Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-008 Findings-PacificRaptorBEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON IN THE MATER OF PLANNING ACTION ~88-0!2, A REQUEST FOR ) A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILD- ) INGS IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET IN HEIGHT AND FOR A USE NOT ) AGREED ON IN ADVANCE BY THE CITY AND SOSC IN THE SOSC ) PLAN, AT THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE MUSEUM OF NATURAL ) HISTORY TO BE LOCATED AT EAST MAIN STREET AND WALKER ) AVENUE. ) APPLICANT: PACIFIC N.W. RAPTOR REHABILITATION CORP. ) AMENDED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS RECITALS: 1. The Council at a public hearing on December 20, !988, further studied this matter and concluded that the permissib~e number of visitors should be amended and accordingly, the Findings of May 17, 1988, are amended so that the decision shall be that the first phase of the project approved with the capacity of 2,750 visitors per day is hereby amended and changed to a capacity of 2,250 visitors per day. In all other respects the decision remains unchanged. Dated this /~-~day of January, 1989. City Recorder CATHERINE M. GOLDEN Mayor BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF THE LUBA REMAND OF PLANNING ACTION #88-012, ) A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ) FINDINGS, OF A BUILDING IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET IN HEIGHT AND FOR A USE ) CONCLUSIONS NOT AGREED ON IN ADVANCE BY THE CITY la,ND SOSC IN THE SOSC ) AND ORDERS PLA-N, AT THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, ) NOW KNOWq~ AS THE PACIFIC INSTITUTE OF NATURAL SCIENCES, TO BE) LOCATED AT EAST MAIN STREET AND WALKER AVENUE. ) APPLICANT: PACIFIC NORTHWEST RAPTOR REHABILITATION ) CORPORATION,. DBA PACIFIC INSTITUTE OF NATURAL SCIENCES. ) RECITALS 1 to 5 of the written decision of the City Council of May 17, 1988 remain valid,"except that the Council has now received this matter on remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA issued its decision on November 22, 1988 in its Final Opinion and Order 88-038. FURTHER RECITALS: 6) The Ashland City Council voted on December 6, 1988 to hold a public hearing on December 20, 1988 to take testimony and receive exhibits on facts related to the three subassignments of error remanded by LUBA. 7) The Council, following proper public notice, opened a Public Hearing on December 20, 1988 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were.presented on the three issues remanded by LUBA: A) Location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed museum/institute as to whether it is reasonably compatible with and will have minimal impact on the livabllity and appropriate development of Ashland Middle School, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Forensics Laboratory and the Oregon National Guard Armory and the surrounding neighborhood. B) Consider the harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density of the proposed museum/institute in comparison with the Ashland Middle School, USFWS Forensics Lab, the National Guard Armory, and the surrounding neighborhood. C) Consider the architectural and aesthetic compatibility of the proposed museum/institute with the Middle School, Forensics Lab, and Armory and the surrounding neighborhood. 8) The following findings are supplemental in order to address the remanded issues. The issues already sustained by LUBA are not being considered again. NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Ashland, finds and concludes as follows: -1- ,' SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of references to these findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used with exhibits numbered with an "R-" prefix for the exhibits received into the record at the public hearing on the remanded issues. SECTION 2. FINDINGS 2.1 The Council finds that it has received enough information to decide the issues remanded by LUBA on the two conditional use requests. 2.2 The Council finds that the Pacific Institute of Natural Sciences in the Mark O. Hatfield Environmental Sciences Complex on the SOSC Campus is the same project applied for as the Pacific Northwest M6seum of Natural History. (Exhibits R-1 and R-8) The name change is intended to clarify the multiple purpose nature of this proposed building of which the museum of natural history is but one part. The project reviewed at the public hearing on remanded issues is substantially the same project reviewed.in the May 17, 1988 written decision of the Council on Planning Action #88-012 and reviewed on appeal in LUBA's Final Opinion and Order 88-038. 2.3 The Council finds that the modifications to facilities in size and architectural characteristics proposed by the applicant at the public hearing on remanded issues do not constitute a new project. The project was found to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and other conditional use criteria with a greater number of visits and somewhat larger building. The conditions previously imposed also reduced the building size and set a limit on peak day visits to the site. Those conditions remain valid since the peak day for visits and traffic to the site could be rather large during special events even if the annual visitation level and number of new visitors is less than first expected. The modifications proposed by the applicant are based on more in- depth statistical analysis concerning the number of expected visitors to the museum and the assumption that the site can accomodate a basement down to a depth of 20 feet below the ground surface. (Exhibits R-2, R-9, and R-10) The modifications proposed do retain the key features of the project: large exhibit halls (although fewer of them); a rotunda to house an old-growth forest exhibit; a high- level observation deck; an education and administration area; facilities for visitor services (food service, gift shop, etc.) and an IMAX theatre. The proposed modifications are consistent with the position that the applicant has taken from the time of the initial application -- the facilities are lar9e enough to permit the range of programs devised by the museum's Program and Facilities Committee, a group of local citizens. The proposed facilities also make it likely that the museum/institute can operate on a self-sustaining basis once it opens, an objective in the public interest. -2- 2.4 The Council finds that the proposed request for Conditional Use Permit for a use not agreed on in advance by the City and SOSC in the SOSC Plan, and for building heights in excess of 40 feet, meets the relevant criteria of the Conditional Use Chapter 18.104. Specifically, the Council finds that: B. Concerning conditional use criterion "B" in Chapter 18.104, the Council found in its written decision of May 17, 1988 that the most sensitive uses (residences) in the neighborhood of the proposed Institute would not be adversely affected. The Ashland Middle School, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Forensics Laboratory (Forensics Lab) and the Oregon National Guard Armory (Armory) are less sensitive than residential uses, ~and therefore the Institute is compatible with them. The proposed Institute would be reasonably compatible with the Middle School, Forensics Lab and Armory because they share similar locations on and near the SOSC north campus and front on East Main Street or Walker Avenue, designated arterial and collector streets, respectively, in the city's Comprehensive Plan. These streets were shown by expert testimony cited in the May 17, 1988 decision to have capacity for existing and planned growth including the proposed facilities. The four buildings also have similar setbacks from the streets. (Exhibit R-3) The proposed Institute, the Middle School, the Forensics Lab and the Armory are similar in size as shown in Exhibits R-3 to R-10. The Institute is largest in only two of the eight characteristics in Exhibit R-3. The proposed Institute, the Middle School, the Forensics Lab and the Armory are also similar in design. The building materials of all four institutional buildings being considered are similar (masonry, glass, wood, and stone). The ratio of glass to building surface varies between the buildings based upon their functions. The design of each building is consistent with its institutional purpose. (Exhibits R-l, R-5 to R-8, and R-10) The proposed Institute, the Middle School, the Forensics Lab and the Armory are also similar in operating characteristics. The buildings are not occupied 24 hours a day as many residences can be. The variations in the time of operation actually enhance the compatibility of the four neighboring institutional buildings especially since the peak seasonal load of the buildings with the most visitors (Middle School and Institute) offset each other. (Exhibit R-4). The personnel of the neighboring Middle School, Forensics Lab and Armory have stated that they believe the Institute will be compatible and have no adverse impact on the "livability" of these facilities. (Exhibits R-1 to R-9) -3- The operation of the Forensics Lab would be enhanced by the proposed Institute as indicated by the letter and testimony of Ken Goddard, Director of the Lab. Educational opportunities of students and teachers at the Middle School would be enhanced as indicated by Dr. William E. Moore, Deputy Superintendent of Ashalnd School District No. 5. The Armory would be little affected as reported by Gary R. Allen, Lieutenant Commander. We conclude none of these three closest neighbors would be impaired by the Institute due to location, size, design or operating characteristics. (Exhibits R-l, R-5 to R-8) 2.5 In the May 17, 1988 written decision on this action the City relied upon its usual practice of allowing architectural redesign at Site Review in accordance with conditions established in the initial approval. The direction of LUBA on pages 38 through 41 of Final Opinion and Order 88-038 is that the Council must make additional findings on its previous consideration of criteria 18.104.040 (C) (1) and (5) for structures in'the surrounding neighborhood of the proposed Institute as follows: C. (1) Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density. In comparison to the Middle School, Forensics Lab and Armory, the scale of the Institute is similar (Exhibits R-3 to R-8 and R-10), the bulk is similar (Exhibits R-3 to R-8 and R-10), and the lot coverage is similar (Exhibits R-3 to R-8 and R-10). The density is represented in this case primarily by the lot coverage. We are comparing the Institute facilities in this instance to other institutional buildings (Ashland Middle School, Forensics Lab, and Armory) because they are the closest neighbors of the proposed Institute and the most likely neighbors to be affected. Density is usually evaluated by counting the number of residences and dividing by the area affected, but this does not apply to considering the compatibility of the Institute to its surrounding neighborhood (Exhibits R-1 to R-10). The Site Review standards in 18.72.040(23) use the square footage and lot coverage rather than number of units to appropriately address this concern. Evidence of compatibility consists of the tables comparing the four institutional structures (Exhibits R-3 and R-4), the site plan showing building footprints and the building elevations in Exhibit R- iO). Based on this evidence, the Council finds the Institute will conform to the Comprehensive Plan, be reasonably compatible with, and have minimal impacts on its surrounding neighborhood in regard to harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density. 2.6 C. (5) Architectural and aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. This criterion overlaps C. (1) in some important respects. Exhibits R-1 through R-10 also provide the basis for considering each aspect -4- of this criterion. The function of a proposed building is a key determinant in judging the architectural compatibility. As stated above the proposed Institute is as large as its programmatic functions indicate it needs to be and its constituent features are appropriate to its purpose. The revised drawings of the proposed Institute incorporating the conditions on building height and setbacks of the May 17 written decision of the Council establish that in regard to architectural compatibility the major components of proposed Institute "will be reasonably compatible with and have a minimal impact upon" the Ashland Middle School, Forensics Lab and Armory. The building materials of all four institutional buildings being considered are similar imasonry, glass, wood, and stone). The ratio of glass to building surface varies between the buildings based upon their functions. Greater contrasts in architectural style exist in other parts of the SOSC campus and elsewhere in the city and are compatible. Authority for further minor modifications to refine the architecture exists pursuant to 18.72.070 (G) and (H). The aesthetic characteristics of the proposed Institute will not have any significant impact on the operations, use or enjoyment of the Middle School, Forensics Lab or Armory. The appearance of the museum as seen from the surrounding neighborhood will not preclude the functions nor impair the value nor utility of surrounding structures. As noted on page VIII-ii of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, "The appearnace ~of the City is directly related to the types and amount pf vegetation." Therefore, the regulations the city has used to assure aesthetic compatibility are primarily the landscaping requirements in the Site Review Chapter 18.72, in particular 18.72.070 (A through D) and the landscaping standards of 18.72.090. The large expanse of museum grounds resulting from the 12 percent lot coverage of the Institute and the application of the site review standards will assure this criterion is met. The City has exercised a broad range of discretion in its determination of architectural and aesthetic compatibility in past land use actions. The conditional use criteria do not in any event require uniformity of architectural or aesthetic 'components. This project's architectural components are reasonable given its intended function. The Institute may well be seen as beautifying the .surrounding neighborhood. The city can expect that quality in the architecture and aesthetics of the built environment of the city will be enhanced by the proposed Institute. The architects employed by the applicants have designed several other structures on the SOSC, and it can be expected the final detailed plans for the Institute will exceed the city's minimum standards. (Exhibit R-10) 2.7 Consideration of the surrounding neighborhood also requires evaluating the compatibility and impact of institutional structures such as those on and near the SOSC campus with nearby residences. The Council generally finds the SOSC campus to be compatible with surrounding residential uses as indicated by the City's incorporation of the SOSC Plan within the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps also show this compatibility since most of the campus is surrounded by residentially-zoned property. It has been shown that the proposed Institute would not adversely affect the Middle School (with students in grades 6,7 and 8 from the entire community), the Forensics Lab (a high-security facility not generally accessible to the public) or the Armory (a training center for the Oregon Army National Guard). Since the Institute would be compatible with and have minimal impact on these closest neighbors, the compatibility with residences and other neighbors should be greater and the impacts even less. The Middle School, the Forensics Lab, the Armory, the railroad and playing fields to the south of the Institute on the SOSC campus, and East Main Street buffer the Institute site from the rest of the surrounding neighborhood. This situation serves to provide for the compatibility of anything in the surrounding neighborhood with the proposed Institute. We have found the Institute compatible with its closest neighbors, and the buffering effect of those close neighbors makes it reasonable to conclude that the Institute will operate compatibly and have minimal impact on more distant neighbors whether one considers residences, institutions or other uses. The compatibility of institutional neighbors with residences on adjacent land and in the surrounding neighborhood is also evidenced by the City's recent a'pproval of one phase of the Millpond Subdivision on North Wightman while the Armory and Forensics Lab were under construction and an application pending on the Institute. Because their functions differ so much, the comparison between institutional buildings and single-family residences in terms of location by zone, size, design, operating characteristics, scale, bulk, coverage, density or architecture and aesthetics have already been addressed by finding the Institute conforms to the Comprehensive Plan which balances the needs and impacts of many types of uses. Further, the Council finds the proximity of these different land uses to be compatible and have minimal impact on each other. The Insitute is compatible with the Forensics Lab and Armory which buffer the Institute from residential uses already found by previous actions of the City to be compatible. Therefore, it is reasonable to find that the Pacific Institute of Natural Sciences building will be compatible with and have minimal impact on the entire surrounding neighborhood includin9 residences. -6- SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this mat~r, the Council concludes that the proposal for the construction of buildings in excess of 40 feet in height and for a use not agreed on in advance by the city and SOSC in the SOSC Plan at the proposed site of the Museum of Natural History is supported by evidence in the whole record. 3.2 Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the Council concludes that the conditions Imposed in the written decision of May 17, 1988 are still valid as written. Approved this Ashland, Oregon. Karen Huckins Acting City Recorder L. Gordon Medaris Mayor -7-