Minutes,
May 4th, 2000
Call to
order: The meeting was called to order at 5:10pm by acting chair
January Jennings. Additional commissioners in attendance included Bryan Nelson,
Dan Moore, Tom Piel, Greg Covey and Donn Todt. Staff present were Robbin Pearce
and John McLaughlin.
New
Business: Site Review – Planning Action 2000-039 City at the
Library. Staff presented the project as a 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. Staff stated this discussion would primarily
address the interior space and the parking along the alley as the parking and
landscaping on Gresham and Siskiyou will be reviewed and determined through
public hearing within the next 6 months.
The application was represented by Carol Mayer-Reed,
Landscape Architect of Portland. Ms. Mayer-Reed gave an overview of the project
including the challenge of balancing all aspects of the project: grade changes,
drainage, existing buildings and plant material, size of the proposed new
building while remaining sensitive to restoration and creating a long term
project designed in accordance with Site Design and Use Standards. Ms.
Mayer-Reed recommended thinning out some of the existing plant material. She
reiterated the street improvements will be designed within the next six months
after an extensive public hearings process and any changes to the plan
including Siskiyou and Gresham parking will come back to the full Commission.
Additional public testimony was as follows:
Anna Hirst (655 Reiten Drive) – Anna is a member of the
Friends of the Library Board. She felt confident about the long term final
project based on all the experience and professionals involved. She also felt
native plant species were important to this project.
Treva Tumbleson (655 Leonard) Treva felt the long term project and effect were very important.
Bob Wilson (410 Siskiyou) Bob is the head librarian in
Ashland. He stated this site has multiple problems only one of which is
drainage. He looks forward to creating a safe environment.
Barbara Ryberg (373 Vista) Barbara stated we need a new
library and we need trees. There must be some trading. We should memorialize
the trees being removed. This will e the very best type of building – “green” –
for the future.
Dennis Donahue – (48 & 54 Gresham) Dennis feels the
choice of the trees on the Boulevard is very important. Dennis doesn’t want to
loose the view of the hills. He also felt the library is one the most heavily
used public buildings in the City and that creates serious paring issues.
Amy Blossom (140 Susan) Amy is a reference librarian in
Ashland. She stated drainage is a big problem. The proposed size of the new
building meets the future needs of the citizens of Ashland.
Edmund Dews (470 Siskiyou) Edmund has been a library patron
for 70 years. He doesn’t believe they are saving the maximum amount of healthy
plants. He is also concerned about saving the Ethel Reed Park. And the proposed parking plan won’t meet the
needs of the library patrons.
Colin Swales (143 8th and 461 Alison) Colin
believes the original plan didn’t take into account zoning or the impact on the
historic neighborhood. The mature trees
at this juncture carry the downtown into the historic residential
district. There is no reason to remove
the landscaping around the front ‘original’
door if the door isn’t going to open.
And why should you remove the existing street trees and replace them
with flowering ‘pom-poms’?
John Freedom (Holly Street) John is opposed to the
comprehensive plan change and sideyard setback from commercial to residential.
The Comprehensive Plan plans the development to develop the building in
accordance with the comprehensive plan. John recommends any recommendation to
the Planning Commission be clearly stated and the library plans and any
comprehensive plan changes apply only to the library project. Each development
should either follow the comprehensive plan or request a change of its own.
Russ Silbiger (562 Ray Lane) Russ stated the tenants of the
new library will be the sme tenants as the old one, who didn’t maintain the
existing landscaping.
Bryan Holley (324 Liberty) Bryan stated – who speaks for the
trees? Why must you support the trees and oppose the library? We must protect
our urban forest.
Jim Lewis (640 A Street) Jim stated – This is a Tree City
USA which has a slogan of ‘Sustainable Ashland – Where green is mainstream’.
Jim asked, “Is this lip service or reality?” The zone change puts the new trees
that will be planted at risk. The type
of trees being proposed to be planted won’t ever reach the size of the existing
trees.
Cheryl Lewis (640 A. St) Cheryl said Be strong and say NO!
Make a statement for Planning. Be creative – this is not the right location for
this project.
Beth Towner (1120 Oak Knoll) Beth shared – After numerous
forums – no one spoke up for the trees. The best effort has been made.
Additional parking was not possible.
Charles Ryberg (373 vista) Charles stated 67% of the voters
approved this project and the limited amount of money to renovate and expand
the existing library.
Rebuttal – Ray
Kistler, as a member of the design team stated the ginkgo and the evergreens on
the alley were considered for over a year. Ms. Mayer-reed stated this is not
about ‘tweeking’. This is a direct hit. This new plan is planting for the next
generation – looking at this project and this site for the long term.
This concluded the public hearing (7:35pm)
Commission
Discussion and Motion – Each commissioner summarized his or her main
points and due to the shortness of time the meeting moved to the jury room.
Staff read back the discussion points of each commissioner
and the points were summarized as the following
The Tree Commission unanimously approved the Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment, the Zone Change and the Site Design and Use Review for this
project with the following recommendations:
·
On Siskiyou keep the Red Maple at the corner of Siskiyou and
Gresham. Consider species with a larger stature for the parkrow along Siskiyou
and utilize a structural soil mix in future changes in the parkrow. We believe
the library grounds represent a gateway to the residential area and as such
should have a more densely landscaped appearance. Views from the library should
not be the main consideration for tree selection.
·
On Gresham Street the existing elms should be retained. We
encourage underground utilities provided this can be done without disturbing
the existing trees. Protection during construction should be required for the
existing trees. And structural soil mix should be used for any changes to the
parkrow.
·
The Tree Commission would like more history o the existing
Ethel Reid Park. They also recommend the Mt. Fuji cherries be replaced with
trees of a larger stature in order to blend the new addition into the
landscape.
·
If proven necessary, the Tree Commission supports the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zone change for this project only
·
In regards to the interior landscaping: 1)All trees to be
planted should be of larger caliper (min 3”) depending on species and location;
2)an arborist should be on site during initial construction and throughout the
development process to ensure protection of existing trees.
·
In the parking lot in the alley structural soil should be
used in the parking islands.
·
The trees to be planted in the alley should be large stature
solar friendly trees and a comparison should be made of the cost/benefit of
these proposed trees ability to reduce heating/cooling cost vs. the
cost/benefit of the proposed solar system.
·
The Tree Commission requests the trees proposed for removal
to be tagged for review and requests the opportunity to meet on site with the
design team to review the decision to remove the trees in order to see if
retention is possible for any of the
trees and to determine whether or not the maximum amount of vegetation
has been saved.
·
The Tree Commission retains the opportunity to review the
revised landscape plan.
·
These recommendation do not imply support for the location
of the building footprint. However, should the building placement remain as
drawn the Tree Commission recognizes the Ginkgo will not be saved.
Due to the length and complexity of the Planning Action the
balance of the business on the agenda was tabled until June
Adjourned – Meeting was adjourned at 8:45p.m.