| Synopsis: |
On September 12, 2003, the applicants filed their request
for the above reference planning action. On October 3, 2003, the City
deemed the action complete for review by the Planning Commission. On
October 14,2003, the Planning Commission held the initial hearing on the
request, at which time they accepted testimony and evidence. The hearing
was continued to allow the applicant to modify the plan to address concerns
of the commission, and to provide other information as requested. On
November 12, 2003, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing,
and ultimately approved the request with 21 conditions. The findings
supporting the decision were adopted by the Commission on December 9, 2003.
The findings were mailed to the parties on December 11, 2003. A
timely appeal was filed by Ramona DeVaul, Jack Hardesty, Bryan Holley, Eric
Navickas, and Bill Street on December 26, 2003.
Issues were raised regarding the relationship of this application to the
new big box ordinance, and the previous interpretation by the Council. The
Council adopted an interpretation of the old big box ordinance as part of
the Oregon Shakespeare Festival application for the New Theater. That
original ordinance language and interpretation are as follows:
(Ordinance)
No New building or contiguous groups of buildings shall exceed a gross square
footage of 45,000 square feet of a combined contiguous building length of
300 feet.
(Interpretation from OSF findings)
"The City Council does not interpret "gross square footage of 45,000 square
feet" to mean gross floor area square footage. This quoted phrase is
to be interpreted as meaning 45,000 square foot footprint. It is to
be distinguished from those provisions of the land use ordinance that
specifically refer to gross floor area such as in section II-C-3 of the Site
Design and Use Standards ("Developments (1) involving a gross floor area
in excess of 10,000 square feet..."Emphasis add.) The City Council
finds that the parking structure does not exceed a footprint of 45,000 square
feet."
The Council initiated an ordinance amendment process to clarify and codify
the interpretation. That new ordinance was adopted on September 16,
2003 and became effective on October 16,2003. The new ordinance defines
the maximum building size as having a footprint no greater than 45,000 sq.
ft., or a total gross floor area of no greater than 45,000 sq. ft. The
Bemis' application was filed prior to the effective date of the new ordinance,
and is therefore under the standards of the old Big Box ordinance and previous
Council interpretations.
The appeal letter states the following as grounds for the appeal:
1. The application does not meet the requirements of Ashland Land Use
Ordinance 18.72.050 (Detail Site Review Zone) as extant at time of application
submittal - September 12, 2003.
2. The application does not meet the requirements of Ashland Site Design
and Use Standards II-C-3 (Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects)
as extant at time of application submittal - September 12, 2003.
3. The application should be subject to the variance requirements in
ALUO 18.100.020 and Administrative Variance 18.72.090 (Separation between
Buildings) as stated in the original application submittal and accompanying
Staff Report dated October 14, 2003.
4. The application, submitted September 12, 2003, but not deemed complete
by City staff until October 3, 2003, still did not meet completion requirements
as detailed in ALUO 18.72.060 (Plans Required) and therefore should have
been subject to the requirements of ALUO 18.108.017 (Applications).
As of 3pm on January 14, no additional information detailing the grounds
for appeal had been submitted. Therefore, due to lack of specificity,
Staff cannot respond to items 1, 2, and 4 at this time. As for Item
3, the Planning Commission's findings state the following:
"The Commission finds that the initial request for an Administrative Variance
to Detail Site Review Standard II-C-3a(3) does not apply to buildings located
or proposed to be located on separate parcels. The standard states:
Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a
distance equal to the height of the tallest building. The proposed
building will be partitioned off onto a separate parcel. The Commission
finds that interpreting the standard otherwise would place an unusual hardship
on the owner of an adjoining undeveloped parcel, by dictating the placement
of a proposed building based upon the building height of a neighboring building.
Consequently, this could significantly limit or eliminate the potential
development area on the adjoining vacant property, unless the City of Ashland
approves a variance to the standard."
Therefore, the Commission found that the standard did not apply to buildings
on separate parcels. |
| Recommendation: |
The Planning Commission found that the project complied
with the standards in effect at the time of the application, and approved
the project by a 5-2 vote. Staff supports the decision of the Planning
Commission.
By ordinance, the public testimony is required to either be completed by
9:30pm or continued to another meeting. Should the hearing need to
be continued, it has been scheduled for 7pm on Thursday, January 22, 2003
in the Council Chambers. Further, in order to comply with the requirement
that the City complete its decision within 120 days, another meeting to adopt
the findings has been tentatively set for January 28, 2003. |
