthe
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.
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, *1 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
,1/ ,":"
file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW} 0000 1.HTM
Page 4 of5
4/25/2007
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/ramgenl ashland/planning/pIanO 1-09-07 .rm
* *
."\ T,'f';;'
f{'~ <"",
J ,/""",,' .,}
file://C:\Documentsand Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}ooOOI.HTM
Page 5 of5
4/25/2007
Page I of2
David Stalheim - Request for CouDell to Appeal P A# 2006-02354
From:
To:
"Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmai1.com>
"John Morrison" <morrisoj@ashland.or.us>, "Cate Hartzell" <cate@rnind.net>,
<katejackson@opendoor.com>, "Eric Navickas" <ericnavickas@hotrnai1.com>, "Russ
Silbiger" <russcity@zintech.org>, "David Chapman" <davidchapman@ashlandhome.net>,
"Alice Hardesty" <ahardesty88@charter.net>
3/14/2007 11:18 AM
Request for Council to Appeal PA# 2006-02354
"David Stalheim" <stalheid@ashland.or.us>, "Richard Apicello" <appicelr@ashland.or.us>,
"Martha Bennett" <bennettrn@ashland.or.us>, "Barbara Christensen"
<barbarac@ashland.or.us>, "Mike Pranell" <franellm@ashland.or.us>
Date:
Subject:
CC:
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 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 fmal 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
A #
file://C:\Docurnents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM
4/17/2007
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.
Respectfully
Colin Swales
file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM
/"" \ "...1
<"1 ,I?! ~J.. ..'~
~. i":/' t'
4/17/2007
Page 1 of 1
David Stalheim - FW: No. Main I Glenn St Mixed-Use Project
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Raymond Kistler" <raymond@mind.net>
"'David Stalheim'" <stalheid@ashland.or.US>, <boswellb@ashland.or.us>
4/25/2007 3: 1 0 PM
FW: No. Main 1 Glenn St Mixed-Use Project
Billie and David,
Per your request, I am submitting the following time line regarding working with Tom Giordono:
I had not talked to Tom Giordano about this No. Main project nor any other project for the last few years prior to
going before the Historic Commission for their September, 2006 meeting in which he attended.
I then hired Tom Giordono to help me write the Findings of Fact for the Planning Commission Submittal the first
week in November of 2006.
Earliest records of correspondence I have of speaking with Tom regarding this property was December 8th, 2006.
I did not realize I was going to be asked to go before the Historic Commission again for this project because it
earned unanimous approval and accolades.
At the next Historic Commission Hearing in December, Tom Giordono excused himself and left the premises
during that hearing when my project was brought up.
Tom has not been in attendance at any Historic Commission Hearing when my project was being discussed since
I hired him to write the Findings of Fact for the No. Main project.
Also, to clear up 2 other false accusations during the previous (3) Planning Commission Hearings regarding this
project:
1) I do not own the lot to the south in order to expand my project onto as falsely testified by Colin Swales.
I have never owned that property, or been offered to buy that property. I have no idea why such an accusation
was conceived.
2) Mr Lang/Swales also falsely testified I have designed and worked behind the scenes on 2> other projects
(Butler Hillview and Siskiyou Eye) with City Planners Molnar and Harris on No. Main St.
I have never had any discussion with any City Staff regarding these 2 projects before.
Again, I have no idea why such an accusation was conceived.
Thanks,
Ray
Raymond Kistler
Kistler Architecture
2025 Butler Creek Rd.
Ashland, OR 97520
ph/fax/cell 541-488-8200
e: Raymond@Mind.net
l,'j
. 1 "', (.,,~
,:';' ~ (~_ s;
file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM
4/25/2007
CITY OF
ASHLAND
RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2006-02354
SUPPLEMENT A
SUBMITTALS TO THE COUNCIL
PLANNING ACTION: #PA2006-62354
SUBJECT PROPERTY: North Main Street & Glenn Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Raymond J. Kistler
DESCRIPTION: Appeal by the Ashland City Council of the Planning Commission decision
to approve a request for Site Review approval to construct a two-story office building located on the
vacant parcel at the southeast comer of the intefSection of N. Main St. and Glenn St A
Variance is requested to allow a 10-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. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGN A TION: Employment
ZONING: E-1 (with Residential Overlay) ASSESSOR'S MAP#: 391E 05 DA; TAX LOTS: 3600.
Date
4-18-2007
4-18-2008
4-24-2207
3-14-2007
4-25-2007
4-18-2007
Item
Submittal from Ray Kistler
Submittal from Jerome White
E-mail from Colin Swales to Martha Bennett
E-mail from Colin Swales to Council - Request to Appeal
E-mail from Ray Kistler to David Stalheim
E-mail from Lloyd Haines
Paae #
A-1 - A-15
A-16 - A-20
A-21 - A-25
A-26 - A-27
A-28
A-29
rna;:~~ra"~6risie~6's~~.:J~72.pd! ....
... ~'
,'{.:.x ~,
. .:,~:'~:::..:":...'=:',
,p,' ':: .. ':
f-""'." "~-'P""'~_'.''''~'''''''~_'pm"_,wp'_,~"_,_",,,,~~,,~,,..:.,__~,. .,_,.,.,_...,.
t~,~~!2.L~_7!~:M!y~~ hearin9!~~t s~~l:\9.!L.....~,P'_"P"""'_'"
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
David Stalhelm
Susan Yates
4/18/2007 3:21:58 PM
Fwd: May 1st Council hearing/20 foot setback
To include in the packet
>>> IIoyd haines <lIoydmhalnes@yahoo.com> 4/18/2007 2:46:25 PM >>>
David Stalheid
Planning Director
City Ashland
Dear David.
I will be unable to attend the hearing on May 1 st.
2007, and would like this e-mail entered into the
record.
I am a downtown property owner and my address is 96 N.
Main, Ashland. I support removing the 20 foot setback
requirement from the code and codifying what has been
the downtown building standard for many years.
I have designed and constructed several building using
the downtown standards. which has the building sited
near the sidewalk. This creates a aesthetically
consistent street scape with the other historic
downtown buildings.
The Shasta Building, my latest project, was designed
using the downtown standardS(building close to the
street)and the historic commission has recognized the
building for its historic compatibility. The building
would have looked absurd if it were set back 20 feet.
Thank you for considering this testimony.
Sincerely,
Lloyd Haines
.. :: P. ...':-. .....:. ........"....=..............p..........a....... g,..........e...........................1........'.....
..::.:.....:.....::..: _..::.........h _ ..." .....]
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED FOR
PLANNING ACTION #2006-02354
EXHIBITS #01-26
-- .-------- _._----~-_.~-----~-,--~------_.~ ----._--. - ---_.~---
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
EXHIBIT #21-2007
DVD of 1/9/07 and 2/13/07 Planning Commission Meetings was
incorporated into the official record kept by the Planning
Department.
~"~
.J . ~.,~:--. 7i:. ,;
. ,,' . . .. '! :. '
,. ~:. ';~. 'c'
.--'.. ...
),': '\
~::.d.
EXHIBIT #22-2007
DVD of 1/9/07 and 2/13/07 Planning Commission Meetings was
incorporated into the official record kept by the Planning
Department.
-.>'" ,.' l,~
j
-
~
'"
, r
I
J
I
I
i
I
I
I
l __,_ ,_____
RUTII M. MILLER
PIIILIP C. LANG, LC5W
:~l.;t;~~J:::-'
758 B elreel · Ashland, Ore8on 97520
Residence · 482-8659
Office/fax · 48'2-5387
E-mail · philip@mind.nel · rulh@mind.nel
May 9, 2007
To: City Council
Re.: Appeal of PA2006-02354 (also known as Pa2007-00090)
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY AT MAY 9 COu~CILMEETING
1. At the February 13, 2007 PC meeting and again at the Council meeting
of May 1st, Mr. Kistler refers to "these people" who would be
appealing even if he designed the building with a 20' setback.
This is de-humanizing and demonizing those who oppose his develop-
ment. You are invited to believe that there are no real issues _
just "bad people" who are "causing trouble".
If Mr. Kistler sitedhisi1bui:Lditl1g according to the law, he would
never had any opposition from me or anyone else.
2. AMC l8.l00.e20-variances has 3 conditions:
(1) Unique or unusual circumstances. Slope has been cited. Applicant
states this is not a problem;other adjacent buildings have same
slope. There are no standards for what constitutes a slope that
justifies a variance (John Stromberg brought up this point at
the 2/13/07 PC meeting.
(2) Proposal benefits greater....The proposal benefits are no greater
than if the project conformed to law. The proposal's benefits
are worse in that they circumvent the OnOT requirement for setback
to allow for bringing Main street into safe confirmity with law.
(3) The circumstances have not been wilfully imposed. Clearly they
have. After the 1st PC meeting and about a week before the 2/13/07
meeting, Mr. Kistler called me to inform me that he had re-designed
the building to conform to law. This was done quickly and easily.
Obviously the "circumstances" calling for a variance were simply
willful - i.e. solely his desire to have the building his way.
3. Historic Facade. Bill Street in his 5/1/07 corrected the issue of
historic facades - pointing out what they were and are: 20'/
The issue of "conflicting ordinances was only raised after the
project was opposed. Staff went through a long and slavish process
of drawings, photos, arguments, etc. in favor of the development on
this basis in their Addendum of 2/13/07.
>L~ ~\1.a\- 1st Ct/. ~,-i: iile.(-:t_lng, ~'ifr
~::"al.ne1ili ",u,;lt: clear to you
Testimony - May 9, 2007 - PA200~0234 - p. 2
At the May 1st Council meeting, Planning Dire~~or Stahlheim made
clear to you that the 20' setback is 'primary - "hard and fast"
and takes precedence over historic guideline considerations.
4. What's going on here? The applicant appeals to you on the basis of
your power to set forth a "vision" based on "community values".
Your power to do so consists in passing land use ordinances like this
one and emforcing' ,th~.'[f they seem outdated t11en they can be
changed through a public, democratic process. They should not
be abrogated through case-by-case demands.
What the applicant - and other speculators/developers are saying
is that their economic "vision" or aesthetic "vision!! is superior
to the law and that you should put your imprimatur on this stance.
That is not democracy in creating or enforcing laws - it is preferential
o ligarqhy.,
~
PHILIP C. LANG
QUTtl M. MILLEQ
PtlILIP C. LANG, LCoW
. cc;t111~-:"J~'
758 B otreel · Ashland, Oreson 975'20
12esidence · 48'2-8659
OfficelFa\. · 48'2-5387
E-mail · philip@mind.nel · ruth@mind.nel
}!ay 9, 2Q07
Re.: Evidence for Appeal Hearing - PA2006-02354
I am submitting the RVTV tape of the PC meeting of 2/13/17.
I will be playing the 1st few seconds of Mr. Kistler's rebuttal on
that date.
Here is an exact transcript of his (additional) verbatim remarks
in his rebuttal with respect to requesting/needing a variance:
"I want to be really up front: I don't need a variance".
"It wasn't ever about needing a variance~it wasn't about the slope of the
land".
"I have an alternate design - no hard feelings".
"If not granted a variance it isn't going to make it so that the lot
remains empty; I have an alternate design".
"The unique circumstances of thms lot were not the slope, to me".
Historic Sanborn Maps - Ashland 1949
According to the Nation Register of Historic Places Academy Skidmore District:
"...PeriodofSignificance: 1850-1874,1875-1899,1900-1924,1925-1949
According to George Kramer's application this is denoted by the building in 1949 of
Briscoe School. (See Map 24)
The following Maps ( although incorrectly dated 1928) are the 1949 Sanborn Fire Maps
showing the buildings existing at that time.
A line denoting 20 ft Special (arterial street) Setback Requirement (per ALVO 18.68.050)
is shown in Blue. The Historic setbacks from the arterial street to the "front walls" or
''facades'' (per SDVS N-C-4), as of that date, (1949) are shown in Red.
Subject property 20 ft setback line from lot boundary(ROW)
Historic setback
~ ---r
~
\\~~ _." ""....
@, - f'"'("" .
\ '"
, ~
/.,-
.:\ .
\, -"
\? .
... ...
'--"~
~
~
I
~
"
..
.~
.-
~.~~ ------
.1' J).---- _---:::...
.
.
.
..... \
'-."'\
" \
... ~-
1 I
I
-.--~.... J 1'!1 __-
.---
-----
___- <' iI" f
~~il T
-.-.'
City of Ashla:id
Planning Exhibit
Exhit.:L # 'J.I...l- 'X:Ol
p*--s!/.3~
~..r:.._~. _~:::!:.aff~
*Note: Architectural features such as porches, bay windows etc. that are allowed to
encroach into a setback, and are also not to be considered "front walls" are ignored.
5
~
' "
?-
G
m"
Q
~~"-"-,.,.,
~ . D
r~ii.' , ,,"
.
q
._lu:'t!'_ - - --- _ __ _ ____0________ ---____n__u MAPLE __ _<><<_ h_ _ h_."
. :
~
~j
--'---
15&
~
~
.S)
~
fEj
'.
159
~
-~
Go
B
~
~
"
<(,'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
~.
~.
,,,
.
.
8' 1Q
rJ :
t :II.:
tr
0~
"
1~
~
.
1~
o
,,'
B
.'
0~
, :
"'"
"
...
~
w
'.
..
~
Q
.
S
G
P7l.,
L.?
.
s
~
I
I
I
,
I
.
I
I
I
@f -61
...I !
..~
II
OJ
iii
01
!::!I
~I
",'
Ul\
j
-
.."
~P--.;.
~
ro" ~
~
-.
0'
71" :
I J_h-.J
COOLIDGE
"
o
~
liJ
,--.
ItI.!!,
Gi1
.I ,
. J
~: .' .. t> 4
OJJl · "Itlll.
;~,
.'
Eb
EJ
o
91
, :
~:
of___l"J
f7j
U
o
~
~
.'
1.1 ,.
ItA
~
WI
<.L_~~
50
5
Lf)
n
~
5'
..~)
('~
<i-\ '
~
.
.
.
.
~.
~;
I
.
.
I
~-'Sl-- ."'. --___nnn_______ - ---':!".!'.- -_uNURSERY-- - __ - - - - u_ --- _- __ n......-lii....
.
.
.
,
"~I
~
p;qj
~
. rill
rtJ
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
: -1liI
.
I
,
.
: r:-r/1 .
I~
",:'W LI_.LI Il 5{J'
- 4"w,1' . L1/I. ISI ,. '::_ ..<<'...Nf... ___ _____.....__.... :::-.1oiiii' ...
"f - ------------8~---.---------------u if 'ViIT........
i r 11
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\
'.
'" .
..
00 .-'
A ~._._.. .
I' " 8-"---' ....,
.' .
~........ ~
... ...... Scal. of reet. .
-u___m___o!.),"__~~.;;~_.' ..,:. ~
" I ",:-r
.
E:;)
"..
t=J G
~
~
GG
..
6 \6
LJ
~;~
2
'I'e
~~
l
IK/
iliA
~. J )...
(NIl r 0".")
,~&",
'Pi'
~
-:::
8 ~ OBERUN
711
~ ~
...
~ D
~
... 77,
.'0 K.
0 EJ
, 71 D 1j
,.
I
I,
"
"
"
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
.
,
0-:
-. ~:
"
,
~I :
-,
,
'.J
.....
'II:
'::>
'e
: ...
i
! : bi
-=-i ~
--... ----...... __ __ __............... __..___J_... ____
;, :Ii!l
~
7
~
~
~
....
--
I1f
~
.0:
0 7
.
0.e
· LITHIIf
10
': B,,"Qr, ,
d.,,..,., m'
....,."..... .'
. ,
, f11
~
.
,
,
.
.
~ :
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
. 10'
" J
...
...
.
......,,_.._~._.__.~!'..~.._....._'"
~
a .'
CENTRAL
~: Ii!l 1t
E"""",,'
y......#1
8e" D Nil
,....,,-
2~:::F
-;,&
're' "
h_
----
(
H
f
12 rii. .
'54 h ':
f'~tr~l.--r
: ~l_j-'
. ..
~ ~:
~: ~:
I II
I "
~ft}" I
-7, ~_"
!
c- ~!.
:~
~.
,
.
,
.
:
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
~.
~.
\:
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
:
,
.
:
,
.
.
,
I
I
,
.
Ii __._~o
, .,
I I
I I
W I
, =~D:
t__ .!
- __J
.. I
..,.,,,,,,,,,,.Aru _
"
.'
N_"~;;:;;;#
0_71' .a.__..
__ or,.=;
4
FIR ,M/llfNG & PLANINGCPJNC,
:::=.-::- _,:,..:":'D:': La
:,p~ ~",;.,~::!:s~-i;f:;j:~
- -----
-- c_ _r~~~~~=~j
4uur _ ftH_
6_""'0
c
0(
C
0:
. ';'1:: ;. ) 500 j
~:; __~' __'_E~""'.
--
--
-- . .;;...",..".
....<..~~ L.:J
'-
.....
.......................
--
'-
--
J
:;
I&l
.J
.J
OJ
GI
11
._~
~
HIGH
"1<j
15'
UlI PDND
~
P".'
'"
(8
r--~
, ,I
7J
t OurSIDE tY Co.
'RPIJ~"TE bA,UrS
11 I. " , ,
, . ~ AfItLING & ~N;';:'"
f"'~31!r~1 '6'a1.,/NC.
[lJ
IS'
".
"'.... _.u__~_I!!'J'_ .ALMOND - -
~
~
U
~_.f!
~
~ rJ c:J.t;.~
Pol CD '
~ . J
11
~
~
;.-,~ .'." .'~ .(:\
6!~'Y; ~
.:-.--.._,--....~,,-
.,
//
<<
(SCENIC
DRIVE)
'. . H. 5<.,.~! r..t - ."!.
~
,
,
,
.
,
~
,
,
.
,
I
.
I
,
~~ 13
.
I
l
I
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
~.,;:;:-:;;,- /
,
~
,
'.
.:'Q~
",.';:;:-;;;"".. i
.'
,
'il .
.f -r
~.~ ~
.. ' ,
,
0. ,
,
. ,.J
....
'll:
~ '::J
I'"
'.J
,. ' :
,
. ,
,
,
.
8 , .....
.
CD \ .
, .
,Ill
:
B ,
.
,
: D. , ,
rn , 14
!
.
.
fJJ J
, ~
D I I
I. .: I
(] r
I
I t!lJ'
.
,
,
~ .-..- ---
I
,
,
10
.J
I&l
0:
- -::J'
0(
.J
!
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
"
I
,
"
<'
~
!.
8:L"!'~~-.-
: ~
..... I~M
.~ ~__ Uu
, ----
:C,.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
I
.
.
\
"
~
~
(<67'
13
~- 55
.
"-
o
-,
o
~
.
.
,IN
I
I
I
.
i,
ej B
. ......
~4 ~ LB-,:'
.
.
D
~
I~
.
.
:<<,' ~
.~_-'ll
eJI'. --.....
8
17
.,
t!! --.
~,jrJ'M1'J' ,,-~
,.. ' I
~
Ni,
I a; .
'11-;'.'
'-9'<_..._s-....~"'......
~.
~
( ..," f
,<D'
241.~.
24
.rJ<<~ 25 ALIO,.. -H' AVn.... __. _ --- - -.." --..--. f.."!'__ -,
....----..----,...... -....---....-----..--....- --~....-,... - f.'i)"
-
68
\.
..
~:
..........a....
.......;:"r~....:
.
,;
;::
'-~~
~~
.
.
.8'
i):
: oJ.
~19
,.
..
':
SCHOUt.
Ii IV QU NOS.
~'
.
.8'~
.
CEM~TEHY
SHE:RW,..N
/
~8a~ ~
~ ~ DO'S
C2J
..
~
~
G
F-'..
.
258
.. ;
\
r;j~
J 0 ~\;J CfJ'JJ ~
'---~ ~
~
-<
..J
III
-'"". - ow ow. -... _ __ h... __ --OE:WEY.. .-:"'J'..... u"ll'-'~
. ~:
o
o
~
' D
; 'i!,
0-. ~
... CD
~. "'-
e
iF\
b
~ ./
I:
t
/!
.' I
... \
....... .. 8' ... -I.....
.<<N # \
Sq'
MORTON
I
I
.....
riJj
~
B w 9""7. ~
~ [j ~N
J7 ...: ..,
, '
it: il__L L--
I
../23
....w --. __ ..-.. -..-- @'-.il--
.
.~~'/a... ;r.
/ .~J
...~
i1[':_::':~.
,
:
r
/f
c.
I~~o
,o~ ~~
~~~ 61~2-018 ~~~
10B-6-20 .~
'(/
~ ,
I
95-10751
L'(,I07J :ltIIU"O-1--~
WAUAHTY DUD
S. VICTOR LIVELY and CLAUDIA L. LIVELY, hu.band and wife, Grantor., for the true and
actual conlideratJon of S ~ "~ nn do convey unto the STATE OF OREGON, by and
throuah it. DIPAlTKKNT OF TlAHIPOITATION, Grantee, fee title to the followinl de.cribed
property.
PAJlClL 1 - Fee
A parcel of land lyinl in Lot I, Block 12, ASHLAND, Jack.on County,
Orelon and beinl a portion of that property de.cribed in that deed to S.
Victor Lively and Claudia L. Lively, recorded a. Document No. 92-06998 of the
Official Record. of Jack.on County I the .aid parcel beint that portion of .aid
property included in a .trip of land variable in width, yinl on the
Northealt.rlr .id. of the centerline of the relocat.d 101U. Vall.y Hi&hway,
which center ine i. de.crib.d a. follow..
Befinninl at Inlineer'. c.nterlin. Station 106+40.69, .aid .tation b.inl
1299.'8 e.t North and 337.76 feet la.t of the Northwa.t corn.r of Lot 4 of
S.ction " Townlhip 39 South, Rani. 1 la.t, W.M.I thanc. South 280 09' 18"
Ealt 832.40 reet to Enline.r'. c.nt.rline Station 114+73.09.
The width in fe.t of .aid .trip of land i. a. follow..
Station to Station Width on North.a.ter~ lid. of Centerline
113+60.00 114+00.00 80.00 In a .tral t 11n. to 36.00
114+00.00 114+73.09 36.00 in a .traiaht line to 34.00
Bearinal are baled on Survey No. 10319, r.ceived July 24, 198' in
Jacklon County, Or'lon.
Thi. parcel contain. 196 Iquare f.et, mora or 1....
Grantorl alia .rent to Grentee, it. lucce..or. and ...ian', . p.rman.nt ...~A.nt t~
con.truct and maintain .lope., and to relocate, con.truct and maintain water, 1'4,
.lectric and communication .ervic. line., fixture. and facilitie., and appurteT.ance.
therefor, upon, over, throuah, and acro., the followinl de.cribed property I
PARCEL 2 - Pera&Dent Eaa...ut for Slop.., Water, Gal, Electric and
('--~ication Service Line., Fixture. and Facilities
A parcel of land lyinl in Lot 1, Block 12, ASHLAND, Jack.on County,
Oregon and beinl a portion of that property de.cribed in that deed to S.
Victor Lively and Claudia L. Lively, recorded a. Docu.ent No. 92-06998 of the
12-16-94
RETURN TO
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RIGHT OF WAY SECTION
417 TRANSPORTATION BLDG.
SALEM, OREGON 97310
Account No.1 1-56031
Property Addrelll 492 N. Hain
~i... . .
1,,"'1:
..}:_~
~ .~. .r
:;~.,
l'
~::.
---,--
:~
.....~~~
". . If~~.:
.'..1....-:.
.....,. ..
'\~.
,.
."
c
r.
"-.,:
ODOT
File 6192-018
108-6-20
< ,
~
,
95-10751
Official Record. of Jack.on County; the .ald percel belnf that portion of .aid
property included in a .trip of land variable in width, yina on the
Northeasterlr .ide of the centerline of the relocated Joaue Valley Hiahway,
which center in. i. de.cribed in Parcell.
The width in f..t of .aid .trip of land i. a. follow..
Station to Station Width on Northea.ter~ Side of Cent.rline
~~ 114+73.09 ~0.00 In a .tral t 11ne to 37.00
EXCEPT therefrom Parcell.
Thi. parcel contain. 182 .quare feet, more or 1....
IT IS UNDERSTOOD that the ea.ament herein aranted do.. not convey any right, or
interest in the above-de.cribed Parcel 2, except for the purpo.a. .tat.d harein, nor
prevent Grantors Crom tha u.a of said prop.rty; provided, how.v.r, that .uch u.e .hall not
be permitted to interfare with tha riaht. herein aranted or andanaar the lateral .upport
of the hiahway, or to interfara in any way with the ralocation, con.truction, and
maintenance of said u~ilitie., and their appurtenanc.., a. arentad herainabove.
Al.o the right. of tha ownar. of any ralocatad utiliti.. .ha11 be the .ame a.
previou.ly exi.ted in that portion of the utilities beina reloceted.
IT IS ALSO UNDERSTOOD that thi. ea.ament .hall be .ubject to the .ame condition.,
tlrm. and restrictions contain.d in the ea.amant., licen.e. and/or permit. aranted to the
owners of any Cacilitia. b.ina relocated.
IT IS ALSO UNDERSTOOD that Granton .hall not place or enct any building. or
structure. upon the easement area without the written con.ent of Grantee.
IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD that nothina herein contained i. intended to create any
obligation on the part of Grantee for the maint.nanc. of .aid utilitie..
Grantors covenant to and with Grant.e, its 'UCc...or. and a..ian., that th.y are the
owners of all the above-described property which i. fr.e from encumbrance., except for
easaments, condition., and re.triction. of record, and will warrant the property herein
conveyed and the easement right. herein gr&nted from all lawful claim8 whatsoever, except
as .tated herein.
12-16-94
Paae 2 - WD
,;";>
~;, "
.t>.
, 'I.":~.!
} \
.....1.
;.'7:
::;~
...~..
. ',':':'-z
:'{:f
:;';?:=:.
,~'i:
~--,.m
':'~:?':.',
..;,
. ::W:'
, ;~"
./. ~ .'.-/..;.:
. '.'.'r.-;
.."..?;..
.1" ..,.....
. \ ., ... .
. . - ..
. :. ~
,~ - ".'"" . .
r
'..
r
\......'
OooT
File 6192-018
10B-6-20
95-10751
Grantors agree, the consideration recited herein is jUlt compensation for the
property, including any and all damagel to Grantorl' remainina property, if any, which may
relult from the acquisition or ule of laid property and tbe conltruction or improvament of
the highway.
nus rNSTKUKENT WILL NOT ALLOW USI or 1111 PlOPDn DISClIBID III THIS INSTRUMENT
IN VIOLATIOt' OF APPLICABLE LAND USI LAWS AIID IlGULATIONS. BEFOU SIGHING Oil ACCEPTING
'0111 I NSTlUKZNT . 1111 PIUOH ACQUIIlING FIB TITLI TO TBI PROPDn SBOULD CIlIa WIm 1111
APPIlOPIIATI CITY Oil coUtn'Y PLANliING DIPARTHIIIT TO VOln APPROVED USIS AND TO DITDHlNl
ANY LIHITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST rARHIIIG Oil FOIlIST PIACTICIS AS DIFIIIID II 01S 30.930.
It i. underltood and aaread that the delivery of thi. deed i. hereby tendered and
that term. and obligation. hereof Ihall not become bindina upon the State of Oreaon
oerartment of Tran.portation, unle.. and until accepted and approved by the recording of
th I document.
Dated thh
:rvt day of
df'.u~
STATE OF OREGON, County of J&ekson
April 5 , 19~. Perlonally appeared the above named S. Victor Lively
and Claudia L. LIvely, who acknowledaed the fore oinl their voluntary
I
act.
Before me.
Colllllinion
_ OF"'CIAl'~
. 'ATRICIA ORA'
NOT AAY fIUIUC . 0Ae00ec
CO.....18SlON NO.olll10
MY OO.....SSIOH EXPIAa MIE V. I.
12-16-94
Pase 3 - WI>
adl
JocUon County, Oregon
Recorded
OFFlOAL RECORDS
::/0 'APR 241995 f M
lCA THLHN S. afCKm
Ji a.ERK ond RECORDER
~(/~~ o.pl/fy
_ ______I
:.~:
:{,
. iX,',
l
~.
J'
.-
. ,
....
.11'....
.: .:.".,;",
~:_~~,,~:~~.~~(~;.. ..~;l..~~~ '1~\: '.: .
-.
", '"I'.
i\/
.1
FUe No. 25800
\ \.~
vol.~atl_Paga_~~~
I'
t.
~.
41 (iGZ7
PE/lMANENT SLOPE EASEMENT
KNCW ALL MEN BY THF.SE PRESElITS, That )JI",.", r /t'..'d F,;/J
/ I
a )V; cIo vV grantor -' tor the consideration ot the
r
i:
I.
I
~
I
i
,J.
sum or 1/1I;-fl/ d~~ .,,,/
--- '7- /'';~I
to 6apaid, haS granted
{Y.J~ ~J
---.----DollArs,
and do hereby grant to the State ot Oregon, by and
through its state H1&hway Colllllisdon, a perpetual right and easement. t.o construct.,
mintain, repair and have free accees to all slopes of cuts or fills, occasioned
~
...'!i',
t','.
r'
!~.:
.~.
by or resulting tram the conetruct.ion, operation or mintenance of a public street
'.,
or h1&hway and appurtenances, upon!iJe tollowing dsscribed premises, to wit:
A parcel of land J,ying in Block 12, Or1&inal Town of Aehland,
also in Section 5, Township 39 Sout.h, Range 1 East, W. M., Jackson
County, Oregon; the said parcel being described ae tallows:
Beginning at Enginesr's center line Station 1J4-+88.68 on the
center line ot the relocated Pacific H1&hway, 88id Station being
3464.2 feet South and 2104.1 feet East of the North quarter corner
of said Section 5; thence North 680 DB' 30" Eaet, 30.19 feet to a
point on the NortheasterJ,y line at Main Street and the true point
at beg~; thenoe NorthwusterJ,y along said NortheasterJ,y line
100 het, more or leu, to the SoutheasterJ,y line of Glenn Street;
thence Northeasterly along said Sout.heaetarly line 5 re~t to a
line which is parallel to and 35 feet 'Northeaeterly of eaid re-
located center lU1e; thenoe South 280 20' 3()11 East parallel to said
center line 100 teet, more or less, to a point which bears North
680 08' 3()11 East from the trus point of beginning; thence South
68;~ OS' 30" West 5.03 feet t.o t.he t.rue point of beginning, excepting'
the southerly 40' of the above described parcel. '
The parcol of land to which this description applies contains
360 eqllare teet, IWre or less..
The consideration herein named shall be conet.rued to include
full compensation for all claims for damges by reason of changes
of grade, under OIlS 373.040.
IT IS EXPRES.,~:ii:r UNDER3TOOD thiit this clE.66iiiCilt does r40t convay a...17 right, title
or int.erest to t.he aurface of the soil, nor any other rights except those expressly
st.at.ed :In this easelllllnt, nor prevent. grant.or_ from the full use and dolll1nion
thereover, l'rovided, however, that such use shall not be permittod to damge or
..,.~~~......... ".''''' :-"'"~::-~ .-,.,.-::...."'"'r--..~ --......."''If''''..~. '~-:~"1'2 "'.->:, ~~ ~"n,""-r~:: C;i'l''', ;r.,,-.':~C-;[o'"'__'-
" .
>J__':Y.~'
. -~ -rr-~,- - .
I"~
__!:U:!l! ,.
\' .
:, '
",.1I4~~-",",",.,,:~~~~~~"-:,:t:"~.
i','.:: . ",?J'i''''''
,.', ,"'1_
. .'.;' -.~
~ . .... .
~;' ~ ,.",~"-=-;r"~:~"?
'f~'~-
-,
-.- ~~
"~-'-
h-.
I
- ---- --. -!
f
I
- i
-t._
(,
~....
. .
~'~~:
'~'.~ .
.1
I
i
I
l.t.). lii~ I
II -.I'::.JI (
ir~r'~~
I
I
I
i
i
,;1
I...
'.-,-
I
i
~1'
I~
! \
i
,
I
;,
I
I
I
I
i
i,
!
I
.J
,../, ...:,~.., '
,r'r-'
~ :
\
I
(l:-'
'f lGG2';' 'Vol. 434 Pag9 269
destroy lateral support to the highway, and provided further that nothiiig-iiereirl ------
conte,ined shall grant to the State of Oregon, by and through its State Highway
Collllliseion, t.he right to excavate beneath exieting buildings or deposit fill
materials against exist.ing buildings above t.he t.op of the foundations t.hereof,
but it is understood and agreed that the State of Oregon shall never be required
to reJll)ve the dirt or other uaterials placed by it upon said property, nor shall
the State of Oregon be subject to any damages to the grantor_, ~heirs and
8ssigns, by re8son thereof, or by reason of the slopes constructed thereon, or by
reason of change of grade of the street or highway abutting on said property.
And
1:-
, the said grantor_ do hereby cov......r,t tv a.nd \lith the st"t",
of Oregon, by and through its State Highway Colllllission, that ~the OWlU'_
in fee simple of said premises; that they are free from all encwd>rances, and that
-1:.- will warrant and defend the elllM from all lawf\ll claiJDs whatoaever.
IN ~IlTNESS WHEREOF, -L- have hereunto set ~ hand_ and 8eal_ this
II. t:A.
O"tc6, ,-.
, 1956.
day of
Done in the presence of:
rJf&7 f #u(,l~U
(SEAL)
(SEAL)
STATE OF CIlEGON
~ ss
)
County or ;)f7~tf$"7?
On this -LL day of -Lt!f'/6~.u- , 1956, personally came before me a .
notary public in and for said county and stl.\te the within no.med /fla.';:(. If {ijdJ,....IJ
.... w'/~oYV -aM- , ~, to IIlll sona
known to be the identical person_ describsd in, and who execut.ed the withi..'l
.." ." instrUlllllnt, and who .-. personally :l.cknowlede~tl to me that .s.he_ executed the SalllB
,;:3::.~L:.~!~e~ and voluntarily for the uses and purposes therein named.
,~:':~:""t} 'l"A'f/ ~:t, i-ritnees my hand and official ssal the day and year last above written.
: .,~ {\~~ ~~i:\l;:..,/.:: e; \~; . . " .,,/ // d#
".::... ,,,w,\'" :';'~ }, t?-.L-n_F /'/' /?~.~
..'.... PUB \.. \ c.l c; , Notary Public for Oregon
<{~t~;i;.:~~~> M.Y colllllission expires: r;/ ,:P? ~~/~
rw/ -<I'.....
- ,"P'. >i.-'J<' ,"~'
, ;/)/o;c..,"
~. ~:"~','
.....-:.........
".>:'...~!~,~~~~-~~~~~~~!~.~~~~~~$~
'"
!:
j;
I--r-
. ~.
.' ".
~--,..=~-
~-=---
-,
i
{}'i ~ i
\i.:;::~r:,.,,:,i
''?,~ t." ~
,.1".......
I
.J
-. r--
. -.. I
"
,~\ ,~
(="~
t
~'
!
l
I Ii
i \
i
I
I
- -- -j,,-,--
\.
I
_'_'___"""(" "_'.h,
!
(. .
f,r"
,
I
r
!
r
,
I
I
~
I
I
I
I . 1~..
I'
.
I"
,'I
t
~i~
~.
. .......-.' . :j.. (>
r r .,.. ~,L_.=. '._~,:.::::':::::':-::'~-=:~:. '.~n~ ~~~=.:=:':.~~.:'~'~ ~'-"~".'-~'-'" .-., '-~~-~
'; ~,o __ "-'--~"-' '~----~'I'
! ( -- ~" \):-.. '
ri_-.,~1~,,~__ -:-.~_~-~ 00'-_-- _--:.. __,_=~ l~fo_i!: _ _ --:..,,' '-'~-''-~ '.. '=_'_0:-- j
~t.;:.. ' , ~ "'. - . , .', J~--'~\;j~;:
'~, ~~.~[_...: ~: ~ ~ -< }
j,._.,.'~",:', "";,_",,.," -."""'''-' ". " ,~'-::o_'.~':': ,-.. ," ,~_.__~,_....:::;""
--= .. . . ....,--~,._--~----~ . ~_......--~-
. L' CD;. ~_ ' . '. '. ~
~~'ij::"o '.~~. b" '..' "'. . ,,: ", '..
r . "'- ~,._,u~, ..h'_ .... .,.. '.',; ~,
E+::'=-::-' " .---,-.. '~~i.ff ... -'... .. ~ ~'-'-
lSi!I~~"""
G?~ ....:.:>~"
.1
L
f
I
,("
,~,.,
\
I"
\~ ..
~:, - --......" "'-""
,
I~,
,
4
.~. 1
...~..."~
\~~:'-1' '~'., \
.," If,: ;:i~ ,~~ I
~'::{jL", ~",,;'i:~'; i
~i..1rl\\~ Jr;' '~'~'~i
, ..J '. '\ ~ .
:~:I" I '
'0 :;t~: I
;~' I
-~,.",
..~ ""~'.' ,
"
"
,1;"
',"';
!,;
"
,/f..',~~
"-,....1.~~~,"";...~.~:,..,.._..~--~--'~.~~-:--------.-:;;-r.... ~~.........~
't.. ..t-,~ -~"....:_.~~_....-.-::-.~.,-~----'-~';--\~-'-",,,,,,,,,,,,, ........::_,~.......:... '- ,~"'""'
~. .. , "~~-::;;,,,". ",
nc:~-:-~ c. "~~ ~::~~-7~.~~'-' . ,~c,:._: -::-'~7 '-' ..~- c, .-e
!
, ,~ - "
-'Ir~ .'"'"--;......,~____.........~_
,~- r . ,
iS~
II",_~"':'" ,,'4' ,'''',..;.,
I. '.. . , ~ ..,
~~/.... :, /. ........... '":'>-;:-.':"""
I... '. ",
'.,~~~:,.~.\~V: ., :;~, '. '" . ';' ".< t ." .;.. , :"'. ... . __"
'h '. , .... ~.IfJ'4*11>" ,.'
\..~;~~~" ,t ,J1.: iJl.t~'~.J.l,~JrT..,. J~~m[[ ~. .. .. '- c. ' .'.". . ","':f~Y._, ':~-' ':"~";~"':
'W ,;.: .~: <,;.:::d;i;e/" '
''1~f=.:;~''~1:;<t.-).;.~.'-:'" , '~
"', ~\~~
~~,:
,~
.:.,-.-.--:.-.
!,
t ' ~~:'
", 'j-
,"
I
,
ti'
) 4-
r I ,
!
j r
I j'
! I ..
,.. f'
1-. I
..I
- '.\.
i:
i:
1.- .-....
.-"
..
',~,-_..:-: ,!;--.
r-......~....,.-~
-......-
-
: ~. ~.: '
Gmail- Tax lots and Aerial photos in Front Counter
Page lorl
Colin Swales <colinswales@gmall.com>
To: Keith Massie <massiekj@jacksoncounty.org>
Cc: Keith Massie <massiek@mindspring.com>
Keith,
Wed, May 2, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Often, the aerial photos and the tax lots outlines seem to be a bit out of sync in Front Counter.
e.g. on 391 E05DA 3500 the front (N.Main St.) of the taxlot should be just about at the back of sidewalk, yet
all the taxlots seem displaced somewhat to the SE when overlaid over the aerial photo.
Can you tell me roughly what is the offset discrepancy or margin of error between the two overlays, especially
at this site?
thanks
Colin
Keith Massie <massiek@mlndspring.com>
To: Colin Swales <colinswales@gmail.com>
Colin,
I believe that the spatial accuracy of the tax lots is Front
Counter's weakest point. The County Cartographers are on a five
year, state funded program to improve the spatial accuracy of the tax
lots. In an urban setting, the goal is +/- 3-5 feet. This location
is obviously more. It's best to use your visual imagination and
"mentally" move the tax lots so they line up with the more spatially
accurate aerial photo. You can see where the southern line of tax
lot 3500 should be a bit further south.
Wed, May 2, 2007 at 7:39 PM
Hope this explains things better.
keith
http://mail.google.comlmail/?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 1125 333 fedcda9d4&search=qu... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 1 of 22
G~ail
'talk\) BETA.
Colin Swales <colinswales@gmail.com>
Deluca v Kistler
1 message
Colin Swales <colinswales@gmail.com>
Draft
Wed. May 9. 2007 at 9:42 AM
I would like this public record of Planning Action 2002-106 (Deluca) to be part of the appeal packet for PA
2006-02354 (Kistler) for the following reasons.
1} Both sites are in Historic Districts and were previously occupied by historic homes.
1} The actions are similar in that the same historic commissioner is the agent for the applicant. In the Deluca
case he presented the action to Planning Comission and appealed it to Council (who reversed the PC denial).
The same commissioner, who also is, and was then, a sitting member of the Demolition Review Board also
applied and got approval for an emergency demolition of the original existing contributing historic home
occupying the site- thereby skirting oversight by both the demolition board and the historic commission.
2) In both cases Planning Commissioners were involved in the ultimate Council Appeal. In the Deluca case,
commissioner Kencaim represented the client before the Historic Commission. ( Kencairn's partner is a
member of the tree commission). In the Kistler appeal, commissioner Morris who voted with the majority of
the planning commission to approve the project, filed a challenge of Bias and Pre-Judgment against 2
councilors when that decisision was appealed by Council.
3} In both cases, Planning Staff vigorously advocated for approval of the project. In the Deluca case the PC
denial was rumored to be the first time in 20 yrs that they had voted aginst Staff reccomendadtions...but the
PC denial was overturned on appeal to Council, with Staff once again advocating for this Applicant}
3) In Deluca the setbacks of adjacent (abutting) non-historic buildings (neither were "facades", both being the
sides of buildings - although one was deemed to be located along the "front yard" .were used under AlUO
18.68.110 Front Yard-General Exception to get around for a need for a variance from the Arterial Setback
requirement. The Historic District in general (not in the immediate vicinity) was used to justify the distance
variance for the narrow distance between buildings, not the reduced front yard setback that violated historic
setback patterns. So in justifying the reduced front setback, the historic facade line of adjacent buildings was
completely ignored. "...General exceptions govems and allows using the adjoining properties to set the
average..." (adjacent? abutting?). I
In fact in the Council's Findings for Deluca, it was stressed that the project did comply with the arterial
setback...but only by averaging out ther adjacent abutting non-conforming non-historic properties:
"...We [Council] interpret the requirement in 18.68.050.A to mean what it says, "every yard abutting (East
Main Street) shall be measured from the special base line setbacks." When applying the general exception in
18.68.110.A, which we interpret is the appropriate section to apply to any front yard setback requirements,
whether on East Main Street or not, the same "yardstick" is to be used. In other words, the abutting
properties' yards are to be measured from the special baseline in determining what the average yard depth
is..... "
Conclusion
So for Deluca/Giordano, it would seem that when required, the Historic facade line as well as the standard 20
ft R-2 (historic only) setback requirement can be completely ignored in favor of the Exception to Front Yard
[ 18.68.110 ] - by using existing non-historic, non-conforming Special Arterial [ 18.68.050 ] setbacks to the
sides of more modern abutting buildings.
http://mai1.google.com/mail/?iF39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 2 of 22
But now for the Kistler/Giordano project Staff this time want to ignore the Arterial Setback requirement, ignore
the Front Yard setback Exception allowance possibility and instead claim a "10 ft average historic setback" to
allow Mr. Giordano to once again get everything his client desires. Except that, contrary to assertions by
Applicant and supporting Staff, the average historic setback is in fact a lot more than 20 ft....
Arbitrary and Capricious, or merely Prejudical and Discriminatory?
Colin Swales
bttp:/Iwww.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp? AMIQ=952
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Minutes
October 2nd, 2002
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Action 2002-106
Site Review & Front Yard Setback Variance
916 East Main Street
Ron Deluca
The public hearing opened at 7:12 p.m.
Giordano noted that he was involved with the project and needed to remove himself from the discussion. He
exited.
Knox presented the staff report. He noted that plans were displayed for the commissioners, and he explained
the location and the site's history. He pointed out that the site was 9,769 square feet in an R-2 zone, which
allows 3 units. He added that by providing affordable units and conservation density bonuses, the applicant
was able to increase the base density to 4.07 units. Knox noted that the proposal required two variances, one
for the front yard setbacks (10 feet for the porch and 15 for the house) and one for the separation between
buildings (which should be 18 1/2 feet but was proposed at 8 feet).
Knox stated that the front yard setback variance was likely not required as the pattern of the adjacent
properties was consistent with the applicant's proposal. He also explained that staff had proposed the
separate buildings in response to the applicant's initial proposal for one 4-unit building. Staff felt that the
separate buildings would break up the streetscape and better suit the context of the neighborhood.
Knox went on to explain that the neighborhood average for building separations is around 11 feet, and he
cited newer developments such as Clay Creek Gardens where the separations are nearer to 8 feet. He stated
that there was a great streetscape here and noted that staff was supportive of the requested variances.
Knox explained that staffs biggest concern was with the main unit's pediment volume, which is 15 feet from
the street. Knox suggested that this is too massive for the context, and he hoped for some direction from the
commission to reduce this volume. Knox noted that pony walls might be a solution.
Leighton questioned why several neighbors had called this item up to a public hearing. Knox noted that one of
the main concerns cited was with parking, and he emphasized that the applicant was meeting parking
requirements. Leighton questioned the parking situation with the alley, and Knox responded that the
neighbors parking within the alley right-of-way was illegal. He recognized that use of the alley was important.
Chambers agreed that the alley congestion was a concern, but he stated that he was not sure if it was at
issue here.
http://mail.google.comlmail/?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/912007
Gmail- DeLuca v Kistler
Page 3 of 22
Skibby asked how the alley was being impacted; Knox responded that the alley would be widened at the
parking area and there would not be a repeat of the illegal alley encroachment created here. Knox noted that
the illegal parking within the alley right-of-way could result in citations being issued.
Rick Vezie/208 Oak Street #204/Agent for the Applicantcited his familiarity with this project since early 2000.
He explained that he had performed the preliminary planning on the project prior to Giordano's signing on to
do the final design. Vezie emphasized the difficulty with getting an accurate perspective from a two-
dimensional drawing. He explained that the mass that Knox was concerned with would be less of an issue
when seen in a three-dimensional context, as the porch would break up the mass in the side elevation.
Vezie provided a photo looking east to the nearby apartment, and he cited the greater mass as an appropriate
step down from the apartment to the comer. He emphasized that this design addressed the apartments'
proximity well, and he suggested that it would be difficult to accomplish with a single-story as this would make
the apartment appear more massive. He stated that the mass here screened the neighboring residences from
the apartment, and he reiterated that the front elevation did not do justice to the design in the context of the
site.
Vezie noted that the use of knee walls would reduce the usable floor area, and he suggested that dropping
the roof would intrude upon the floor plan. He reiterated that the porch projection addresses the mass well
while allowing the structure to screen the apartment.
Vezie discussed both variances from an aerial photo, and suggested that both variances benefit the
streetscape. Vezie also discussed the history of setbacks in residential zones, and noted that the proximity of
homes to the street along B Street add to the sense of it being a neighborhood. He stated that on the site
being discussed, there is more to consider because of the bulk and scale involved. He suggested that he
would like to see some discretion in the ordinance, and he pointed out that the single-story unit's mass
lessens the feeling of proximity. He stated that he felt this to be less of a historic issue than one of
appearance, and he noted that the design did a good job of mitigating the proximity.
Vezie discussed the neighbors' requests for this hearing. He noted that the alley makes sense both for access
and for parking. He pointed out that the alley was currently gravel, but would be paved to 16 feet thereby
better defining its width. He also stated that the back-up dimensions required would widen it further. Vezie
emphasized that the design meets the requirements of the ordinance, and he also pointed out that the
ordinance provides a limit on the extra parking that can be provided.
At Leighton's request, project landscape architect Kerry Kencairn, of Kencairn Environmental Designs/545 A
Street, Suite #3, explained that grass-crete might soften the feeling of the parking lot/alley paving, but she
noted that it would look ragged and require a significant amount of maintenance. She suggested that grass-
crete was better suited to non-residential lots, and she noted that the maintenance required makes it a
resource-depleting solution.
Vezie concluded that he is critical by nature, but he emphasized that he was impressed with this design which
he found to be both appropriate to the historical context with the mass scaled down.
Alan Sandler/1260 Prospect stated that he felt this was a great design, though he was a little concerned with
the building proximity as it posed a potential fire hazard and lessened the open space between the units.
The publiC hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m.
Knox agreed with Vezie's comments, but suggested that a dormer might work to further reduce the massing
on the front elevation of the main unit. He emphasized that staff was hesitant to value interior space over the
massing on a prominent streetscape.
Skibby suggested that ventilation and window treatment might lessen the amount of blank space; he stated
that the windows as they were presented, with a lack of trim details, made the design seem heavier.
Saladoff stated that he found the building to be a good-looking one, but he suggested that the roof pitch could
be modified from 7/12 to nearer to 5 1/2 /12. He emphasized that if the setback variance were granted it
would make the proposed mass an encroachment on the streetscape. He also suggested that the porch
http://mai1.google.com/mail/?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 4 of 22
height might be altered to allow for changes to the upper window. Saladoff also questioned the big size
difference between the 2 units. Finally, Saladoff questioned whether the street trees proposed would
encroach into the yard. Kencairn responded that they would encroach, but the encroachment would occur at
30 feet in height to shade the yard.
Krippaehne concurred that the elevation was really massive, and she questioned if something could be done
with the gables to lower the 29-foot height. She suggested that the height could be reduced to match the side
roofs.
Chambers agreed that the mass could be reduced, and noted that it would be possible to add interest with a
hipped roof. He stated that this might require asymmetrical windows. Chambers pointed out that he has seen
a similar project improved this way by the same architect.
Vezie agreed that a band and gable details would further reduce the mass, and he noted that the applicant
could also look at roof options. He reiterated that there was a need to screen the mass of the apartments
nearby.
Steele suggested that the apartments were less important than the scale of this project on this site. She
stated that she was concerned with the size disparity between the two units. She noted that there was a need
to adjust the roof pitch in order to make the structures seem more related. Steele stated that she found the
second unit to be too high.
Chambers restated his preference for a hipped roof. Saladoff concurred with the need for a hip roof and/or a
change in roof pitch.
Vezie noted that the setbacks determined the placement of the buildings on the lot. He suggested that a hip
roof with a gable or dormer would reflect the porch and reduce the mass.
Chambers agreed and noted that the applicant could retain the current pitch by using a hipped roof.
Knox suggested that these revisions could be approved by the review board and staff, with the commission
accepting the project tonight with the understanding that the would be some re-working of the design in order
to mitigate the mass of the second story's front facade. He emphasized the need to let the applicant address
this reduction without micro-managing the project.
Chambers summed up discussions, noting that the commission had an issue with the mass of the second
story but could accept the space between the unit, the tree removal, and the size of the smaller unit.
Leighton stated that she found the variances to be self-imposed, and that she felt the applicant could get by
without the variance if they were not trying to build 4 units.
There was discussion of how affordable housing income requirements would be monitored on the affordable
units if the project were later converted to condominiums. Knox explained the city's affordable housing
requirements.
Leighton reiterated that while the project may fit city requirements, the variances were self-imposed. She
added that she likes the overall design.
Steele moved and Skibby seconded to approve this planning action with the proviso that the two-story unit be
redesigned to lessen its bulk and bring it into scale by reducing the roof pitch or using a hipped roof to
address the mass and scale. Voice vote: Chambers, Steele, Saladoff, Skibby and Krippaehne, YES. Leighton,
NO. Motion passed 5-1.
http://WWW-.-~~shland.or.us/~JJdas.asp?DisplaY:::Mil1utes&AMID=972
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
http://mail.google.comlmail/?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 5 of 22
OCTOBER 10,20002
MINUTES
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 20002
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair Mike Gardiner at 7:10 p.m. Other Commissioners present were
Mike Morris, Russ Chapman, Marilyn Briggs, Alex Amarotico, and Colin Swales. Ray Kistler arrived at 8:30
p.m. Kerry KenCaim was absent as she was involved with two of tonight's actions. John Fields was absent.
Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Maria Harris, Brandon Goldman and Sue Yates.
PLANNING ACTION 2002-106
REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-UNIT APARTMENT/CONDOMINIUM
COMPLEX. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 20 TO 10
FEET AND REDUCE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS FROM 12 TO 8 FEET. A TREE REMOVAL
PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE THE TWO TREES ON THE SITE.
916 EAST MAIN STREET
APPLICANT: RON DELUCA
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site Visits were made by all.
STAFF REPORT
Harris said this application has been administratively approved and subsequently called up by three
neighboring property owners. The applicant is proposing to construct three structures. All four units will be
two-bedroom and initially will be used as rental units. They will be built as condominiums and surveyed under
condominium ownership so that potential change is available in the future, should he decide to do that.
The access to the site from East Main is Blaine. There is a public alley on the west side of the site, providing
vehicular access to the site. The base density is 3.02 units. The applicant is requesting a 35 percent density
bonus, 25 percent through the affordable housing density bonus and ten percent is through conservation
housing, bringing them up to four units. One unit will be affordable under the City's affordable housing
program.
http://mai1.goog1e.com/maiV?ik=39899093 7a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/912007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 6 of 22
The applicant is providing 15 percent usable yard area, including decks, yards, or patios. There are seven off-
street parking spaces, as required. Six sheltered bike parking spaces will be provided.
The applicant is requesting a variance for the front yard setback. They are providing 15 feet to the face of the
buildings on each of the front buildings and ten feet to the porch on each structure. There is a provision of the
ordinance that allows, no matter where a property is, to look at the adjacent properties on each side of the
property and look at the setbacks that are used on the adjacent properties and average those. This way, the
historic streetscape can stay the same. In the past, Staff has interpreted this section of the ordinance that
both front and side yard can be used. The City Attorney agrees with that interpretation and also said it could
be upheld, if challenged. Technically, the variance isn't necessary for the front yard setback. Because the
average to the west is eight feet, according to the ordinance they could build the structures, as proposed on
the site plan.
The applicant is asking a variance for the special yard which is the distance between the two front buildings.
Eight feet is shown from the sides of the buildings from side to side. Staff believes they meet the criteria.
When Staff looked at the neighborhood using the aerial photographs and maps, the side yard setbacks range
from four to 26 feet and the average is 11 feet. It is Staffs opinion that it would be unusual to require that
large a setback when the historic development pattern in the neighborhood is a smaller setback. The benefit
is ending up with detached structures that are more compatible with the type of historic homes seen in the
neighborhood, not just in setback but in size and scale.
Harris reported there are two trees on the property. The Tree Commission reviewed and approved removal of
both trees. A report has been submitted by an arborist stating the English walnut has root rot and is losing
branches. Since it is in close proximity to the sidewalk, there are concerns about the tree being a public safety
hazard. Staff believes the incense cedar meets the criteria for the removal of a non-hazard tree. The Site
Design and Use Standard requires usable yard space. If the tree remained, it would interfere with the usable
yard space of either units 2 and 3 or the back unit and they would have to work around the tree. If the tree
were worked around, it could end up one larger structure. There would not be as much usable open space to
the rear of each unit. The second criteria is that is won't negatively impact erosion, soil stability, flow of
surface waters, and that there aren't any drainages or creeks on the property. The property is relatively flat.
The tree is isolated. Staff does not see an issue in removal. The third criteria discusses the negative impact
on tree densities within 200 feet of the subject property and species diversity. There appears to be evergreen
trees throughout the neighborhood. This is a relatively young tree and doesn't seem like it will effect the
canopy and density of trees in the neighborhood. Finally, mitigation is required. Condition 6 has been added
and the applicant has agreed to replace the cedar with an evergreen tree.
Harris showed the original design submitted. The Historic Commission had concerns about the design
meeting the Historic District design standard of bulk, mass and scale of buildings. They wanted to lessen the
impact toward the front of the property by making the mass and scale more subdued. Harris showed the
revised elevation. It is lowered two feet and they hipped the roof as suggested by the Historic Commission.
Staff is recommending approval with the ten attached Conditions. A minor change to Condition 6 is to delete
" ...of 1 1/2 inch caliper".
Briggs wondered if the setback is 15 or 16 feet. The application uses both. Harris said to clarify that with the
applicant. Her understanding it is 15 feet.
PUBLIC HEARING
TOM GIORDANO, 2635 Takelma Way, stated he has Laurie Sager with him who participated in the
landscape design.
Giordano said there is a great preponderance of benefit of this project versus some of the potential costs. The
primary benefit is the affordable housing unit. It is within walking distance to the downtown. Unit 1 will be the
affordable unit. The second benefit is the cottage design. The cottage concept works in the Historic District.
http://mai1.google.com/maiV?ik=39899093 7a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 7 ot 22
They are modest in size. Landscape is intermingled with the building envelope and appropriate to the district.
They are providing almost 40 percent landscaping.
Giordano believes Staff has adequately discussed the front yard setback. He believes the distance between
buildings was meant more for large scale developments, not for individual cottages. There is a lot of historic
precedence for the distance of eight feet. Some projects he has worked on are less than six feet (two-story
houses in single family residentially zoned property).
Swales said it seems that most of the vegetation is being scraped off. Sager said the cedar is in a place
where the density is being minimized if they left the cedar in place. That tree can be mitigated with other
trees. In that site, appropriately, a different tree variety would serve the residents better.
Amarotico moved to extend the meeting to 11 p.m. Briggs seconded the motion and it was approved
Briggs asked Giordano about the suggestion by a neighbor to put the taller buildings along the back. It would
look more compatible with the rest of the block. Giordano believes it will step down from the blue building on
the comer which is a bulky building. He looked at putting the two-story in the rear. One reason he did not is
because of the setback.
Briggs likes what he did with the roofline. Is the setback 15 feet or 16 feet? Giordano said it is both. It
depends on the comer.
Giordano said the porch is six feet deep.
Swales said with regard to the affordable unit, would the applicant be willing to have the house remain in the
affordable program for a long period of time? Molnar said they probably cannot get out of the affordable
program for 20 years and it binds subsequent owners.
JERRY QUAST, 431Parkside, submitted some information. His concerns include traffic, congestion, safety,
and parking. These are very unique and unusual circumstances in this area. There are apartments and a
business surrounding this area. There is a five-unit apartment complex to the west that has no off-street
parking. Quast owns the coffeehouse to the north. He also owns a rental across the street (8th and E. Main).
He believes the proposed development will compound the problems he mentioned. Dewey Street is already
overloaded because the apartment complex that surrounds the area doesn't have enough parking and the
overflow ends up on Dewey or the alley. The traffic on the alley will increase with this development. There are
already three to six cars parked on the proposed lot.
He would recommend that the applicant be allowed to have his ten foot setback, allow the variance between
buildings of eight feet, and allow for removal of the two trees, if the applicant keeps everything the same
about the project, including the six parking spaces and one handicapped space. Everything stays the same
except allow for the allowable density of three units for this property, with one being affordable.
LAURA PERLOFF, 164 Fifth Street, said her concerns have been expressed by Quast concerning, parking,
congestion, and granting variances. Perloff has appeared before the Planning Commission before and both
times the issues were related to parking. Both times, the variances were granted and she has lived with
experience of these decisions that ignore the fact that there are more cars, congestion and a lack of parking.
She believes the Commission needs to take a long view. Perloff does not agree that the setback should be
governed by averaging the mistakes of the past.
JOAN LANGLEY, 71 Dewey Street, wants to add her voice to those in opposition to the variances requested
on the alley between Dewey and Alida. She feels there is a very delicate balance in her neighborhood
between multi-family and single family homes. If the proposal must happen, she would urge the Commission
not to allow for the variances requested. By allowing another multi-family unit close to the street, two buildings
smack up against each other without adequate parking would adversely effect the livability of the
neighborhood. There is a wonderful example of harmonious land between single family and multi-family
property on Allison. The apartment building has plenty of parking on a fully paved and maintained alley that
we do not have. There is ample lawn and plenty of mature trees so that anyone would be happy to live there.
http://mail.google.com/mail/?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 8 of 22
Langley believes we need to strive for that type of livability as a model. Nearly a dozen children live on Dewey
Street, half under five years old. There are a number of grandchildren who regularly visit grandparents on
Dewey. A large number of college students live in the apartment complexes on Alida and Morton. There is a
speeding problem down her block. The street (one block) is lined with cars everyday.
MARK TUESKOV, 72 Dewey Street, talked about the adverse impacts of the project. When he looks at the
figures of buildings eight feet apart and ten foot setback from the street and five feet from the alley, that is
staggering in terms of crowding.
When is an alley an alley and when is an alley a road? The alley is not paved. His backyard fronts the alley
and they are perpetually covered with dust with people speeding down the alley. The alley is narrow. Cars
parked in the alley currently jut out into the alley. It would seem that fire equipment access would be a
problem. In the long view, he does not see the buildings set close to the street as being compatible with the
neighborhood.
PETER COTTON, 76 Dewey Street, said his property backs onto the alley. He read a letter and submitted it
for the record from Michael Ganio who was not able to be here. Ganio expressed concern about the impact to
the street and scale of the project. He built a model and superimposed pictures. Cotton believes there is still a
major concern among the neighborhood about the mass of the proposed building. Seven other people in the
neighborhood asked Cotton to present their letters of concern. He submitted those letters for the record. He
repeated the concerns about the impact of the development to the quality of the neighborhood, primarily
around parking and congestion that will be created. They are also concerned about the density of
development.
Gardiner asked if the applicant agreed to continue the hearing. Giordano said the applicant agreed to
continue until November 12,2002. It will be the first item on the agenda. The public testimony period will
remain open and only new testimony will be heard.
http://'!f'tNW .ashland .0r.lIsLAgenct~s.asp? AM ID~ 1 OQ2
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Mike Gardiner called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Russ
Chapman, Colin Swales, Marilyn Briggs, Mike Morris, John Fields, Kerry KenCairn, Alex Amarotico, and Ray
Kistler. There were no absent members. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Maria Harris and
Sue Yates.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
Swales amended the word "fists" to "trysts" in the first paragraph on page 5 of the October 10, 2002 regular
meeting minutes. The minutes were approved as amended.
Swales had concerns with the wording of the findings for PA2002-113 and asked for discussion. He stated the
planning action we were asked to approve states it was for theater, nightclub and bar uses. It has been
changed in the heading. McLaughlin said it was brought up that theaters were not an allowed use in the zone.
The findings reflect what goes on in that zone and is consistent with the allowable uses in the zone as
conditional uses. Swales said his vote was based on the use as theater, nightclub and bar. He voiced his
http://mai1.google.comlmail/?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page l) 0122
concern in August that a theater was not allowed, but it came before the full Commission as a theater, bar
and nightclub. That was specifically one of the main reasons he voted "no". McLaughlin said he can vote "no"
for adoption of the findings.
Amarotico moved to approve the findings for PA2002-113, Morris seconded the motion. The motion carried.
Swales cast a "no" vote.
Swales moved to approve the findings for PA2002-115. Kistler seconded the motion and the findings were
approved.
PUBLIC FORUM
PHILIP LANG, 758 B Street, is asking for an honest application and an upholding of the ordinances we have.
He believes the Commission is bent on bending, breaking or repealing the law to favor some developers'
interests. He thinks this has been done blatantly and repeatedly in recent history, as the Commission is about
to do in repealing or amending a zoning ordinance prohibiting theaters in the E-1 zone. A lot of time was
spent by a lot of people on these ordinances. They made good sense and they were good laws. The
Commission lacks diversity and, therefore, representation of the major, larger interests in Ashland, such as
renters, working people, students, etc. The state law regarding planning commissions says under 227.030,
Membership: "Not more than two members of a city planning commission may be city officers..."Subsection 4:
"No more than two voting members of the commission may engage principally in the buying, selling or
developing of real estate for profit as individuals, or be members of any partnership or offices of any
corporation that engages principally in the buying, selling or developing of real estate for profit. Moreover, no
more than two members shall be engaged in the same kind of occupation, business, trade or profession."
Lang's interpretation is that five members of the commission are engaged in these activities. At least three
members meet these criteria. He is asking the situation be remedied. He believes any decisions made
recently or tonight, could be called into question.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION 2002-106
REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-UNIT APARTMENT/CONDOMINIUM
COMPLEX. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 20 TO 10
FEET AND TO REDUCE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS FROM 12 TO 8 FEET. A TREE
REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE TWO TREES ON THIS SITE.
916 EAST MAIN STREET
APPLICANT: RON DELUCA
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
Chapman, Swales, Briggs, Gardiner, Morris, Amarotico and Kistler had a site visit. KenCaim stepped down as
she was not at the last meeting and did not listen to the tapes. Fields will not participate because he was not
at the last meeting. Swales stated he received an e-mail from Russ Silbiger referring to a number of items on
tonight's agenda. Swales read the e-mail. He responded to Silbiger by stating he was unable to respond as it
could be considered an ex parte contact and that he would forward it to the Planning Department so it could
be made part of the record. Swales said he was at the coffee shop across the street from the proposed
development a couple of weeks ago. He noticed there was a workman installing a new fence alongside the
alleyway. He will have some questions this evening for the applicant with regards to the need for that fence.
STAFF REPORT
Harris said this application is continued from last month. The applicant is proposing three structures with four
two-bedroom units. Seven off-street parking spaces are required and are planned on the site to the rear of the
property. Initially, this was noticed with a front yard setback variance. The City Attorney has determined that a
variance is not required. There is an ordinance that allows for taking to the two neighboring properties and
averaging the yards that are fronting the same street and using that average for the front yard setback. That
http://mail.goog1e.com/mail/?ik=39899093 7a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 10 of22
ends up being about seven and one-half feet and the proposal is to locate the porches ten feet from the front
property line. The property is in the Historic District. Harris said the public hearing was continued from last
month and public testimony can still be taken.
Chapman had questioned Harris about the condition required for a variance. Is it self-imposed because four
units are being put on one lot? Is it trying to be made to fit "historically"? Harris said that was a suggestion by
Staff, but it's not required.
PUBLIC HEARING
CATE HARTZELL, 881 East Main Street, stated she has lived diagonally across from the proposed project for
12 years. In 1994, variances were granted for the house directly across the street from her because it was a
comer lot. In her opinion, we ended up with one of the worst examples of infill in town. It is a large house that
was exempted from a need for any yard, with a house plopped down. Is there ever a situation that could be
defined as unique and unusual where the builder keeps the size of the building within the context of the size
of the parcel? Is the situation self-imposed? The number of units may be impacting the kinds of variances that
are being requested.
Hartzell understands the efforts of Staff to work with the developer on design but she questions some of the
assumptions being made and applied to this project and others like it. Even though the front yard setback is
not being considered, she believes it affects the other design features. As we deal with non-conforming
parcels, it starts a domino effect where we give variances to non-conforming parcels. At what point do we
step in and hold to our standards? Is the assumption true that building houses up close to the sidewalk will
somehow enhance pedestrian use and slow down traffic?
She is assuming the affordable unit will remain so for 20 years.
Though the developer is designing common open spaces, she can't see room for fences. She assumes
anyone living there will not have children or pets because the vehicle trips on East Main Street in that area
are close to 8,000 vehicle trips per day with typically people traveling well over the speed limit, up to 50 mph.
Hartzell said that even though the parking meets minimum standards, the overflow will be on Eighth Street.
The owner of the coffee shop is asking the Traffic Safety Commission for time zoned parking across from the
coffee shop because of the congestion there.
Hartzell has a concern that headlights will shine into the units fronting East Main from traffic pulling up to the
stop on Eighth. If there is more setback that would allow for vegetation, there will be some ability to screen for
headlights.
Swales said he has a different interpretation of the front yard setback. The section the City Attorney refers to
is 18.68.110 - Front Yard - General Exceptions. Is it correct that both of the abutting structures are side yards,
not front yards? Harris said the structure to the east on Alida (comer of Alida and East Main) that East Main is
technically their front yard because it is the narrower street frontage even though it doesn't look like the front
of the building. The property to the west of the alley is a side yard. That was specifically discussed with the
attorney. Can you use a side yard and front for that average? His opinion was "yes". If you read the language
closely, it says "yard". Swales said his concern is that the wording says only "yard" but the heading refers to
"Front Yard". The yards weren't specified, so he assumes referring to yard means "front yard", including front
yards of abutting structures. Harris said that was not the attorney's interpretation. His opinion was that yard
referred to any abutting yard.
MICHAEL GANIO, 75 Dewey Street, is concerned with the structures being located so close to the sidewalk
on East Main, a very busy street. Buildings 2 and 3 represent a massive structure and the scale appears to be
that of a two-story commercial structure. The exterior lacks an appropriate sense of historic scale. Building 4,
though more in scale with the surrounding neighborhood, will be jammed in the back interior comer of the
property and dominated by two-story buildings on three sides. Most of the surrounding buildings do not have
enough off-street parking spaces to accommodate tenants cars. The neighborhood streets are often clogged
with parked cars. Many streets are bottlenecks, creating an unsafe situation, particularly for the children. The
seven spaces being provided are for four two-bedroom apartments. The reality within their neighborhood
seems to be three cars for two bedroom units. It is the neighbors living in this neighborhood that will have to
http://mail.google.com/mail/?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 11 of22
experience this increased parking and traffic. Because of the sub-standard front yard setbacks, all family
activities will be pushed to the small backyard common space that already seems too small to serve its
designed purpose successfully.
The alley runs all the way through to Blaine Street and continues to Siskiyou. It is an alternative path
impacted by the multi-family dwelling, which already has inadequate parking on the alley. The neighborhood
and the high school population use the alley. It is a quiet shortcut to East Main. It is assumed that all traffic
from this proposed development will conveniently choose to depart via East Main. The increased traffic will
impact the quality of living of every person whose backyards, gardens and windows front on the alley.
EVAN ARCHERD, 120 North Second, said his office is close to the neighborhood. He frequents the coffee
shop. It seems what we try to promote is rental housing that is located within easy walking and biking distance
to all of the major services provided in Ashland. This location is within walking distance to SOU, downtown,
shopping at Safeway, and coffee. He believes this is the type of infill project we should promote and support.
Staff Response
Harris said there is a minor correction to Condition 6. The first sentence should read: "That an evergreen a
minimum of five to six feet in height shall be planted on-site..."
Rebuttal
TOM GIORDANO, 2635 Takelma Way, agent for the project, said he is a little dismayed about the
neighborhood opposition to this project. A lot of the things they are concerned about, this project design
addresses. He likes the model presented by a neighbor tonight. It shows a good relationship between the two
buildings and how they were trying to create a cottage design. The attempt was to make a cottage concept of
smaller buildings separated by space. He believes they achieved that without sacrificing the required parking,
open space and the landscape areas. When he went through the pre-application process, it was Staff that
suggested separating the buildings and to ask for a variance for distance between buildings. He thought it
was a great suggestion and reinforces that cottage concept even more.
Giordano said the real problem within the area that is impacting the neighborhood is the parking for the coffee
shop. He, however, believes the coffee shop adds a vitality to our community.
Giordano said they are asking for a bonus density under an existing ordinance that allows affordable housing.
If we aren't going to provide affordable housing in the community this way, how are we going to provide it? It
is within walking distance to many areas, bike paths, and public transportation. He is asking for approval of
his project.
Chapman said there is very little wiggle room with variances. Isn't this variance self-imposed by the number of
buildings being proposed? Would the variance be required if only one or two buildings were being proposed?
Giordano said the two buildings could be attached and there would be no variance required. That would make
a larger building mass. Under the Performance Standards, you can get within three feet from a neighboring
property. Giordano would also refer to what Staff has said about the variance.
Swales asked why the temporary fencing has been put up. Giordano said people were parking on that lot.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
McLaughlin, addressing Chapman's concerns about the three variance criteria, said one is the proposal's
benefits would be greater than any negative impacts. Let's say you find there is something unique about this
historic area that you want to protect by separating buildings. You can find there is a positive impact by not
having one large building and that a variance is appropriate to accommodate that historic pattern. The second
criteria is one that allows you to use some balance. If you find there is a unique or unusual circumstance, you
can ask if there are some positive and negatives we should be considering. There may be a positive to the
neighborhood of not holding fast to the rule of saying buildings have to be connected, making them large
buildings. It may be advantageous because this is a different style of development than found in other parts of
the community to allow for a variance. The reason Staff recommended it, if the designer strictly adhered to the
standard, they did not believe it was as good a design for the neighborhood.
http://mai1.goog1e.com/mail/?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 1201'22
Harris said Staffs interpretation of affordable housing, is since it has been proposed as a rental, they are
getting the density bonus and it should run for 20 years. She has drafted some language if the Commission
wants to add it to the last Condition. She recommends adding to the end of Condition 10, "Affordable units
shall remain in the City of Ashland affordable housing program for a minimum of 20 years." Swales believes it
is important to make sure if this is approved, that the affordable unit remain in the program for a period of
time.
Briggs said she agrees with Chapman that we have the criteria for a variance and that everything has been
self-imposed. A house was removed. Two existing trees will go. The applicant determined the size of the
units. It is self-imposed. She is inclined not to grant any variance.
Swales agreed. He gets a little fed up with the argument that is constantly presented that it is a little cottage
style development and it is better than the worst thing that could possibly go on this site. We know this is a
high-density, multi-family zone that could have something truly egregious on it. He feels it is the job of Staff
and the Planning Commission to encourage developers to do their very best both aesthetically and from the
livability standpoint rather than hold out the carrot of variances saying "If you don't grant this variance, they
will come back with something even worse."
Swales believes the front yard variance is very important. Now we are also stretching the bounds of credibility
to call East Main the front of the apartment building next to it. It is a blank wall with trees planted along it. He
believes we are looking at are two variances and he believes they should be denied. He believes the
variances have been self-imposed.
Gardiner thought the configuration of the lot establishes the front and side yard. In a lot of other projects, we
have continued to interpret the front and side yard based on the dimensions of the lot.
Swales referred to the first section of the Land Use Ordinance under General Provisions: "The purpose of the
Land Use Ordinance is to provide adequate open space for light and air, to provide and improve the aesthetic
and visual qualities of the living environment, safety from fire and other dangers, provisions for maintaining
sanitary conditions...". We are trying to grant variances so it ties in with buildings. He does not believe it
needs to be emulated.
Harris said the variance for the front yard setback is not required according to the City Attorney.
Swales said the intent of the ordinance as he sees it, is if you have a series of houses with front yard
setbacks (fronts of the houses) that are less than the required setback now, it allows you to build to match the
existing housing.
McLaughlin said the City Attorney has made his interpretation of the ordinance. The Commission can choose
not to follow that and deny the application based on that. If it is used as a criteria for denial, then the
Commission needs to make findings as to why they believe that ordinance applies.
Briggs moved to deny PA2002-106. Chapman seconded the motion and it carried with Chapman, Swales,
Gardiner, and Briggs voting "yes" and Kistler, Morris, and Amarotico voting "no".
KenCairn returned to the meeting and Fields will participate in the next hearing.
http) IWW'N .ashtand .Of.usl Agendas.asj)?DisplaY=Minutes&AMtQ= 1047.
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
January 7, 2003 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
http://mai1.goog1e.comlmail/?ik=398990937a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail- DeLuca v Kistler
Page 1 j or L1.
2. Public Hearing on Appeal of Planning Action 2002-106, 916 East Main Street.
Mayor DeBoer announced the procedure for a Land Use Hearing.
Councilors Hearn/Jackson m1s to excuse Amarotico from voting on this issue as he served on the Planning
Commission and voted on this issue. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:30 p.m.
EXPARTE CONTACT:
Jackson noted her conversation with Councilor Hartzell concerning this issue.
Hearn, as Council Liaison, watched the Public Hearing on television, and noted Hartzell's testimony as an
opponent to the application.
DeBoer disclosed that the applicant is his former brother-in-law.
STAFF REPORT:
Associate Planner Maria Harris, using an over-head map presentation, explained that this was a proposal
requiring site review approval, tree permit approval, and a variance to reduce the distance between buildings.
She outlined criteria for the variance and approvals noting that the basis for the Planning Commission denial
was the variance.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin noted that it was Staffs recommendation to separate the
buildings to follow a more historic pattern. The Planning Commission disagreed and found there was not
enough evidence to support the finding for a variance. It was clarified that if the building were one large
building it would meet all criteria and would be a permitted use on the property.
Harris announced that a model of the proposed buildings was available for viewing at the meeting.
APPLICANT:
Tom Giordano, agent for the applicant, spoke to the issue of the distance between the buildings. He noted
that the building did not have to be one large mass and could meet criteria by having an attachment between
the buildings. He felt that while this would meet ordinance requirements, it would not be as good a project as
the one proposed in terms of fitting into the historic district. A number of neighborhood meetings were held
and the neighbors requested three units rather than four. He felt this was an ideal way to provide in-fill for the
community .
IN FAVOR OF APPLICANT:
Robert Owens/67 'Y2 Alida/Noted that he accesses his residence via the alleyway abutting the property in
question. He spoke in favor of project and supported additional units on this project. He felt that density is
important close to the downtown area.
OPPOSED TO APPLICANT:
Mark Tveskov172 Dewey SWoiced his opposition to the project and commented that he had been unaware of
any neighborhood meetings until two nights ago. He noted that this area already serves as affordable
housing, and that the project will increase traffic, create additional parking problems, exacerbate an already
crowded area, and that the circumstances requiring the variance are 100% self-imposed.
Becky Martin/52 Morton StlRead aloud a letter from Joan Langley who expressed concern over the negative
impact the project would have on the neighborhood. She did not believe criteria for a variance had been met,
and noted the difference between "affordable housing," and "livable affordable housing." She urged the
Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
Charlotte Horning/46 Alida/Read aloud a letter from Cate Hartzell who expressed concern over significant
http://mail.google.com/mail/?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 14 ot 22
livability and safety issues in regard to the front yard setbacks. She noted that the need for the variance is
self-imposed and that the design appears to impose more negative impacts than benefits to the
neighborhood.
Jim Martin/52 Morton St/Spoke in opposition to the project citing traffic, pedestrian safety, and parking
problems. He urged the Council to support the Planning Commission's decision.
Ken Frires/92 Dewey/Spoke of his emotional upset over the demolition of the old house on the project's lot
and the potential approval of the new development. He expressed concern over traffic and parking problems.
He felt that the developers are ruining the neighborhood under the guise of affordable housing.
Peter Cotten/76 Dewey/Spoke on behalf of Michael Ganio and presented a scale model of the project to
illustrate problems he sees with the project. He cited problems with scale, density, traffic, livability, fire safety,
and parking.
Colin Swales/461 Allison/Spoke in opposition to the demolition of the existing house noting that it was part of
the historic district, having been built prior to 1907.
Eric Navickas/711 FaithNoiced opposition to the demolition of the existing house and deplored community
leaders' lack of respect for historic buildings.
Jerry Quast/431 Parkside/Spoke in support of the Planning Commission's denial of the project and of the
process that led to that denial. He explained that thought and logic went into the decision and urged the
Council to uphold the purpose and meaning of the Planning Commission and to deny the project as they did.
He suggested a compromise by moving from 4 units to 3 and from 3 structures to 2.
STAFF RESPONSE:
McLaughlin responded to the issues raised:
1.} Self-imposition. Regards the initial circumstance-did they create the circumstance that requires the
variance. In this case the argument is that the unusual circumstance is the character of this historic
neighborhood.
2.} Density Bonuses. Regarding density bonuses, the language is mandatory -if they provide an affordable
unit in compliance with City requirements for affordability, density shall be increased. There is no discretion.
3.} Setbacks. Staffs opinion is that the exception to the front yard setback applies independent of whether
that setback is 20 feet or 25 feet wherever it is measured. The front yard set back has a general exception
that allows averaging using adjoining properties. General exceptions governs and allows using the adjoining
properties to set the average. The purpose of this is to balance the streetscape.
4.} Parking. The City has a specific standing Ordinance of 1.75 spaces per two-bedroom unit. No variance is
requested and the application meets all parking standards and requirements. There is difficulty in saying that
they must provide more than the Ordinance requires when the adjoining properties are responsible for the
problem. On-street parking is an existing issue that should be addressed but not be the burden of someone
coming in. If they were asking for a parking variance, then Council would have a basis to look at that situation.
5.} Fire Access. The Fire Department reviewed this project and is okay with the design as presented. Primary
access points will be from main streets. Alleys are rarely used.
6.} Demolition. Demolition is not a criterion used in review of this, however our Building Official reviewed it
and when he inspected the house he fell through the floor. Further, he saw structural difficulties, felt it was an
unsafe building and okayed its removal. There is nothing out of line with this in any manner whatsoever.
http://mai1.goog1e.com/maill?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 1501"22
The Council discussed the issue and wondered if paving the alley could be a requirement of approval.
McLaughlin confirmed that the Council could impose that condition if they found that paving the remainder of
the alley is needed in order to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the project. It was suggested
that if there is concern about how development is occurring, then the place to start is with changing
Ordinances. Also, some current problems with parking could be handled through code enforcement. It was
noted that the Traffic Safety Commission does not typically review planning actions.
Hearn questioned if standards would be met if the applicant wanted all 4 units in one big building. McLaughlin
confirmed that this was so. The flexibility of the Building Code was noted in that by just adding a breezeway
between two of the buildings, those two would be considered one building.
REBUTTAL:
Tom Giordano commented that Staff had covered all the issues of the project and suggested that the Council
listen to what they said as they are the City's professional planners and are in touch with the goals and
policies of the community. He was dismayed that this project has been called a sub-standard project as he felt
the project has scale, quality, architectural flair, and affordability. He suggested that more trees could be
planted in the nine-foot park row in order to provide buffering from the street. He noted that the project was
approved by the Historic Commission and incorporates some of their suggestions. Also that the Planning
Commission vote was a split vote.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:55 p.m.
Jackson noted that the decision is regarding the variance as all other criteria have been met. The other issues
are issues that must be dealt with on a broader basis. Morrison commented that regardless of whether the
Council upholds the Planning Commission decision or not, the project will still probably happen.
Hearn agreed and commented that it is his job, even it he is unpopular when he does it, to say, "have we met
these narrow criteria for a variance," knowing that one of the things we are supposed to balance is the need
for affordable housing. He noted that some of the strongest advocates of affordable housing suddenly
become opponents of affordable housing when the units are proposed in their neighborhoods. He felt that
taking a stand on affordable housing is not always easy and that proposal meets the letter and spirit of the
http://mai1.google.com/mail/?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 1 () 01 LL
variance request for the reasons set forth in the Staff report. Further, he noted that the applicant was following
Staff direction in coming up with this proposal.
Councilors Hearn/Jackson m1s to approve appeal and reverse decision of Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION: Jackson agreed that the choice is tough, and that Council must listen to Staff analysis and rely
on individual Commissions to give advice to the Planning Commission. She felt the project meets the intent of
the Code, including the variance for distance between buildings. Roll Call Vote: Jackson, Hearn, YES;
Morrison, NO. Motion passed 2-1.
bttp:/Iwww ._ashla[ld .or..!Js/~ge.a~JLWavIQ3:l01Q
Council Communication
Title:Findings for Planning Action 2002-106, 916 East Main Street
DeptCommunity Development
Date: January 21, 2003
Submitted By:Maria Harris, Associate Planner
Reviewed By:Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Approved By:
...........................Brian Almquist, Interim City Administrator
Synopsis:The attached findings are for the decision of the City Council on January 7, 2003 granting approval
for Site Review to construct three buildings containing a total of four apartment/condominium units, a
Variance to reduce the special yard distance between two of the buildings to eight feet and a Tree Removal
Permit to remove two trees for the property located at 916 East Main Street.
Recommendation:Staff recommends adoption of the findings.
Fiscal Impact: No fiscal impact to the City of Ashland.
Background:The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. The City
Council held land use proceedings including a public hearing on January 7, 2003. The application was
approved by the City Council.
The application was administratively approved in September 2002. Subsequently, it was called up for a public
hearing by three neighbors. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application on
October 8,2002 and November 12, 2002. The Planning Commission denied the application noting that the
application did not meet the burden of proof for a Variance to reduce the distance between building to eight
feet.
End of Document - Back to Top
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND
STATE OF OREGON
January 7, 2003
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2002-106, A REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO
CONSTRUCT A FOUR-UNIT APARTMENT, CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX, A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE
DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS TO EIGHT FEET, AND A TREE REMOVAL PREMIT TO REMOVE TWO
TREES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 916 EAST MAIN STREET.)
http://mai1.goog1e.com/mail/?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 17 of22
)
)
)
)
)
)Findings
Conclusions
And Orders
APPLICANT: Ron Deluca
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 4000 of 391 E 09AD is located at 916 East Main Street and is zoned R-2: low Density Multi-Family
Residential.
2) The applicant is requesting Site Review approval to construct three buildings containing a total of four
apartment/condominium units. The application also includes a request for a Variance to reduce the special
yard distance between two of the buildings to eight feet and a Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees on
the property.
3) The following approval criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.070:
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 transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter
18.88, Performance Standards Options.
4) The following approval criteria for Variance approval are described in 18.100.020:
http://mail.google.comlmail/?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 1 ~ 01 LL
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent
uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
C. That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
5) The following approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit approval are described in 18.61.080:
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant
demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and
injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and
is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be
relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree
presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and
such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC
18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the
applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable
Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. ( e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use
Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for
accurate verification of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface
waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and
species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
http://mai1.goog1e.com/mail/?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 1'J or 1.1.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered
and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this
section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone.
In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or
alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to
comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to
AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
6) The Council, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on January 7, 2003, at which time
testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The record made before the Planning Commission was
received and is made a part of the record for this proceeding. The Council approved the application subject to
conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Council of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and concludes as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be
used.
http://mail.google.com/mail/?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/912007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page LU 01 LL
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff
Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Council finds that the proposal to construct three buildings containing a total of four
apartment/condominium units, including a Variance to reduce the special yard distance between two of the
buildings to eight feet and a Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees on the property meets all applicable
criteria for approval described in the Site Review chapter 18.72, Variance chapter 18.100 and Tree
Preservation and Protection chapter 18.61.
2.3 The Council finds that the proposal complies with the requirements for Site Review approval. Public
facilities are located within East Main Street and are available to accommodate service needs of the project.
Seven parking spaces are provided at the rear of the site and accessed by a public alley, and six sheltered
bicycle parking spaces are located near the motor vehicle parking area consistent with the City of Ashland
parking standards.
The Council finds that the project design is consistent with the City's Site Design Standards for multi-family
development, including orientation, streetscape, landscaping, open space and building materials. The units
adjacent to East Main Street are oriented toward the public street and off-street parking is situated at the rear
of the property. Pedestrian paths link the front doors of all units to the public sidewalk on East Main Street.
Forty percent of the site will be landscaped, in excess of the 35% required by the zoning district. A
combination of common open space situated between the buildings in the middle of the property and private
patios and decks result in 15% of the total lot area devoted to usable open space, well in excess of the eight
percent required by the Basic Site Review Standards.
The Council finds that the removal of a 24-inch diameter at breast height English Walnut near the front
property line complies with the criteria of approval for removal of a hazard tree. The tree canopy is over the
public sidewalk, and a certified arborist has established that the tree has lost large branches which is a public
safety hazard given the location. The Council finds the removal of a 12-inch diameter at breast height
Westem Incense Cedar at the rear of the property meets the criteria of approval for removal of a tree that is
not a hazard. The removal of the tree will not negatively impact erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or
http://mai1.goog1e.comlmaill?ik=398990937a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
l'age L 1 or 1.1.
existing windbreaks and will not diminish the variety of conifer species within 200 feet of the property. The site
design including the layout and sizes of the three buildings meets the Basic and Historic District Site Review
Standards and is an important part of making the proposal compatible with the historic neighborhood.
2.4 The Council finds that the approval of the Variance to the distance between buildings is justified due to the
existing development pattern in the historic neighborhood. The average distance between buildings within 100
feet of the site is 11 feet, significantly less than the required distance between buildings of 17.75 feet in this
case. The benefit of the proposal is that it will allow the development of detached structures which are of a
similar scale to the historic structures in the surrounding area and which meet the City's Historic District
Design Standards. In addition, the development will provide one affordable unit and four rental units, multi-
family rental units being identified as a high priority need in the City of Ashland Housing Needs Analysis,
March 2002, within two blocks of a grocery store and within 1/3 of a mile of the downtown. The side yard
setback pattern and architectural scale of the historic neighborhood was established before the current
proposal and therefore the circumstances are not self imposed.
2.5 The standard setback for front yards is set forth in section 18.24.040.0. For the subject property the
standard front yard is 20 feet. The front yard as submitted for this project, however, is 10 feet. The exception
to front yards as set forth in 18.68.110.A applies to this application and reduces the size of the required front
yard to 10 feet. The general exception provides that if there are dwellings on both abutting lots with yards less
than the required depth, the yard need not exceed the average of the abutting lots. The side yard on one
abutting lot is 10 feet to the face of the building and the front yard on the other abutting lot is 10 feet. The
average of these two lots is 10 feet. The front yard of the subject property at 10 feet therefore meets the
requirements for front yards.
The opponents raise the issue of special setbacks requirements for East Main Street as set forth in the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance section 18.68.050.A. This section requires that yards be measured from the
special baseline defined in that section rather than the property line. Under this requirement the yard for the
subject property would have to be 1525 feet from the property line, not the 10 feet as designed. The general
exception to front yard requirements in 18.68.11 O.A also applies in this matterto this special baseline,
however. This section provides that if there are dwellings on both abutting lots with yards less than the
required depth, the yard need not exceed the average yard of the abutting structures. Here theAs explained
above, the average yard for the abutting structures as measured from the property line is 10 feet from the
property line. The proposed yard for the subject property is 10 feet and therefore meets the standard if all
yards are measured from the property line. Using the special baseline instead of the property line reduces the
The average yard for the abutting properties is to five feet if measured from the special baseline. The
proposed yard for the subject property is five feet if measured from the special baseline and therefore meets
the standard if all yards are measured from the special baseline. We interpret the requirement in 18.68.050.A
to mean what it says, "every yard abutting (East Main Street) shall be measured from the special base line
setbacks." When applying the general exception in 18.68.11 O.A, which we interpret is the appropriate section
to apply to any front yard setback requirements, whether on East Main Street or not, the same "yardstick" is to
be used. In other words, the abutting properties' yards are to be measured from the special baseline in
determining what the average yard depth is.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the foregoing findings of facts, conclusions of law and evidence contained in the whole record,
the Council finds and concludes that the application for Site Review to construct three buildings containing a
total of four apartment/condominium units, including a Variance to reduce the special yard distance between
two of the buildings to eight feet and a Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees on the property has satisfied
all relative substantive standards and criteria contained within the Ashland Municipal Code and the Ashland
Site Design and Use Standards.
The Council ultimately concludes, based upon the foregoing and following conditions, that planning
application 2002-106 complies with all requirements of the City of Ashland and of the State of Oregon.
Therefore, the City Council reverses the decision of the Ashland Planning Commission and approves with
conditions planning application 2002-106 and imposes the following conditions.
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here.
http://mail.google.com/mail/?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
Gmail - DeLuca v Kistler
Page 1.1. 01 l.l.
2) That a drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Engineering Division prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3) That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be met including, but not limited to installation
of a fire hydrant to serve unit 4 or a residential sprinkler system, and maintenance of the alley as a fire
apparatus access road, prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.
4) That all items (plant, fence, etc.) shall be limited to 2.5 feet in height in the vision clearance area adjacent
to the alley in accordance with 18.72.120.C.
5) That all landscaping and irrigation including street trees shall be installed or bonded for prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first unit.
6) That an evergreen tree a minimum of 1 %-inch caliper, five to six foot in height shall be planted on site for
mitigation for the western red cedar that is removed. The landscaping plan shall be revised and submitted for
review and approval for the Staff Advisor prior to submittal for a building permit
7) That the landscape and irrigation plan shall be revised to include recommendations of the Tree
Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor prior to submittal for a building permit.
8) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be
incorporated into the building permit submittals.
9) That additional information regarding Ashland's Conservation Housing Density Bonus shall be provided at
the time of Final Plan approval. Each unit to include a minimum of 15 points.
10) That one of the four units shall be affordable under the City of Ashland Affordable Housing program cost
levels. If the unit is a rental, verification of the residents'income and the rental price shall be submitted to the
Planning Division annually by January 31. If the unit is converted to a condominium for ownership, the buyer's
income and the price shall be submitted to the Planning Division. The purchase of the condominium shall be
processed through the City of Ashland's Affordable housing program
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
By: Alan DeBoer, Mayor
http://mai1.goog1e.com/mail/?ik=39899093 7 a&view=pt&th= 11271 b849f895ebc&search=dr... 5/9/2007
E...- M ~ ~ ,,1) '5i1tu-\-e~'V\ "3) , I b-7
Request for Planning Commission to reconsider preliminary decision on PM 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 rIVe 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 pennit 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 1V-C-4) Maintain the historic fa~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 fa~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-confonning structures.
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 comer 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 wait 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 surrounding its positive characteristics:
a) No solar setback restrictions due to N boundary being Glenn ROW
b) Comer 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 districf' demolition ordinance
Dad,._ I ftft41 nftl...l^...
Our City Legal Department has rules previously on both the fact that setback ordinance is not in
conflict with other requirements.
see Reeder memo
htto:/loine .ashland .or. us/oioermail/council/attachments/20050527 /81623ff9/attach ment -0001 .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-1-0.. .. The specific policy of 18.68.050 is that at least 2()"
foot setbacks for all arterials throughout the City, except in C-1-0 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-
1-0 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.
htto:/lrvtv.roauedatavault.net:554/ramaen/ashland/olannina/olan11-14-06.rm ".. The personal
desires of the applicant can cause self-created hardship... n.
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 Hiahwav Runs Throuah It: A Handbook for OreQon Communities
htto:/lwww .contextsensitivesolutions. ora/content/readina/main-street/resources/mai n-street -when-
a-hiahwav/
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 parkrows, 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
"''''' .1,.. i.... of"",,.... ....^ "'^....~i,.a^r^.... u. "'"Ii,., '^ ...,.....,.1 . tPU '~I ."",1"
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 Staff, it
would allow the Planning Commission sufficient reason to reconsider their previous
approval decision.
Respectfully submitted
Colin Swales
3/2/07
* Email 3/2107
To David Stalheim, Maria Harris
(cc Richard Appicello and other Staff)
Further to my earlier request I also wanted to add some ther facts regarding Mr. Kistler's "Building
Setbacks" list (that was also promulgated in the Staff-prepared Maps).
#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 rducing the "historic" setback.
#638 "Ashland Surgery" building used to be setback about 22 ft from the sidewalk (the street is 5 lanes
wide also at that point)
The Ogden-Kistler developemnt that has recently been built there now is only 10ft. setback. This non-
conforming encroachement was never even pointed out by Staff nor discussed by the Planning
Commission when the planing action was approved.
Also to add:
The marginally historic small Brent Thompson-owned jacked-up building at #532 North Main (5 lanes)
is now setback about 21ft. with a non-conforming small porch addition encroaching to about16 ft.
setback.
(some these measurements are scaled from County maps, some from site observations - please
check and confirm accuracy)
, Colin
~",~TV
M-v iD '
~j1lJ67
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 detennination 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 PM 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 vel}' 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 lIIay 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." httlJ://www.ashland.or.us/Paae.aslJ?NavID=8509
Council Meeting 5117/05
htto://www.ashland.or.us/Aaendas.aso?Disolav=Minutes&AM 10=2195
PUBLIC FORUIII
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. 1II0tion denied due to lack of second.
2. PA#2005-01674 (11 First Street) 11/8/05
http://www.ashland.or.us/Aaendas.asp?Displav=Minutes&AMID=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)
http://www.ashland.or.us/Aaendas.asp?Displav=Minutes&AM I 0=2484
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) 10/10106 Initial testimony to Hearings Board.
httD:/Iwww.ashland.or.us/Aaendas.asD?DisDlav=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
htto://www.ashland. or. us/Aaendas.aso?Disolav=Minutes&AMID=28 59
MORRIS RE-OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING
NEW ESSENTIAL FACT (1):
".... 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 vel)' unusual and
seal)' 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... II
Our erstwhile Planning Director countered "... Staff has asked Gardiner that the Commission adopt the applicanfs
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 rlt what you are thinking... II [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 PM 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 -PAIl
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 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 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 74/15
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 parl<ing 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 508515836 P2d 7101992 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 197829 1
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 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 "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 PM 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 (i.e. "in the vicinity - Findings") along North Main required the applicanfs 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. A void 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:
. (Architecture).
~the front of a building, esp. an imposing or de
t any side of a building facing a public way or space and finishec
Therefore to comply with the SDUS IV-C-4 Historic 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 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..... " [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]
3 attachments - Download all attachments
5-9-00_reg_minutes PC Library.doc
58K View as HTML Open as a Gooale documl
2000-074.0SF FIN
5548K View as HTI
. Library_Swales_submitt
77K View as HTML Downl
t-N\M~
5'II}07
,/
Barbara,
Please forward to Council.(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 PA 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.
t would like to deal here with the latest "Council Communication" CC PA Appeal, Kistler dated May
1. [htto://www.ashland.or.us/Paae.aso?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 emait into the "Record"
ONLINE STREAMING VIDEOS
Jan 9. 2007 htto://rvtv.roauedatavault.net:554/ramaen/ashland/olannina/olan01-09-07 .rm (Regular
meeting public hearing)
Feb 13. 2007 htto://rvtv.roauedatavault.net:554/ramaen/ashland/olannina/olan02-13-07.rm (continued
hearing)
March 13 2007 htto://rvtv.roauedatavault.net:554/ramaen/ashland/olannina/olan03-13-07.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 14 ft". 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 20 ft.
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 comer on Glenn and Main street has an historic home with a
setback of approximately 5 ft.. "
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 .pdf Council packet - 113 hard copy, and online at htto://www.ashland.or.us/Files
/Oct 1949 sheet5.odf)
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
~
i
,; {
I *\
~...
~.;:"'>F-!f.',~ -.
1t." ..,
'...... \,
, I
_. . _~" l
;,,;, '
..
*'
~
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
i1
II
I
I
-- -===- .
~
I
I
l
\
1
I r-
I .
..~
~.-
,
I
"
p..,.
. .
'-
j I
<.. I
lL....._
----~
~
i
-1.
~
I .....
I ~
I
I
.
I ..
I
I ;::
...
.
I
I
I .,.. ~
, '\
'"
I
t
i
.., "
......
""-
'"'
-....,. ~
......
.....
~
.
I,;".
--
........
.a
'"
ll.....
....
~
CI
- ..
..
,
~
I
I
I
I
I
1
~
.~..
oil
.:....... ~ - t- ~ - ---- .. \
~ ......1'ia;. - .;>-.1: ...........
. . ~ -
~~ ,..~
.r: :.. r'; ~
~c-~ .. -.,r""""'"
... """ .," . 11II.
~ .... .-'"
....... ~-
I'"
fJ
~. !':-;;;iI'~
. -l
"--.. " ~. e!M- ......:........ -.
'" ~ ...,.'"<....v.~ "'-
~ ....;:. 'll _ . . {' _ "'"' ""-:l.......-'! """'~' ..... ::iil ...'': ~-j
.,... , _.,'- _"..... _ ."~~ ,"""".i. - ...,.-.
- - . ~. . -...... - .. - . .-
. . .'~ -.:A.- . -,- ",... ..,.' .;. ,.-"
- ~""..i. _~. . ..,,": ~. .".;..:'" --, -" ", I
~ '" .....\ ~~rt~ 0 ~:;j
_ -4r,.:......:........ ~I
,,~ _, ". J"'" ~ "
.
'Ii
..,
~
......,;:0
~
;.
..
..
....
...
-
.J' .
;::
-;
~,
....-
--
...
':'.:
-,
'"
...
~
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page lof2
PLANNING AC N 20CJ6.000691S REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR A SECOND
STORY ADorn 0 THE G E LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 758 B STREET. THE REQUIRED
REAR YARD SETBA THE SECOND STORY IS 20 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, AND THE PROPOSAL IS TO
LOCATE THE SECOND STORY 14 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: MULTI.
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R.2; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1E 09 AC; TAX LOT: 2000.
APPLICANT: PHILIP LANG
Lang stated in his letter of January 12,2006 that there is a member of the Planning Commission who is not acceptable to them
as a member of the Hearings Board. Lang stated, however, that this no longer applies in this case.
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Fields had a site visit with no conflicts of interest. Black viewed the property from the alley.
She is aware of Lang's presence as an active member of the community. She believes she can be impartial although it seems
there are a lot of complications and nuances with this application and she hopes she wil\ be up to being able to consider it in a
fairly short period of time. Chapman had a site visit.
STAFF REPORT
Harris showed the site plan. The garage structure meets setback requirements. There is a permitted open air deck on top of the
garage. The Staff Report points out that the Variance is supposed to be a unique or unusual circumstance that is specific to the
site or the property. Commonly it is a physical feature of the property that requires a setback that cannot be met. The applicant
ta1ks about setback patterns. If the Hearings Board moves toward finding there is a unique or unusual circumstance, they need
to really make it site specific or look at this particular alley.
Harris understood the applicant wanted to go ahead with the original packet of information they had submitted and the Variance
request. The later material is a Plan B.
Harris discussed the benefits of the proposal compared to the negative impacts. The applicant talks about the second floor deck
and how the enclosure wil\ provide more privacy on neighboring property owners. Harris reminded the Commission that a
second story addition is something that is possible. The Variance is applying to only the greenhouse addition which is the first
six feet of the addition.
It is a 300 square foot, low profile, very articulated, detailed building with the most attractive side of the building toward the
alley. The addition has a step back roof system to soften the height.
The Historic Commission recommended denial of the application as outlined in the packet. They listed four reasons for the
denial. They did not believe there was a unique or unusual circumstance that necessitated the Variance. They did not believe
the positive benefit of the proposal outweighed the negative impacts. They felt the bulk and scale of the two story accessory
building on the alley was not typical of this alley. They felt the proposed deck on the south side of the second story is an
incompatible element and they had some concerns about the deck miling being retained mther than using something like a
bellyband.
PUBLIC HEARING
PHILIP LANG AND RUTH MILLER, 758 B Street. LANG mised a procedural question. On page 2 of the Staff Report, Project
Impact., he wondered why Staff decided to use their discretion and make this action a Type II review. How many 2005
Variances were administmtively passed and how many were kicked up to a Type II procedure? Harris explained it is
discretionary. She does not know how many applications were brought up to a Type II. It is common for Staff to forward an
Administmtive Action to the Hearings Board or Planning Commission to make the decision. Variances in the past year have
come under a lot of scrutiny.
Lang said this is a six foot Variance and it is 15 feet wide or 90 square feet. It is one-half the height allowed. It is not visible
from B Street and hardly visible to the neighbors.
Lang addressed the Variance in his Findings included in the packet. Unique or Unusual Circumstances - Their entire
neighborhood is a unique and unusual circumstance and determined by the Council in another application. It is justified due to
the existing development pattern in the historic neighborhood. The existing patterns of streets and alleys are unique and unusual
circumstances.
Lang said the reason for the first story ten foot setback and a 20 foot setback is to prevent the creation of canyons. In their case,
they have a one story garage (existing) that is already 26 feet from the neighbor's garage and studio garage across the alley and
right on the property line. The distance between their second story wall (greenhouse) and the neighbors is 30 feet. He
concluded that the presence of alleys in the district is another unique and unusual feature creating openness and preventing the
canyon affect. The addition functionally meets side and rear yard setback requirements.
Lang noted a comparable situation that exists at 872 B Street.
He noted that many alley structures were built directly on the property line according to the Sanborn fire maps.
The proposal's benefit wil\ have no negative affect on the adjoining properties. There wil\ be a positive affect on the property at
762 B Street. Currently, they can look into the neighbors at 762 B Street. Since Lang will be using glass block in the addition,
the neighbors wil\ have total privacy.
It is self-evident that the conditions and circumstances have not been willfully self-imposed.
Lang showed better copies of the photos included in the packet.
)K
Chapman said he has to look at the criteria for granting the Variance. The fact that he can have the addition without the
greenhouse and meet the criteria would suggest that the additional space he wants to add is strictly self-imposed.
~--
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2557
5/9/2007
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 2 of2
Lang explained if they push the building out into their six foot side yard seven feet, it would lower the roof to 15 feet. They
could do that. Instead, they have tried to keep this addition simple and low and not offensive. If they could build it without the
greenhouse walls, that would be an option.
Chapman said as far as unique and unusual circumstances, he believes the letter from Mike Reeder citing the Lovell case, the
Variance has to be site specific. If it applies to a whole area, by definition, it means it is no longer unique or unusual. He has
never granted a Variance based on something happening somewhere else.
Lang said it is his reading that the Railroad District is a unique and unusual circumstance as he explained. He looked at the
Lovell decision and they do not believe the facts are relevant. The Council made a decision based on unique development
patterns.
Fields said it becomes difficult to fmd the benefit and why it is unusual. Is there a benefit to the development pattern to
encroach into the alley even more? We are being asked to disregard today's standards.
~
Lang responded that if the Railroad District was turning over quickly, we would eliminate the wonderful historic pattern and
everyone would be reduced to sameness.
Black asked if there was a structural reason why he needs to include the greenhouse at the time of building permit.
MILLER said they included the greenhouse because it made a nice finish to the whole project. It is a structure.
Staff Response - None.
Rebuttal- Lang still wondered why this was a Type II planning action. The DeLuca application on East Main was going to be
an Administrative Variance and the citizens called it up for a public hearing.
~.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Chapman does not believe there are unique or unusual circumstances. He does not believe the Council meant for their decision
to apply to the entire Railroad District (E. Main project). If that was the case, Variances wouldn't be required for anything
there. Over time, as ordinances have passed, they have not excluded the Railroad District, so he would have to assume they
apPlY.~~
Black said the letter of February 9111 would suggest the greenhouse structurtis self-im~5e!l The greenhouse in this historic
area seems appropriate to her. She believes the request for the constructea so~imposed.
."....."...,r".,..,..--..........-..
Fields believes the Variance is self-imposed.
Fields/Chapman mi. to deny the Variance for the rear yard setback for PA2006-0006l1. Ron Call: Black, Chapman and Fields voted
"yes" to deny. The action was denied.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2557
5/9/2007
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 1 of3
-- - '~'J
PUBLIC HEARINGS /)
1. Public Hearing on an Appeal of Planning Act n 2006-00069. Request for a Variance to the rear yard
setback requirement for a second story addl n to the ge located at the rear of the property for the
property located at 758 B St.
Mayor Morrison read aloud the Public Hearing procedure for Land Use Hearings.
Public Hearing Open: 7:13 p.m.
Abstentions. Conflicts of Interest. Ex Parte Contact
Councilor Chapman and Hartzell reported site visits.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Maria Harris presented a detail map of the area, which indicated the location of the lot and structures
on the property. She noted that the property and the surrounding area is zoned R-2 Multi-Family Residential, it is
located in the Railroad Historic District, and explained that this application involves a garage structure located in the
southeast corner of the property. Ms. Harris stated that the Hearings Board held a public hearing on February 14,
2006 and determined that the first approval criteria which states that unique or unusual circumstances are present
had not been met and denied the variance request. The Hearings Board found that the non-conforming setback
pattern on the alley was not unique to just that section of the alley and found that it was reflective of the entire
Historic area. The Historic Commission also reviewed the application and felt that the unique or unusual
circumstance criteria had not been met. In addition, the Historic Commission questioned the bulk and scale of the
second story addition and felt that this was not compatible with the alleyway architecture. Staff's recommendation is
to uphold the decision of the Hearings Board, and it was noted that this item is time sensitive with the 120-day time
limitation ending on May 25, 2006.
It was clarified that the Applicant is requesting an additional 6-foot setback. Interim Community Development
Director Bill Molnar commented on the process and why this request was brought before the Hearings Board. Ms.
Harris provided an explanation of the Type I variance approvals listed in the Applicant's Summary and Appeal
Narrative dated March 21, 2005.
Councilor Hartzell questioned whether the Council could place a restriction that the 90 sq. feet would never be
enclosed with anything other than glass. Mr. Molnar stated that if the Council felt this was the only way the
application would comply with the approval criteria then they could place such a condition.
Councilor Jackson noted that the Ashland Municipal Code states that the staff advisor clearly has the ability to decide
to have a hearing on a Type I action.
APPLICANT
Phillip Lang and Ruth Mlller/758 B Street/Clarified that they are asking for a 6 ft. variance to the 20 ft. rear
setback requirement for a 90 sq. ft. enclosure as part of an accessory unit at the back of their residential property.
Mr. Lang commented on the procedural issues regarding this application and stated that: 1) Reduction up to 50% of
the standard yard requirement can be approved administratively when it is reviewed under the Type I process and
noted that they are asking for a 30% reduction, and 2) Such variances and far more extensive ones are routinely
granted, yet staff exercised its discretionary right to schedule this application for a hearing by the Hearings Board.
Mr. Lang questioned staff's justification for calling this up, commented on the seven Type I variance applications in
2005 that were all approved administratively, and expressed his concern that he was being treated unfairly. He
commented on the three approval criteria and provided an explanation of why this application meets those
requirements. He noted previous Council action regarding a project on East Main St. that supports his request,
stated that the variance has no negative impact and would provide privacy for his neighbors backyard, stated that
the request conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, and that the Railroad District presents many unique and unusual
circumstances.
Mr. Lang concluded by stating that: 1) the variance request is minor and falls under the Type I variance, 2) the
record shows that such variances are customarily granted administratively, 3) the Planning Department exercising
Its discretion in bringing this request to the Hearings Board is unusual and lacks specific justification, 4) the variance
request meets the requirements of AMC based on a) the unique and unusual circumstances of the site and the
adjoining alley neighbors, b) its conformity of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinances with no negative
Impact and a positive impact on the adjacent property, and c) based on the need for the variance is not willfully or
purposefully self-imposed.
Councilor Amarotico arrived at 8:00 p.m. and stated he had no ex parte contact.
Mr. Lang stated that the Council had previously made a reasonable interpretation regarding side yards that he
agrees with and is applicable In this situation. Council commented that Mr. Lang is referring to writing by the former
City Attorney Paul Nolte and noted that this is not included in the record.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2594
5/9/2007
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 2 of3
City Attorney Mike Franell clarified that the Applicant has made a reference to the previous City Attorney and that
oral representation is now in the record. If Council wished to consider the opinion of the previous attorney, staff
could provide the written opinion that has been referenced by Mr. Lang to the Council.
Mr. Lang commented again on the seven Type I variance requests that were approved administratively and
expressed his concerns that this application was handled differently. He stated that staff has the discretion to call up
applications, but it needs to be exercised fairly, and noted the derogatory remarks contained in a Memo prepared by
the previous Assistant City Attorney.
Those wishing to Provide Testimony (None)
Staff Response
Mr. Molnar commented on the application process and stated that there were a number of factors involved that led
staff to determine it was best to discuss those issues with the appointed body. He noted the letter of opposition
included in the record from Mr. Don Green and commented on the written comments from the Historic Commission,
including their concern regarding the appropriateness of a two-story structure on the alley.
Comment was made questioning why the Historic Commission's comments were not included in the record. Mr.
Molnar stated this is part of the pre-application process and Is generally not included in the record.
City Attorney Mike Franell commented on the Applicant's concern with fairness and stated that the procedure code
gives the staff advisor the discretion to move It up to the Hearings Board if they so choose. He stated that based on
the Issues raised regarding this request, the staff advisor felt it would be best to move it to the Hearings Board, and
stated that there Is no evidence that the Hearings Board did not give this request a fair hearing.
Ms. Harris clarified that this is an accessory unit, but not an accessory residential unit, as it does not have
kitchen Icooklng facilities. She stated that accessory buildings are generally an outright permitted use if they meet
the setback and lot coverage criteria. The majority of these are handled through building permits and do not require
any kind of planning approval. Ms. Harris explained that the structure in question was built in the early 1990's and is
not a historic non-conforming structure. She added that what is on the ground now meets the setback requirements.
Mr. Franell commented on the Memo from the previous Assistant City Attorney and agreed that the personal slap
contained in it was inappropriate. He stated that he has apologized to Mr. Lang, however he does agree with the
legal analysis contained in that Memo.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Mr. Lang stated that it is unusual to ask for a rear yard variance and noted that this has the least impact. He stated
that in the Historic District variability is encouraged and noted the Council's approval of a similar request on East
Main St. He stated that he does not understand what was different with this application compared to the seven other
Type I variances that were approved and stated that he did not receive the comments made by the Historic
Commission.
Public Hearing Closed: 8:48 p.m.
Council Deliberation
Councilor Hartzell commented on the issue of precedence set by the East Main project and noted page 65 of the
record, which reads, '7he general exception proVides that If there are dwellings on both abutting lots with yardS less
than the required depth, the yard need not exceed the average of the abutting lots". She stated that taking an
average can allow for a gradual increase in the size of buildings and is not supportive of this Idea. She also stated
that the City should not apply the rule differently to one person when not too long ago it was applied to another
project on East Main St. and felt that the opinion offered by the former City Attorney that was referred to by the
Applicant should be included in the record.
Councilor Jackson stated that she was not going to base her decision on what was done with a different site-specific
appeal and believes this Is a setback question regarding a second story of which there are not any other non-
conforming second stories on that alley. She noted the criteria and how the report explains why staff believes that
the criteria has not been met and stated her preference is to uphold the denial.
Councilor Hartzell questioned the legal liability the Council has for applying an interpretation differently on one
project than another with the same variance request. Mr. Franell explained that if the facts are exactly the same,
then they should apply the same Interpretation unless they explain why they are reinterpreting. If the facts are not
exactly the same, the Council needs to make distingulshments as to why a prior Interpretation may not be applicable
to the existing variance request. Mr. Franell offered his opinion that the two requests are not exactly the same.
Councilor Chapman concurred with Councilor Jackson and stated he would recommend denying the request because
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2594
5/912007
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 3 of3
it does not meet the unique or unusual circumstance criteria.
Coundlor Silbiger questioned If any of the adjacent properties have a second story and it was noted that this
information is listed on page 21 of the record. Ms. Harris clarified that 164 Sixth St. and 156 Sixth St. are two-story
Single-family residential structures and Mr. Franell stated that by definition, both of these residences would be
considered abutting properties. Mr. Franell cited 18.68.110 which reads "Ifthere are dwellings or accessory buildings
on both abutting lots (even if separated by an alley or private way) with yards of less than the required depth for the
district, the yard for the lot need not exceed the average yard of the abutting structures". He stated that there is an
interpretation issue Involved with section because it anticipates there being two abutting lots since it says both. In
this Instance, 758 B St. has four abutting lots: 724 B St., 762 B St., 164 Sixth St., and 156 Sixth St. Based on the
staff report, two of those abutting properties have two-story structures that might not meet the code requirement
for the required yard space.
Ms. Harris pointed out that this provision of the ordinance was not considered in the staff report or by the Hearings
Board. She stated that historically this section has been applied to front yards as it is a front yard general exception
and this variance request pertains to a rear yard. Ms. Harris explained that on the East Main decision there were two
elements that concerned yards, one was a variance for Internal side yards and the other was the front yard general
exception and it was not a variance issue.
Mr. Franell suggested that if Council feels this is an issue, they could continue this decision to the next Council
meeting which would allow staff time to research the record and provide an analysis to the Council for further
consideration. He added that in order to submit the opinion by the previous City Attorney the hearing would need to
be reopened.
It was clarified that this could be continued to the May 2, 2006 Council Meeting and still meet the 120-day deadline.
Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to continue discussion on this appeal to the May 2,2006 Council
Meeting for further legal clarification. DISCUSSION: Councilor Amarotlco requested that he be allowed to
abstain from voting as he was absent for most of the discussion on this hearing.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to allow Councilor Amarotico to abstain. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Hardesty, SlIblger, Chapman, YES. Councilor Jackson, NO. Motion
passed 4-1.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2594
5/9/2007
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 1 of2
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Appeal of Planning Act
second story addition t
St.
City Attorney Mike Franell clarified the Findings for the East Main project are included in the record; however there
are additional Findings referred to In the memorandum by Beth Lori Assistant City Attorney, that are not part of the
record. Given this situation, Mr. Franell reviewed the minutes from the previous council meeting and Mr. Lang was
the only one to testify during the public hearing. Mr. Franell stated it would be prudent to grant Mr. Lang five
minutes to address the memorandum prepared by the Assistant City Attorney, since she did bring in some
information that was not in the record. Mayor Morrison asked if Mr. Lang would like to rebuttal this information. Mr.
Lang declined due to the meeting not being noticed as a publiC hearing.
_._~
....~ "
n 2006-0069 -)tequest for a Variance to the rear yard setback requirement for a
ara latated at the rear of the property for the property located at 758 B
Council discussed whether there were any legal issues with this not being listed as a public hearing and whether this
item should be re-noticed and scheduled for a special meeting. Mr. Franell stated that the Council has provided Mr.
Lang the opportunity to speak and he has chosen not to, therefore he would have difficulty showing prejudice before
LUBA. He added that there would be insufficient time within the 120-day rule to re-notice and differ this to a special
meeting. Mr. Franell clarified that Mr. Lang has been given the opportunity to review the memorandum and he has
also met with the Legal Dept. to discuss it. Mr. Franell stated his opinion that it is prudent for Council to continue its
deliberations and come to a conclusion.
Interim Planning Director Bill Molnar provided a recap of Council's actions at the prior Council Meeting. He noted that
there was some Indication raised that the previous City Attorney, Paul Nolte, had possibly made an interpretation
that could impact this application. Mr. Molnar stated that staff reviewed the files and found there was no written
interpretation made regarding the DeLuca application on East Main St. He stated that staff's opinion is the language
in 18.68.110 (Front Yard General Exceptions) only applies to front yards. He added there is language in the code
that allows for fleXibility for rear and side yards if the follOWing three criteria are met: 1) the building is less than 15
ft. in height, 2) it is separated by no more than 10 ft. from the primary structure, and 3) it is 50 ft. from a public
street. In this case, the applicant could not take advantage of the rear and side yard exception because it does not
meet the first two criteria. Staff's conclusion is that Council should judge the merits of this request based on the
variance approval criteria.
Mr. Franell clarified the Council needs to address two separate questions: 1) does 18.68.110 apply to front yards
only, or does it apply to any yard as suggested by the Applicant, and 2) does the application meet for criteria for the
variance. If the Council determines that 18.68.110 applies to all yards, then the variance request is not necessary;
however, it is the Legal Depts. opinion that 18.68.110 has not been applied to anything other than front yards in the
past and the Planning Dept. has cautioned that the consequences for interpreting the language this way are
unknown. Mr. Franell stated staff's recommendation is for Council to state that 18.68.110 applies to front yard
setbacks, and then go back and determine whether this application meets the criteria for the variance.
Mr. Franell explained that the Applicant stated the Council previously determined the unique charter of the Historic
District in general satisfies the unique or unusual variance criteria. The Legal department has looked into this and
found that the same reasoning could be applied in this instance to meet the criteria, however Council's previous
action does not bind them to make the same decision.
Mr. Molnar clarified that 18.68.110, the Front Yard General Exception, is the only section that allows for the
averaging of yard areas. Mr. Franell stated the Applicant's contention is that since sections A and B of 18.68.110 do
not speCifically state these exceptions only apply to determine front yard setback, that Council could take this
language and apply it for determining a side or rear yard setback.
Councilor Chapman and Jackson stated that section 18.68.110 does not apply to this application. Jackson further
clarified this would not apply because front yards are treated differently and there is an existing set of setbacks for
rear yards and an option for dealing with side yards.
Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s that 18.68.110 does not apply to this application. DISCUSSION: Mr.
Franell clarified for Council that section 18.68.110 Is located in the General Regulation section of the Ashland Land
Use Ordinance, and 18.68.110 is the "Front YardnGeneral Exception". Mr. Franell read section 18.68.110 aloud in its
entirety. Councilor Hartzell commented that the context in which this language lies speCifically delineates that it is
meant to deal with front yards. Councilor Chapman stated he could expand his motion by saying "...because it is not
a front yard." Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger, and Chapman, YES. Councilor Hardesty,
NO. Motion passed 4-1.
*
Council discussed whether this application meets the variance criteria. Councilor Jackson disagreed that the entire
Historic District meets the unique or unusual circumstance criteria, and stated there is already a different set of
setbacks that applies to the Historic District that are different to what is applied to the rest of town. Mayor Morrison
agreed and does not think that just because the parcellJes within the Historic District is satisfies this criteria. He
stated the purpose of the criteria is to look at the individual parcel and determine whether there is something that
makes it unique or unusual.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2617
5/912007
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 2 of2
Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to deny the appeal on the grounds that the criteria was not met. Roll
Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Jackson, SlIblger, Hardesty and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2617
5/9/2007
EXHIBIT #25-2007
DVD of May 1, 2007 City Council Meeting was incorporated into
the official record kept by the Planning Department.
~l
shla:ld
Planning.. EXh~i.b.l
Exhi/;i! l.i 15 - 2001
6~t_~,~~>~~ .
_.......,1
Tille
Tilre
M~ \, 'JfIJ7
Dale
EXHIBIT #26-2007
DVD of May 9,2007 Special Council Meeting was incorporated
into the official record kept by the Planning Department.
SONY ........
ClyofA~ -~~
PI8nnin{: Exhib.r
ExhiliI'~
~i
~
D..(tQd, PH 1>1 ~7
Tille
Tilre