Agendas and Minutes

Planning Commission (View All)

Planning Commission

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

JANUARY 8, 2008

CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. a The Grove, 1195 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520.

Commissioners Present: 00 Council Liaison:
John Stromberg, Chair Cate Hartzell, absent due to quasi-judicial items
Michael Dawkins
Mike Morris Staff Present:
Olena Black Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
John Fields Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Pam Marsh Angela Barry, Assistant Planner
Melanie Mindlin Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
Dave Dotterrer
Absent Members:
Tom Dimitre, excused


  • John Fields was not present for the first planning action concerning 165 Lithia Way. He had let the Chair know he would be arriving at the meeting after the completion of that action because he had a potential conflict of interest.
  • Dawkins provided the Commission with a couple of 1970's Tidings article from his grandmother's scrapbook pertaining to the building of a controversial condo project built in Ashland in the 1970's.
  • The Planning Commission will discuss the Powers and Duties at the January 22nd Study Session.
  • Molnar reported the Council will start their deliberations on the Land Use Ordinance amendments at their meeting on Tuesday.
  • The kick-off meeting for the Croman Mill Redevelopment will be held on Wednesday, January 30th, from 7 - 9 pm at the Bellview Grange.
  • The Council is scheduled to discuss the Planning Commission Powers and Duties at their February 4th Study Session. The Planning Commissioners are invited to attend that meeting.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA - Mindlin/Marsh m/s to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: Approved.

CONSENT AGENDA - Approval of Minutes

December 11, 2007 Hearings Board Minutes - Morris/Mindlin m/s to approve. Voice Vote: Approved.

December 11, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes - Morris/Mindlin m/s to approve the minutes as amended on Page 7. Dimitre voted "no," not "yes." Voice Vote: Approved.

COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, asked the Commission if there had been any movement toward an ordinance change concerning garages in E-1 zones. Since this issue first arose in 2004, nothing has been done, but several garages have been built, particularly along Will Dodge Way. He asked they look into this and get back to him.

Swales noticed the project at 11 First Street was reviewed at the Hearings Board today, and he was pleased to see the building has been reduced in scale from a three-story development down to a two-story development. He believes there is an historic grain and pattern to our downtown that needs to be respected with regard to bulk and scale, especially on smaller lots.

BRENT THOMPSON, 582 Allison Street, would like to add the following to the list of land use ordinance changes the Planning Commission will eventually review: 1) Sign code - particularly with regard to eliminating the prohibition of signs on more than two sides of a building, 2) using Billings Ranch as an example, determine what percentage of lot coverage we want. The building footprint may be a little bit too large for the lots - shrink the footprint, move square footage up, allowing for more useable yard area, 3) again, using Billings Ranch as an example - the sizable open space would be much more valuable if had been graded flat, and 4) investigate whether 21 feet might be a standard we use as credit for on-street parking.

OWNER/APPLICANT: Urban Development Services, LLC
DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to construct a 16,246 square foot, three-story mixed-use building for the property located at 123 North First Street and 165 Lithia Way. The proposed building will contain basement parking, commercial office space on the first and second floors, and four residential condominiums on the third floor. Also included are requests for modification of Planning Action #2007-00091 to allow the consolidation of two lots and an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards' Downtown Design Standards VI-B-3 to allow recessed balconies on the front of the proposed building.

Ex Parte Contact/Bias/Conflict of Interest/Site Visit
Marsh, Dawkins, Mindlin, and Stromberg have walked and driven by the site multiple times. Black has driven by the site. The aforementioned Commissioners did not have any ex parte contacts. Morris has also walked and driven by the site. He saw Eric Navickas at a Christmas party and Navickas was talking about a 20 foot setback but Morris had no idea this application would be coming before them. Dotterrer had no site visit and no ex parte contact.

There were no challenges.

Barry described the site and the proposed building as outlined in the Staff Report. This proposal involves Lots 1 and 2 of the subdivision and the building is proposed to be set back 20 feet. It is a three-story, mixed use building with parking underneath the building. The Historic Commission reviewed the project and believed it met the Site Design Standards. They recommended approval with the condition that the revised plans with architectural details are submitted for review of the full Historic Commission prior to submission of the building permit application. They strongly recommend the review of the revised plans during the early design development phase. Their recommendations are included in the record.

The applicant is requesting an Administrative Variance to the Downtown Design Standards to allow for two recessed balconies on either side of the front. The application states that since there are no adjacent buildings on either side at this time, the balconies would create a variation in building height and give a staggered street front appearance that the Downtown Design Standards call for. The Historic Commission agreed with allowing the Variance.

Overall, Staff believes the proposal meets the approval criteria for Site Design. There is a minor change to the findings (8.C.) that addresses the timing returning the plans to the Historic Commission based on their recommendation. There was a condition on the original subdivision that said the minimum size for treewells along Lithia Way would be four feet. The Public Works standard for treewells is five feet. The Commission may want to consider a condition reiterating that standard.

Stromberg questioned the 12 feet allocated for parkrow and sidewalk. Barry said it would be 13 feet if they add the condition stating the treewell is five feet. Stromberg said the Street Standards say that in commercial areas, the standard is a minimum seven foot parkrow and eight foot sidewalk. Wouldn't the applicant need some kind of Variance? Stromberg referred to Page 25 of the Street Standards where it talks explicitly about arterials in commercial areas. Molnar said when the local street standards were developed, they were primarily looking at new streets and residential areas and not a lot of thought was given to commercial sidewalk standards. The table in the Street Standards refers to seven to eight foot parkrows with a footnote that states: "a hardscape parkrow with treewells shall be used in commercial areas." The Planning Commission has applied this when there is a commercial sidewalk standard, whatever the adopted width of a tree grate is (five feet), that is essentially the commercial parkrow because the remaining portion from the edge of the tree grate towards the building is the sidewalk (pedestrian travel area). Stromberg referred to Page 22 - Boulevards - It explicitly talks about treewells and hardscape, but it doesn't say anything about reducing parkrows to the width of the treewells in commercial areas. If we are going to deviate from our own standards, we should require a Variance. Stromberg would like the applicant to respond.

MARK KNOX, 700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 204 and JEROME WHITE, 253 Third Street, project architect.
is excited that the Historic Commission unanimously approved the application. The building is well articulated and fits well into the Downtown Design Standards zone even when you include the issue about the arterial setbacks. The plaza space has been designed to allow the setback to move forward or if nothing occurs, the building still works well. The south elevation is very symmetrical. To the west side, the space orients to the project's open space that is user-friendly and visible from the street sidewalk. There are a lot of human scale and pedestrian elements going into the front and the side. The east elevation will butt up to a future building, hopefully, within the next year. It's presumed it will be at least a two-story building.

The applicants are in agreement with all Historic Commission recommendations except one. The applicants are proposing to do Hardie Panel Siding on the east elevation because eventually a building will butt up against it. The Historic Commission thought they should be using stucco. There is a big cost difference between Hardie Siding and stucco, especially for a temporary situation.

Knox discussed the proposed eight foot pedestrian pathway that cuts between the buildings. They can easily bulk up the column instead, as suggested by the Historic Commission. However, they would like to encroach into their own easement by about six inches on each side. White explained that the Historic Commission wanted the façade to be three equal bays and that is difficult to achieve. If they could have some flexibility to encroach into the easement, then they can accommodate what the Historic requested. Mindlin wondered if there could be a security issue with someone hiding behind the corner with the larger column. Knox thought just a six inch encroachment would safely work. White said part of the intention of having it wider would be to allow more light and air into that area. But he is comfortable with narrowing the opening to achieve what the Historic Commission would like.

WHITE said, in reference to Stromberg's question about the sidewalk and treewells, that they can move the sidewalk three feet. However, the subdivision showed four foot treewells and an eight foot sidewalk. They have room to move it if that is what the Commission wants. Knox said if the Commission feels that's what they want to do, they can move the planter beds in a little so a Variance would not be needed.

Marsh asked if they knew who their tenants would be. Knox said they have two local businesses that are interested. Both need to operate on a single level. White said that is why it became necessary to combine the two lots. Both businesses needed 4,000 to 5,000 square feet each on a single floor.

Dotterrer asked, regarding the Administrative Variance, what the unique or unusual aspects are with the balconies. Besides addressing this in their findings, White continued that the balconies help articulate the building's horizontal straight line when seen from the street. Knox added that the Exception to the Downtown Design Standards example is specific to decks. During the development of the Standards that became a very important issue. Everyone on the committee loved the Alex's Restaurant balcony. They did not want to preclude that opportunity. In the case of this proposal, with the 20 foot setback, it is not your typical building right up on the street so it can allow for some flexibility with some of the deck areas.

Black asked if it would be possible to extend the basement over to Lots 2 and 3. Knox said that is possible. They do not want to preclude anyone from being resource efficient. White said they will not be able to connect up to Lot 2's parking because an elevator would be in the way.

DANA GREAVES, 900 Strawberry Lane, CEO of Vortex, and future tenant of the building, said he plans to employ 42 people (in the next year) upon completion of the building. Part of the success of their business around the United States has to do with their customer service. They need to work very closely together internally. One location, one floor makes a lot of difference. He is excited about this opportunity.

COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, expressed his concerns that the building be built for a single tenant. Even if there are space requirements, they could probably be built with fire code doors between them. When the subdivision was approved, one of the nicest things about it was the way the lot was divided was hopefully going to provide the typical grain that we've had for our historic development in downtown. Here we have two lots and the result, even without the 20 foot setback, the building is wider than it is deep. It's the same situation we had with Northlight. He would like the Planning Commissioners to see the minutes of the Historic Commission meeting because he understood there was discussion about asking for a recessed entry in the front of the building. The minutes might also reflect the Historic Commissions' feelings about the plaza space out front and how it relates to our arterial setback in our downtown.

Swales has been struck by the huge amount of excavation that has been going on in that lot. The drawing contours submitted back in January show a very gradual slope from the front to the back of the site. The applicants have subsequently submitted another grading plan. The excavating is quite dramatic. How will handicap accessibility be provided from the parking in the back to the front? Does the excavation match what has been approved by the City? He has a concern with the mutual easement.

Rebuttal - Knox said there was a preliminary grading plan presented to the Planning Commission on January 12, 2007 that showed the drop-off in grade. The narrative discussed the possible undergrounding of the parking. White added said in order to work with the proposed design and entry, they had to modify the plan slightly. The plans were submitted and approved.

Knox said in most cases, he would agree with Swales that you wouldn't want to design a building for one user. The building has been designed for recycling hopefully for over 150 years. White said they have not shown any floor plans because it is intended to be flexible and allow for other entries. They could have three tenants. Fire code does not allow you to put doors through property lines. .

Knox said the discussion came up at the Historic Commission meeting regarding a recessed entry in order to step it back and make it a little more pronounced. White said the Design Standards say "ground level entries are encouraged." It is not mandatory.

White said with regard to accessibility, they provide handicap parking and a gently sloping ramp.

Knox said the property slopes 13 feet from the lowest part of the property to the sidewalk.

Knox said they chose to have the pedestrian corridor. It lines up with the corridor next to the Jasmine Building and Key Bank, leading right into downtown, near the Varsity Theater and then back to the City's parking lot.

Stromberg closed the public hearing and the record.

Staff Response - Molnar said if the Commission would like to strike any of the recommendations made by the Historic Commission, they need to make sure it is part of the motion.

Severson said the pedestrian easement has not yet been recorded. They will be required to give us the details of the easement, their method of closing the passageway, and approval by the Fire Department. He thought with the method of closure they propose there will likely be some encroachment. Appicello added that the subdivision approval for the passageway was eight feet. The Commission could acknowledge there could be adjustments in order to address the Historic Commission recommendation.

Discussion Items:

1) Deviation from Historic Commission recommendations regarding eight foot passageway. The Commissioners decided to leave this the architectural detail, size of the passageway and the encroachment between the Historic Commission and the applicant with Staff oversight.

Marsh registered her plea to the applicant to not lock the passageway. It will provide connectivity to the whole Railroad District. She would hate to see it locked at night. Dawkins shared Marsh's sentiments.

2) Sidewalks and parkrow. There was no further discussion on this item.

3) Materials (temporary) on the side of building - Hardie Panel Siding vs. stucco.

Molnar said Staff is looking for consistent materials around all four sides. The east side is a very visual side of the building. The concern is how soon the next building will be built. The Hardie board panels are 4' x 8'. Morris did not believe there was much difference between Hardie board and stucco. There was general consensus that the Planning Commission would agree to allow the Hardie board on the east elevation.

4) Administrative Variance for recessed balconies. Stromberg accepted that they met the unique circumstances because the front yard building setback is at 20 feet, it's in the Historic District, and it's a desirable feature for the building.

Morris/Dotterrer m/s to approve PA2007-09139 with the Conditions outlined in the Staff Report, but modifying 8)c) to not include the east elevation Historic Commission recommendation. Add a Condition that the pedestrian easement shall be modified to allow for minor architectural encroachments to respond to the recommendations of the Historic Commission. Add a Condition clarifying the tree grate standard that will be modified to comply with the five foot tree grate standard.

Marsh said there is nothing to complain about in this application. The building is beautiful; it has wonderful connectivity with the neighborhood and has been produced to meet the letter of the law. Yet, if we had a line of these buildings in a row on Lithia Way we would not be producing the kind of environment that we want to have there. The problem is the rules as specified and as designed to in this building in an overall context are not going to produce the kind of environment we'd like. As we approve this, it is more and more incumbent upon us to look quickly at the rules we have in place to see if we do want to make changes to them so the environment that is developed around this building takes advantage of what has been placed on the ground, builds on that, but is developed under rules that we should amend.

Black also feels this building is following all the rules and she regrets the Downtown planning initiative never followed through. We haven't done it and this is the kind of project we get left with.

Roll Call: The motion carried with Dawkins, Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris, Black, Stromberg and Mindlin voting "yes."
Adoption of Findings - The Findings will be adopted at the Study Session on January 22nd.

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1070 Tolman Creek Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: OgdenRoemerWilkerson Architecture AIA, Ashland School District
DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to construct an approximately 52,163 square foot elementary school on the Bellview School site located at 1070 Tolman Creek Road. The application proposes partial demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a new 42,678 square foot elementary school facility. The 9,485 square foot original Bellview School building (circa 1903) is to be retained and renovated as part of the proposal. Also included are requests for a Variance to the required number of bicycle parking spaces to allow 33 bicycle parking spaces where 68 spaces are required; and Tree Removal Permits to remove three oak trees and one Sequoia greater than 18 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh). The application includes the removal of six smaller trees; because these six trees are less than 18 inches dbh and located on public school property they do not require Tree Removal Permits. [The Planning Director has determined the proposal is not subject to the Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands because the applicants have provided a survey establishing the floodplain boundary as outside of the proposed area of disturbance.]

Ex Parte Contact/Bias/Conflict of Interest/Site Visit
Morris had a site visit and attended Bellview School in 1965 and 66. Stromberg, Mindlin, Dawkins had site visits. Dotterrer, Fields, Black, and Marsh had no site visits. No one had an ex parte contact. There were no challenges.

Severson explained the applicant's request and described the site and history of the building as outlined in the Staff Report. The Historic Commission lobbied for the retention of the 1929 Bellview School building and have been actively involved in the public design charrette to insure the street presence and form of the building are both preserved and respected and that the bulk, scale and mass of the new building are compatible. The Historic Commission recommended approval with the condition that final architectural details be submitted for review by the full Commission prior to submission of a building permit;

Site Circulation - As part of this proposal, the applicants are proposing to construct a separate bus loop to isolate the bus traffic (as they did at Helman School) off Siskiyou Boulevard to accommodate the five buses that serve the school in the morning and afternoon. Staff believes it is important to that the bus loop be restricted to buses only in order to eliminate potential traffic conflicts that would be created on Siskiyou if automobile traffic were allowed. They have recommended a condition to that effect.

The pedestrian walkway adjacent to that bus loop is shown extending only partway to Siskiyou Boulevard. Staff has recommended conditions to require that the walkway be extended the full circumference of the bus loop and out to Siskiyou Boulevard, and that Siskiyou sidewalks be extended to the southeastern extent of the bus loop. He recommended that at the end of Condition 8 that the applicants sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for future improvements to Siskiyou in lieu of completing the improvements to the full 750 feet of frontage.

Severson discussed the location of the drives from Tolman Creek Road. Public Works has recommended that both driveways be limited to one-way traffic, with traffic coming in at the southernmost driveway and exit out the northern driveway. A condition to this effect has been added.

The applicants are requesting a Variance to the required number of bicycle parking spaces. Severson gave a detailed explanation that can be found on Pages 9 and 10 of the Staff Report. Planning Staff does not believe the application meets the required burden of proof for a Variance.

Tree Removal & Protection - A Tree Protection Plan has been provided showing tree protection for the trees to be retained. In a report from Donn Todt, Ashland Parks and Recreation Department, Todt states that the trees in the grove along Siskiyou Boulevard "should receive the utmost in protection from construction activities. Fencing should extend as far as possible beyond the canopies, and cuts and fills with the canopy zones should be made only when all other options have been explored and exhausted." Staff is recommending a condition requiring a revised arborist's report with the building permit submittal to address any special tree protection measures to insure their survival with the installation of the bus loop.

Overall, Staff is supportive of this request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permits. Staff is unable, however, to support the requested Variance for the bike parking spaces as we believe that providing a significantly lesser number of bike parking spaces could have the affect of discouraging students from bicycling and would run counter to the Comprehensive Plan. Should the Commission decide to concur with Staff by approving the Site Review and Tree Removal Permits and denying the Variance request, we recommend the list of Conditions in the Staff Report.

Black/Dotterrer m/s to extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved.

Severson said the two conditions he is recommending adding are: 1) That the applicant sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for future improvements to Siskiyou Boulevard, including, but not limited to sidewalks, parkrow plantings, curbs, gutters, and storm drainage, and 2) Incorporate a Condition 5.K), a Fire Department condition, referencing the memo dated January 8, 2008 from Margueritte Hickman.

Mindlin is particularly concerned with the pedestrian and bicyclist access. Has there been any discussion about moving the bike parking to a different location on the east or south so it wouldn't conflict with the automobile parking at all? Severson said there had not been any discussion. He would assume if the Variance is not approved, they might move some or all of the parking.

Juli D'Chiro, Superintendent of Schools, 885 Siskiyou Boulevard, said they are pleased to have the opportunity for our community to build a new school. They are looking forward to replacing an antiquated and historic building, and they listened to the suggestions of the Historic Commission. They want to take advantage of the views of the mountains. They also want to separate the modes of transportation. They are trying to have as green a building as possible. They are using all the LEED design criteria.

DAVID WILKERSON, OgdenRoemerWilkerson Architecture, 2950 E. Barnett Road, Medford, OR 97504, said they have designed the school to the basic Site Review Standards. The factors limiting and driving the design were working around the existing Bellview Grange, the unbuildable area on the site (ball fields), the existing historic Bellview School, and light and prime views to the east.

With regard to the bike parking Variance, they made a case in their findings. He has some additional data given to them by the Bellview Principal, Christine McCollum. There are seven kids who live out town and 50 kids who live across town or out of the normal attendance zone for Bellview. There are 49 kids that live across the freeway, and 19 kids who live in the mountains. He would ask for a slight reduction in bike parking if the Commission is not willing to give the full Variance. It seems odd that the same standards are in place for high school students as for elementary schools. They are proposing safe passage for bikes to get to bike parking. They proposed moving the bike parking or augmenting with bike parking adjacent to the library.

Wilkerson explained the school's floor plan.

Wilkerson explained the traffic circulation. They want to separate bus drop-off activities from the automobiles. The kids will all be funneled through the main entrance. It is their strong desire to havea limited number of building entries. Parents of kindergarteners can park their cars and walk their children into the school.

Wilkerson described the building design and materials.

EGON DUBOIS, 381 W. Nevada Street, has been teaching bike safety for eight years. He believes bike education promotes a healthy lifestyle for kids and encourages the kids and the families to adopt this alternative means of transportation to school. Bellview School has been the only school in Ashland that has not benefited from a bike safety class in the past. He understands the way Tolman Creek Road has significantly changed and it is much safer along with Siskiyou Boulevard. He deplores both the reasoning for the bike parking Variance and apparent lack of interest of making cycling to Bellview School appealing to parents, students and staff. It is safe to assume gas prices will not be dropping and that would be an additional incentive for students and their families to commute on bikes. The number of students that have been used to calculate how many students could ride to school are numbers that are from the present and past, however, things change. If there is bike safety instruction and any other encouragement, kids tend to ride their bikes to school. He thinks the one in five ratio in the ordinance takes into account the kindergarteners and first graders.

KAT SMITH, 276 B Street, #2, said she is a bike safety instructor with Rogue Valley Transit District and the Bicycle Transportation Alliance. By the end of her two week long bike safety course the kids are wearing helmets, biking around their school, biking out into their neighborhood and practicing signals - how to safely ride around their schools. After teaching a course in Eugene, the ridership increased so much that the school had to retrofit their bike parking to add more spaces and create a bike lane. She asked the Commission to take into consideration now instead of later the bike parking and future ridership. The Bike and Pedestrian Commission did not support the Variance for many good reasons. She hopes the applicants can find a way to work this out.

DUBOIS summed up by saying that 68 bike parking spaces could seem excessive considering there are typically about a dozen bikes parked at the school currently. He would like to think that providing more than what will be required will not be a waste of money but an incentive for kids to ride more. He sees it as an investment.

Dawkins/Black m/s to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved.

The applicants waived their right to rebut.

Fields/Dotterrer m/s to close the public hearing and begin deliberating toward a decision.

Black believes this is an important building and we can expect it to last for 150 years. She does not want to rush to a decision.

Fields/Morris moved to call for the question. Voice Vote: Approved with Black abstaining. Roll Call on the motion to close the public hearing: The motion carried with Mindlin, Fields, Dawkins, Stromberg, Dotterrer and Morris voting "yes" and Marsh and Black voting "no." The record and the public hearing closed.

Bike Parking Variance - Marsh supports Staff's recommendation. She agrees that the population of the school will change over time and we have no way to predict where those students will be coming from at a future time. It is important the public schools are a model for the community. Dawkins, Morris, Fields, Stromberg and Black agreed with Marsh. Dotterrer is fine with a partial Variance but will go along with the others.

Bike parking location and access - Mindlin is very concerned about the convenience and safety of bicyclists approaching the building. Mixing bikes with any kind of street and parking lot driveway access into the school is just asking for problems. Dawkins believes the whole corner at Tolman and Siskiyou is a problem for pedestrians. Stromberg agrees with Mindlin about the problem and the goal. Dotterrer is not comfortable with where the bicycles are parked. Mindlin said the bike access should be separated from the driveway and parking lots completely and should connect in design fashion with crosswalks. Morris said the major transportation issue is with cars. Marsh said there is already a Condition that states there needs to be a separated circulation for bicyclists for review and approval of the Staff Advisor. She suggested adding a recommendation that the bicycle parking area be in more and different locations throughout the site. The architect has indicated they could do that. And, require the circulation for bicycles on the site to those various parking areas be part of the Staff approval.

Design Layout - Black has objections to the site plan and the incorporation of the historic building. It looks like we are shoehorning something onto a past identity. Severson said there is a standard in 18.72.100 referenced in the Staff Report that the Planning Commission can require the preservation and restoration of historic buildings in keeping with the Comp Plan. That's the direction Staff and the Historic Commission gave the applicant early on. Black is concerned about the east facing classroom layouts. She doesn't see anything explaining energy efficiency in the site layout. Where are they are taking advantage of north light and southern exposure?

Fields said with regard to accepting the historic building, the school got feedback and they responded to it. He thinks there has been a lot of oversight involved in this process and we shouldn't walk in from this distant minimal purview and say what they are doing is all wrong. Morris agreed there was a lot of input by the faculty, teachers and the school board. Marsh doesn't believe we should be holding schools and their functions to a higher standard than we would software engineers. We aren't telling them to look at how the light comes in at their computer screens. We should be leaving kindergarten teachers to figure out how they manage their classrooms.

Morris/Dotterrer m/s to approve this application, giving direction to Staff to define the bike access and the parking and to deny the Variance

Mindlin would like to discuss the circulation of cars. Marsh agreed this is an important issue and she did not hear enough from the District as to why they don't want to change it to a one-way circulation.

Roll Call: The motion failed with Stromberg, Mindlin, Black, Marsh and Fields voting "no" and Morris, Dotterrer and Dawkins voting "yes."

Fields/Morris m/s to reopen the public hearing and allow further testimony and rebuttal. The public hearing will be re-advertised and re-noticed. Roll Call: The motion was unanimously approved with Fields, Black, Mindlin, Stromberg, Dotterrer, Dawkins, Marsh and Morris voting "yes."

ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by,
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary


Online City Services

Pay Your Utility Bill
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Building Permit
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2023 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top