[ Council Communication ]   [ 9/4/2001 Council Communication ]  [ Staff Report ]

Council Communication

Title:	Discussion of amendments to the “big box” ordinance, Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance
Dept:	Department of Community Development
Date:	February 5, 2002
Submitted By:	John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
Reviewed By:	Greg Scoles, City Administrator

Synopsis:	The City Council held a hearing on the proposed changes to the “big box” ordinance on September 4, 2001. At that time, the Council delayed the adoption of the changes to allow for the scheduling of a study session to discuss the issues. Due to difficulties in finding an open evening study session date for the entire Council, the item was delayed to this point.
Recommendation:	No recommendation. This is an item for discussion, and ultimate direction to staff regarding any proposed changes.
Fiscal Impact:	None
Background:	The previous Council Communication from September 4 and the supporting information has been included in this packet, as well as the minutes from both the Planning Commission meeting and City Council meeting. In addition, a new Staff Exhibit, S-5, has been included which appears to clarify when the C-1-D reference was dropped from the ordinance. This exhibit is a staff recommendation during the process of original adoption of the big box standards that shows the current language III-A2 with a possible modification that ended up dropping the C-1-D reference. The explanation of the staff suggestion in the memo makes no mention of the C-1-D zone. While this is a relatively minor issue, it represents staff’s understanding of the history of the ordinance and how it came about. Also included in the packet are the adopted Downtown Design Standards. The Council asked for information regarding the extent that the Downtown is regulated beyond other commercial areas. All commercial and employment zones are subject to the Basic Site Review Standards, while other areas are also subject to the Detail Site Review Standards. The Downtown is included in these areas. Further, the specific Downtown Design Standards also apply, providing a progressively rigorous design standard process for applicants to follow in the Downtown.

End of Document - Back to Top

Council Communication

Title:	An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland Municipal 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.
Dept:	Planning Department
Date:	September 4, 2001
Submitted By:	John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
Reviewed By:	Greg Scoles, City Administrator

Synopsis:	After approval of the new theater and parking structure for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, the City Council directed the staff to prepare amendments to the City’s ordinance regarding site design standards for large buildings, clarifying that the 45,000 sq. ft. limitation applies to the building footprint area and not to the gross floor area of the entire building, and that the standards not apply within the downtown area. The attached ordinance provides the clarifications requested. The Planning Commission held a hearing on this item at their August 14, 2001 meeting, and recommended approval of the proposed changes.
Recommendation:	Staff recommends that the City Council approve the first reading of the ordinance as presented.
Fiscal Impact:	None.
Background:	The staff report and background information is available in the attached packet.

ORDINANCE NO. __________

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 SECTION II-C-3a)2) OF THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS .

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 18.72.050.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is amended to read: (deletions in strikeout, additions in bold)

No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a gross square footage building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured inside the exterior walls, or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. The footprint area does not include any areas with walls but no roof. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the gross square footage building footprint area or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section shall be subject to any variance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. These provisions shall not apply to new or existing structures in the Downtown Design Standards Zone.

SECTION 2. Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards is amended to read:

No new buildings or contiguous groups of shall exceed a gross square footage building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured inside the exterior walls, or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. The footprint area does not include any areas with walls but no roof. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, and which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. These provisions shall not apply to new or existing structures in the Downtown Design Standards Zone.

End of Document - Back to Top

ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT

PLANNING ACTION: 2001-069
APPLICANT: City of Ashland

ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments

REQUEST: Amendment of Chapter 18.72.050.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards regarding standards for large buildings.

I. Relevant Facts

Background - History of Application:

In 1992, the City adopted new Commercial Development Standards including specific limitations on the size of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone. A limitation of 45,000 sq. ft. was imposed.

In 2000, the City approved an application by the Oregon Shakespear Festival that involved a new theater and parking structure in downtown Ashland. Questions arose about the application of the building size standards adopted in 1992. Specifically, questions arose as to the application of the 45,000 sq. ft. standard and how it is measured, and is it appropriate to apply the standards downtown since so many buildings are contiguous and possibly exceeding the standards already.

The Council ultimately interpreted the 45,000 sq. ft. requirement as applying to the building footprint, making the following finding:

Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:

* * * * *

§ Regarding #2 above and based upon Drawing Sheet A1.0 at Record p. 192, the proposed building has a gross floor area square footage less than 45,000 and a contiguous length of less than 300 feet. During the proceeding some opponents argued that the parking structure is 46,800 square feet in gross floor area and thus violates ALUO 18.72.050(C) and Ashland Site Design and Use Standards (ASDUS) II-C-3-a-2 which both provide in pertinent part:

No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings shall exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet.

The City Council does not interpret "gross square footage of 45,000 square feet" to mean gross floor area square footage. This quoted phrase is to be interpreted as meaning 45,000 square foot footprint. It is to be distinguished from those provisions of the land use ordinance that specifically refer to gross floor area such as in section II-C-3 of the Site Design and Use Standards ("Developments (1) involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet . . ." Emphasis added.) The City Council finds that the parking structure does not exceed a footprint of 45,000 square feet. Even if the limitation were to be interpreted to mean "gross floor area" the parking structure does not exceed the maximum allowed. During the City Council public hearing, Ashland Planning Director John McLaughlin testified that his staff had carefully computed the gross floor area square footage of the building and found it to be less than 45,000 gross floor area square feet. Mr. McLaughlin attributed the deviation to measurements taken by opponents from the exterior limits of the building rather than the interior limits. He further testified that the City always computes building gross floor area square footage based upon the interior size of a building and emphasized that even without subtracting the planter areas along Hargadine Street, that the building floors were less than 45,000 square feet. The City Council accepts and adopts the findings of its Planning Director and concludes that the parking structure does not violate the provisions of either ALUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2. As to whether the proposed buildings exceed a length of 300 feet in violation of the same provisions, the City Council concludes that conditions it has placed on these approvals require the buildings to be separated and for the parking structure to have a "fire wall" sufficient to meeting building codes for the wall of the parking structure that faces the theatre. The City Council concludes that the condition ensures that the buildings will not be connected and will not, therefore, violate provisions of ALUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2 that prohibit building or contiguous groups of buildings from exceeding 300 feet in length. The City Council also concludes that the subject buildings are not a contiguous groups of buildings because they are not contiguous. During the proceeding, there was some recognized ambiguity regarding the meaning of the term contiguous and the City Council construes contiguous to mean touching. If the parking structure and theatre do not touch, they are not contiguous and do not violate ALUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2 and the City Council concludes that they do not. Moreover, based upon conditions the Council has attached to this approval, the theatre building and parking structure cannot touch one another.

After the OSF application, the Council directed the Staff to prepare amendments to the ordinance that would reflect their interpretation of the ordinance, and to address the issue of the application of the size standards within the downtown area.

2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:

The proposed ordinance changes are as follows:

Section 18.72.050.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is amended to read: (deletions in strikeout, additions in bold)

No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a gross square footage building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured inside the exterior walls, or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. The footprint area does not include any areas with walls but no roof. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the gross square footage building footprint area or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section shall be subject to any variance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. These provisions shall not apply to new or existing structures in the Downtown Design Standards Zone.

Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards is amended to read: (deletions in strikeout, additions in bold)

No new buildings or contiguous groups of shall exceed a gross square footage building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured inside the exterior walls, or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. The footprint area does not include any areas with walls but no roof. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, and which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. These provisions shall not apply to new or existing structures in the Downtown Design Standards Zone.

The specific language in the Site Design and Use Standards is slightly different than that of the land use ordinance. The overall intent is exactly the same.

II. Project Impact

The impact of these changes is to amend the ordinance to be consistent with the City Council’s interpretation of their own ordinance in the OSF application. Further, in reviewing the file regarding the original adoption of the commercial development standards, it was found that there was comparative information on other buildings in Ashland that was used by the committee in determining the 45,000 sq. ft. limitation. As seen on Staff Exhibit S-1, these measurements refer to the “ground floor” in several instances, leading one to believe that it was the intent of the ordinance to regulate building footprint (and thereby building scale) and not gross floor area within several floors of a building.

Regarding the application of the size standards within the downtown, also in reviewing the original file, it was found that the staff drafts of the Site Design and Use Standards, exclusions were proposed for the C-1-D zone (see Staff Exhibit S-2 and S-3). It appears that as the final ordinance version was prepared (based on Staff Draft#2 – Exhibit S-3) deleting the opportunity for conditional use approval for buildings larger than 45,000 sq. ft., the language regarding the exclusion of the C-1-D zone was inadvertently also deleted.

The size and scale of downtown Ashland is based on historical development patterns. The application of the size limits imposed by this ordinance would result in a development pattern not in keeping with the design that has proven so successful for our community.

III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof

Chapter 18.108.140 of the Procedures Chapter regarding Legislative Amendments states the following:

It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council.

In this instance, it is necessary to amend the ordinance to conform with the circumstances that led the Council to interpret the ordinance to mean a 45,000 sq. ft. footprint, and to correct the error of deleting the exclusion of the application of this section of the ordinance in the downtown area.

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations

Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendments as presented.

End of Document - Back to Top