[Council Communication]  [Proposed Ordinance]

Council Communication

Title:	Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large Buildings, and Amending Sections II-C-3a)2), II-C-1a) and II-C-2b)2 of the Site Design and Use Standards.
Dept:	Department of Community Development Planning Division
Date:	September 16, 2003
Submitted By:	John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
Approved By: ...........................	Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator

Synopsis:	The City Council has directed the Staff to make modifications to the "Big Box Ordinance" to clarify specific issues raised during the approval of the OSF New Theater. The attached ordinance, after several modifications made after many meetings, represents that effort. The proposed ordinance specifically limits building size to 45,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, rather than footprint, and the option for larger buildings if affordable housing was provided was deleted. Further, specific changes were made regarding development in the downtown, addressing the unique nature of that area. The Council held a public hearing on August 5, 2003 at which time testimony was taken on this topic. The Council continued discussion of this item to the August 19, 2003 meeting. The Council adopted first reading of the ordinance presented by Staff at the August 19, 2003 meeting. Specific modifications were recommended. The major changes include not excluding residential areas from the total gross floor area of the building, only excluding parking that is in a basement (as defined by the Building Code), and not allowing expansions of non-conforming buildings. The revised ordinance includes the amendments requested by the Council. Regarding the amendment concerning parking, Staff reviewed options regarding "visible" parking and found many difficulties in trying to define "visible." Most areas of a building are visible from one right-of-way or another, and unless the parking were completely underground (as in found in major metropolitan areas) it would be subject to the area calculations. The proposed language presented uses the terms "basement" and "first floor" which are defined by the building code, and involve the exposure of a floor above finished grade. While basements may be visible (such as daylight basements) they are much less obvious than other floors of a building. Specifically, a first floor is defined as a floor having an average exposure above finished grade of six feet or more. For example, on a sloping site, a floor could be exposed for 13 feet on the downhill side and completely under grade on the uphill side having an average exposure of 6.5 feet, resulting in a first floor. If the downhill exposure were less than 12 feet, it would be a basement. Roof top parking has been explicitly stated to count towards the gross floor area of a building. The Council asked for clarification regarding footprint and gross floor area, and why both measures were used in the ordinance. In order to accommodate the request to include courtyards in the footprint of a building, both measures need to be referenced. A courtyard does not necessarily contain any floor area, yet it is the Council's desire to consider this area as part of the mass and scale of the building, necessitating the use of the footprint measure. Also attached is a memo from the Housing Commission, requesting that issues relating to the provision of incentives for affordable housing be addressed in this process. Should the Council adopt second reading of the ordinance, they have requested that future amendments addressing housing be considered in the next three to six months. Should the Council delay adoption, they have recommended that the housing discussion commence immediately. Further, a letter is also attached from Russ Dale and Evan Archerd requesting that the Council defer action on the adoption of the ordinance, or limit its scope to those areas outside of the downtown, in order to allow for a public charrette process to further explore the issues of concern.
Recommendation:	The Council has several options available given the information provided: 1. Move forward with the second reading of the ordinance, adopting the changes proposed by the Council at the last meeting. Future amendments to the ordinance could be made based upon the recommendations of the Housing Commission and the results of the proposed charrette process. 2. Postpone adoption of the second reading, allowing time for Staff and the Housing Commission to provide incentives for affordable housing downtown, and allowing the proposed charrette process to occur. 3. Adopt those portions of the ordinance relating to large scale development outside of the downtown, and deferring adoption of the downtown portions, similar to Option 2. 4. Other options based upon Council discussion.
Fiscal Impact:
Background:	In 1992, the City adopted new Commercial Development Standards including specific limitations on the size of the buildings in the Detail Site Review zone. A limitation of 45,000 sq. ft. was imposed. These standards were developed through an intense and highly publicized public process. In 2000, the City Council approved an application by the Oregon Shakespeare Festival that ended up interpreting the 45,000 sq. ft. limit of the ordinance as applying only to the footprint of a structure, and not to the gross floor area square footage. After that decision, the City Council directed staff to modify the ordinance language to clearly reflect their interpretation. A hearing was held in front of the Planning Commission on August 14, 2001 at which time revised language was presented regarding the 45,000 sq. ft. footprint, that the measurements were made inside the exterior walls, and that the size limitations did not apply to the Downtown Design Standards overlay zone. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the changes, based on the direction from the City Council. On September 4, 2001, a hearing was held in front of the City Council where the proposed changes as recommended by the Planning Commission were presented. The Council, after taking public testimony, determined that additional review and public comment was necessary. After difficulty in finding a suitable date for a study session, one was finally scheduled for June 25, 2002. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare ordinance amendments addressing the following items: 1. Clarification as to how to measure the 45,000 sq. ft. limit referenced by the ordinance. 2. How to clarify the definition of a contiguous building. 3. How the ordinance amendments would be applied and impact the downtown commercial area. Another study session was held with Planning Commission on August 27, 2002 at which time proposed ordinance amendments were presented. An option for larger buildings if affordable housing was provided was also included. These amendments were generally well received, with recommendations to clarify some of the language. A final study session was held on September 24, 2002 to bring back the final versions of the ordinance based on the input from the August meeting. A public hearing was scheduled with the Planning Commission for review of the ordinance amendments on January 14, 2003. However, due to a full agenda, the item was continued to the February 11, 2003 meeting. At the February meeting, the Planning Commission took testimony on the proposed amendments and ended up recommending that no amendments to the ordinance be adopted. Further, they recommended that the Council change their interpretation regarding the 45,000 sq. ft. limit from applying to footprint. Rather, they recommended that the Council re-interpret the ordinance such that the 45,000 sq. ft. applies to the gross floor area of the entire structure. On May 7, 2003, a Study Session was held with the City Council to present the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to gain direction as to the next steps of the process. Staff presented a revised ordinance amendments addressing concerns raised during the Planning Commission process, and which clarified the ordinance. The Council directed the Staff to bring back the revised ordinance for a public hearing in front of the City Council. A hearing was scheduled for August 5, 2003, however, due to time constraints, the hearing was continued to the August 19,2003 council meeting. At that meeting, the Council accepted testimony and adopted first reading of the ordinance, with several specific recommendations to be brought back at the time of second reading.
Attachments:	An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Muncipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, Amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large Buildings, and Amending Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards.

Big_Box_Ordinance_Amendment.pdf (57.9KB)

The above document(s) are Adobe® Acrobat® PDF files and may be viewed using the free Adobe® Acrobat® Reader™. Most newer web browsers already contain the Adobe® Acrobat® Reader™ plug-in. However, if you need it, click on the "Get Acrobat® Reader™" icon to download it now.