[Council] ALUO 18.68.050 - request for interpretation/clarification

[Colin Swales]

Mayor and Council,
Way back in June of 2001 I presented a request to the Planning Commission that the BigBox ordinance be clarified...
        "...Doug Neuman has shown a desire to develop the back area of the Lithia Springs Hotel and it is only fair that he has an interpretation of the ordinance..."

This was never done adequately or in a timely fashion.  
The fallout was that we had the appeal of the Bemis project all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court. 
(The prior "floor area" precedent set by the Mountain View Retirement Home was never acknowledged - until Doug filed his recent $2 million  M37 claim.)  
This sort of obfuscation costs the City's taxpayers an extraordinary amount of money in Staff time as well as frustration by the Planning Commission, Council, Developers and citizens alike.

More recently, similar valuable time was wasted while everybody scratched their collective heads over the obvious purpose and intent of the Special Setback Requirements of buildings situated along Ashland's arterial streets.

The Legal Department's  current opinion is that with some clever lot-line adjustments, aggregation etc., the required 20 ft. arterial setback can be transferred to a minor side street. 
While a necessary valuable part of the "Interpretation" process Legal's "opinion"  is only a part of that process (see 18.108.160 below) 

Theree opinion obviously does nor agree with the purpose and intent test.
So the ordinance needs to be "interpreted" by Council - who have the final say in the matter.

As time is always of the essence in these matters, it is imperative that Council move quickly to uphold that purpose and intent before yet another work-around is proposed and filed with the city.

Pending a minor clarifying amendment to ALUO 18.68.050 I am requesting that you formally issue an official interpretation of this part of the code in line with the Comprehensive Plan, Downtown Plan and the purpose and intent - as clearly stated in the prefatory statement of the ordinance.

Namely, that all buildings along arterial streets (except in C-1-D) are required to be setback by 20 ft.

I also submit some suggested wording [ IN CAPS RED ] on how the ordinance in question can be clarified (hopefully in the very near future), by a proper legislative amendment process.

Suggested changes 
8.68.050 Special Setback Requirements

To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street [ AS REFERENCED BELOW ] , or portion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line separating the lot from the street.


Street Setback
East Main Street, between City limits and Lithia Way 35 feet
Ashland Street (Highway 66) between City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65 feet
Also, [front yards - DELETE] for properties abutting all arterial streets, SETBACKS ABUTTING SUCH STREETS, shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, with the exception of the C-1-D district. 

I would therefore request that you to put this matter on your upcoming agenda. 

Thank you for your timely consideration of this very urgent matter

Colin Swales

*******************************************
Existing Ordinances

ALUO 18.68.050 Special Setback Requirements

To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line separating the lot from the street.
Street Setback
East Main Street, between City limits and Lithia Way 35 feet
Ashland Street (Highway 66) between City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65 feet
Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, with the exception of the C-1-D district. 

18.108.160 Ordinance Interpretations

A. When in the administration of the Land Use Ordinance there is doubt regarding its intent, the suitability of uses not specified or the meaning of a word or phrase...
[snip] 
....Any interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance shall be based on the following considerations:
1. The comprehensive plan;
2. The purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied to the particular section in question; and
3. The opinion of the City Attorney.
 
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC FORUM June 12. 2001 http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=443

COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, requested two items be discussed by the Planning Commission. He would like the Planning Commission to interpret 18.72.050 C (Site Design and Use Standards)—the "big box" ordinance. The City Attorney has ruled that the building size of 45,000 square feet is not floor area, but rather size of the footprint. This means one could possibly build a building 180,000 square feet or more or even 225,000. Swales believes when this ordinance was drafted it was not the intent to be able to build buildings of this size. He believes the ordinance was intended to address floor area, not building footprint. Doug Neuman has shown a desire to develop the back area of the Lithia Springs Hotel and it is only fair that he has an interpretation of the ordinance.