The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutExhibit 20 :. Barbara christensen - -RE~: Resp-onse to your q-ues-tions- re: your PC no vote i' Page 1: I From: To: Date: Subject: Mike Franell Colin Swales 5/18/04 11 :34: 19 AM Re: Response to your questions re: your PC no vote ff)- ~~-Oa..2- ~ CC~O s-Ie-o<+ My email shows that I copied everyone. I will be staffing the Council meeting tonight. See you there. Michael FranE~1I Assistant City Attorney City of Ashland, OR (541)488-53510 - PHONE (541 )552-209:2 - FAX TTY 1 (800)7~35-2900 franellm@ashland.or.us >>> Colin Swales <colin@mind.net> 05/18/04 11 :34AM >>> Mike, I look forward to an interesting debate on the issue tonight. Will you be there to provide Staff input? I see that you only copied the Mayor and Chris Hearn (and the city Recorder) on your response to me. Why not the other councilors? Are they the only ones that had expressed interest in this matter? Colin Mike Franell wrote: >Colin: I don't mind providing Mike Broomfield's input in this area, but it really is not relevant to the question posed. The building codes and how they apply are not generally considered relevant in trying to interpret a planning code provision. > >If a court of law were to try to interpret the provisions, absent the Council's interpretation, the inclusion of the group of building issue in the big box provisions would actually go against your position. The court would see that the Council had specifically provided for groups of buildings in those provisions, but noticeably did not include groups of buildings in the other provisions. However, the Council could interpret differently in this area and as you are already aware, the Council's interpretation is entitled to substantial deference by the Oregon courts. Through this series of emails, we have already passed along your views to the Council. > >Michael Franell >Assistant City Attorney >City of Ashland, OR >(541 )488-5350 - PHONE >(541 )552-2092 - FAX > TTY 1 (800)"735-2900 >franellmCCUashland.or. u~ > > > >>>>Colin Swales <colinCCUmind.net> 05/18/04 10:48AM >>> >>>> >>>> >Mike, -- -'. ..-- -.." . -..... .-_. ~ :.. Barbara christensen - Re!: Response to your questions re: your PC no vote I Page 2! 1 > The definition of what constitutes "development" for physically >constrained land is only slightly relevant to commercial construction >in all the DSRZs scattered throughout town.. >Nearer in context is the 45,000 sf limit also included in the precisely >same section of the SDUS concerning aggregation of floor areas for >purposes of compliance with the "Large Scale Development" criteria. > >Also, your reply fails to mention how the City's own Building Department >views this group of buildings on a single tax lot for for code >compliance issues. >e.g. Plans would seem to show that the entrance lobby for ingress and >egress (esp. from the existing Bar and Grill) are shared with the new >building. > > >While I highly value your opinion presumably offered under. *108.160 >Ordinance Interpretations A(3) *there are other provisions of that ALUO >that bear on this matter of interpretation: > >A1The comprehensive plan; >A2. The purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied to the >particular section in question; > >1 think there is a valid argument that the possible interpretation of >the code that you postulate fails under both these latter provisions. >1 feel that the! purpose of Section II-C-3 of the Site Design Standards >was to provide commensurate public open space for such groups of buildings. > >Please share this with Council and get back to me on Mike Broomfield's >input with re!~ard to these specific plans. (Le.One building or two?) > >thanks > >Colin >----------------.-------------------------------------------------------- > > >Mike Franell wrote: > > > >>Colin: I have looked over the materials re: the Lloyd Haines application for a proposed develpment at 88 North Main Street and have discussed the issue with the Planning staff. I have the following responses to questions tl1at you have posed. >> >>1) It seemed clear at the public hearing that neither Staff nor the applicant had addressed the possible issue of the a!~gregate group of buildings on that lot being in excess of 10,000 sq. ft and therefore subject to the provision of public open space or plaza etc. >> >>The 10,000 square feet issue is set forth in Section II-C-3 of the Site Design Standards. It applies to: "Developments (1) involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet or a building frontage in excess of 100 feet in length, (2) located within the Detail Site Review Zone. .." The proposed development iis located within the Detail Site Review Zone, therefore meeting criteria (2) for the standards to apply, so the question that needs to be answered is whether this is a development involving a gross : Barbara floor area in excess of 101,000 square feet. As I understand your contention, you believe that it is because the aggregate of existing buildings, together with the proposed building are in excess of 10,000 square feet. However, the answer to the whole question hinges on what a "Development" is. The SDUS does not contain any definitions to help resolve this question. Therefore, we must go back to the ALUO to see if there is a definition of Development that helps resolve the question. The only place in the ALUO in which development is defined is in the Physical and Environmental Contraints Permit Section. ALUO Section 18.62.030 E defines "Development" as: >> >>E. Development - Alteration of the land surface by: >>1. Earth..moving activities such as grading, filling, stripping, or cutting involving more than 20 cubic yards on any lot, or earth-moving activity disturbing a surface area greater than 1000 sq. ft. on any lot; >>2. Construction of a building, road, driveway, parking area, or other structure; except that additions to existing buildings of less than 300 sq. ft. to the existing building footprint shall not be considered development for section '18.62.080. >>3. Culverting or diversion of any stream designated by this chapter. >> >>Of key importance is subsection 2, which defines Development as the Construction of a building (emphasis added). There is nothing in the definition that ties Development to the construction of an aggregate of buildings. Therefore, as long as the proposed project is a building, and is not an addition to the existing buildings, the 10,000 square feet provision needs to be applied only to the construction of the proposed building. In a r,eview of the proposed plans, the building will have its own foundation, the building will have its own walls. There are not any shared walls with other buildings, although, there are abutting walls., Consequently, under the provisions of the ADUS, this building has been reviewed as an independent building and has been determined to be less than the 10,000 square feet of gross floor area and less than the 100 feet of frontage and is therefore not subject to the large scale project standards. >> >>The only instance in which our code addresses an aggregate of buildings is in the "big box" provisions which limits the total frontage to no more than 300 lineal feet and total gross floor area square footage to no more than 45,000. The aggregate of the proposed building, together with the existing buildings does not violate the big box provisions. Therefore they are not applicable and were not addressed. >> >>2. How does this Staff interpretation affect a possible serial development on a single tax lot of groups of buildings, (each under the 10,000 sf limit) that would not then trigger the need for public space) ? >> >>Under this interpretation of the code, if buildings are serially developed on a single tax lot, each building would be independently evaluated to see if it is subject to the additional standards for large scale developments, including the 10% public space requirement. >> >>Michael Franell >>Assistant City Attorney >>City of Ashland, OR >>(541)488-5,350 - PHONE >>(541)552-2092 - FAX >>TTY 1 (800)735-2900 >>franellm@a1shland.or.us >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > :.. Barbara christensen - RE!: Response to your questions re: your PC no vote k""""".,."".,.,...".,...,.".",.,...,.....,..'.. ~~~~~JI > > > > > : Barbara christensen - REr Haines development proposal. Page 1 : From: To: Date: Subject: Colin Swales <colin@mind.net> Mike Franell <franellm@ashland.or.us> 5/18/045:18:57 PM Re: Haines development proposal. Mike, Itls now 5.20 p.m. Did you receive anything from Mike Broomfield concerning this matter? thanks Colin Mike Franell wrote: >Mike: > >In relation to the proposed development by Lloyd Haines at 88 North Main Street, Colin Swales is interested in whether you are handling the proposed building as a separate building or as an addition to the existing buildings? > >Michael Franell >Assistant City Attorney >City of Ashland, OR >(541 )488-5350 - PHONE >(541 )552-2092 - FAX > TTY 1 (800)"735-2900 >franellm@ashland.or.us > > > > > > cc: Mike broomfield <broom@ashland.or.us>, <barbarac@ashland.or.us>, Bill Molnar <bill@ashlancl.or.us>, <Fran@ashland.or.us>, Gino Grimaldi <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>, John McLaughlin <mac@ashland.or.us>, Paul nolte <Noltep@ashland.or.us>, Sharlene stephens <Sharlene@ashland.or.Uls>, <cate@mind.net>, <donlaws@mind.net>, <katejackson@opendoor.com>, <jmorrison@rvcog.org>, <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>