Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-09 Planning MIN 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 Request - 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 Change 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 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2000 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 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2000 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 LIPPEN-HOLTZ, 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 MASTAIN, 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 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2000 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. LYN 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. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2000 Every one of the exceptions the applicants ask for (starting on page 52) is not met based on the Historic 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 Response - 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 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2000 appropriate. Alternate sites for the library are not a criteria of approval. The alley is 22 feet wide and does accommodate two-way traffic. 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 lower 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. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2000 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 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 8 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2000