HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA 2004-002 - Swales Email
t"'aY~ I .
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net>
"Gino Grimaldi" <grimaldg@ashland.or.us>
06/11/2004 7:24:19 AM
Dev1elopment Definition (act or result)
Gino, Please Include in the Council Packet
Mayor and Council
(cc Mike Franell, City I~ecorder, Fran Berteau))
RE: PA 2003-003 Shasta Building - Lloyd Haines
Mike Frannel's opinion (below) that,"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 f()r large scale developments, including the 10% public space requirement." seems to
confirm my worse fears that I expressed to you about this development complex creating the unhealthy
precedent for allowing an end-run around the requirement for provision of public space/plaza and I think it
flies in the face of the meaning and intent of both the ALUO and also the Comprehensive Plan with regard
to provision of such public space.
Please read carefully Comprehensive Plan Section 13.08 Parks, Open Space and Aesthetics
GOAL: TO PROVIDE THE PEOPLE OF ASHLAND WITH A VARIETY QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF
PARKS, PARK FACILITIES, OPEN SPACES, TRAILS, AND VISUAL RESOURCES SUFFICIENT FOR
THEIR NEEDS
(http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/ComprehensivePlan.pdf (scroll to page 208 of online .pdf file! onward)
To use Craig Stone's l:)wn argument (as used to define Impact Area for Sid DeBoer - see belc)w) Council
does not use the definition for one part of the code to apply to another. (Although at least in the DeBoer
case the wording and meaning were exactly the same.)
In the Haines case thE~ Asst. City Attorney confuses the definition of Development used in 18.62. As used
in 18.62 it refers to thE~ act of developing - such as cutting, filling stripping, building etc.). In thle SDUS it
refers to the result of development. Two totally different meanings. (Please look up in a dictionary)
I contend that in the SDUS development(s) refer to a building or group of buildings under common
ownership on a single tax lot sharing common boundaries and amenities such as ingress/egress, etc.
This is clearly shown in the SDUS diagram that I shared with you during my testimony (and slhould be
entered into the record.)
I contend that all the Haines buildings on this single tax lot are just such a development and should be
evaluated as such.
Even using Mike Franell's own interpretation; the other development activity on this lot such :as grading,
excavating, landscaping the building of the bridge, stairways and other structures clearly bem~fit and abut
the existing building and symbiotically join the two. This makes all the buildings on the lot a dl3velopment
in excess of 10,000 sq. ft. As such, Public space needs to be included (and/or dedicated ?)
Colin Swales
From Michael Franell, Assistant City Attorney
A question about the definition for development has again arose. I am including with this email,
information that I proVided to Colin Swales a couple of weeks ago in response to questions in this area. If .
you have any further questions, please let me know.
1) It seemed clear at the public hearing that neither Staff nor the applicant had addressed the possible
issue of the aggregatE~ group of buildings on that lot being in excess of 10,000 sq. ft and then3fore subject
to the provision of public open space or plaza etc.
11
II
t"'ClY~ L. .
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 buiilding frontage in
excess of 100 feet in length, (2) located within the Detail Site Review Zone. .." The proposed
development is located within the Detail Site Review Zone, therefore meeting criteria (~~) for the standards
to apply, so the question that needs to be answered is whether this is a development involving a gross
floor area in excess of 10,000 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 th<<~ 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 43 building
(emphasis add<<~d). 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 review 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 lof gross floor area
and less than the 100 feet of frontage and is therefore not subject to the large scale pmject 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 tclX 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 indeplendently evaluated to see if it is subject to the additional standards for large scale
developments, including the 10% public space requirement.
Michael FranellAssistant City AttorneyCity of Ashland, OR(541 )488-5350 - PHONE
(541 )552-2092 - FAXTTY 1 (800)735-2900franellm@ashland.or.us
From DeBoer Findings:
The Council finds the definition of "impact area" in ALUO 18.104.020 is irrelevant to this application. Since
the phrase "impact area" is defined, it would have been easy for the City Council, in adopting ALUO 18.62,
to use that phralse and "import" its defined meaning into the Physical and Environmental Constraints
Review process. That the city did not do so is evidence that the expanded definition of IlIimpact area" for
conditionally permitted uses was not intended to apply to cases such as this.
cc: "Fran berteau" <Fran@ashland.or.us>, "Barbara christensen"
<barbarac@ashland.or.us>, "Mike Franell" <franellm@ashland.or.us>