Document text
- Subscribe - Contact Us - Rate Card - Place an Ad Archives Revels Classifieds Real Estate Menu Guide Wedding Weather Subscribe Contact Us June 21, 2005 City attorney releases opinion on Northlight By Robert Plain Ashland Daily Tidings When the proposed downtown development Northlight again goes before the Ashland Planning Commission at the July meeting, commissioners will be armed with a new legal opinion regarding many of the more controversial issues that have been raised in regards to the project’s conformity to city ordinances. An architect’s rendering shows the original proposed northlight project on Lithia Way. Submitted photo Northlight is a residential, retail and commercial development project targeted for the former Copeland Lumber site. Because of its centralized location on Lithia Way and because of the sheer size of its two main buildings, the project has been hotly debated as of late. There have been planning commission meetings at which residents have stumped city attorneys with interpretations of local ordinances and last-minute, behind-the-scenes delays and changes on a regular basis Mike Reeder, Ashland’s assistant city attorney, has prepared a summary opinion on many of the issues being debated by the public and the commission concerning the project’s conformity. He said his memo, released last week, is meant to instruct the commission on how it should interpret some of the ordinance questions that have been raised by members of the public. One point of contention has been whether or not the project would have to conform to a city ordinance that states that there must be a 20-foot setback on all new constructions or one that states that new buildings in the commercial downtown district must be built up to the road. Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.68.050, of the general regulations for the entire city, states that all front yards on arterial streets must be 20-feet from the road “to permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets of substandard width.” The other provision, which applies to the commerical/retail (C-1) district says, “there shall be no lot area, width, coverage, front yard, side yard or rear yard.” Reeder said to apply the second provision to mean there should be no yards “would suck most of the intent out of 18.68.050.” “Case law clearly limits the Planning Commission’s ability to interpret ALUO 18.32.040.A to prohibit yard setbacks,” he wrote. “The rules of statutory construction ... require us to assume that the drafters of the seemingly conflicting ordinances did not intend for such provisions to conflict.” Another question raised involved whether or not the project had to satisfy a provision that residential uses in the commercial district must be limited to either 35 percent of the gross floor area or 50 percent of the total lot area. At issue is a city ordinance that reads, “At least 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50 percent of the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential.” Reeder offered two interpretations of this provision. In one he said the commission could interpret this to mean what the city planning staff has continually interpreted this to mean; namely, according to Reeder, “that an applicant has a choice” as to which provision they adhere to. In his second interpretation, he says that the 65 percent provision would apply to projects with one building and the 50 percent provision would apply to projects, such as Northlight, that include more than one building. “In this situation the planning commission is on firm legal footing regardless of which interpretation it picks,” he said. “Obviously reasonable minds can disagree on how this is interpreted.” He also said the planning commission would be within its purview to find either way on other issues, such as if a roof-top ornament should be included when factoring the maximum allowable height of a new building or whether or not the bulk of the project should be considered one building because the two main buildings share a common basement. His memo did not address the applicants’ interpretation of a provision requiring the two main buildings to be as far apart as they are high — in this case, 40 feet. “The applicant is saying the 40 feet can be measured from anywhere,” Reeder said. Others have said the 40 feet must be from the ground floor to the roof. “They can argue that they meet the 40 foot without a variance but I don’t know if the planning commission would uphold that argument.” Reeder said that if this project ends up getting appealed to the Ashland City Council, and then to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals, that LUBA gives “deference to local governments’ reasonable interpretation of an ordinance. There is some understanding that they know what they meant in the first place.” Staff writer Robert Plain can be reached at 482-3456 x 3040 or [email protected]. DailyTidings.com Home Page Archives | Revels | Classifieds | Real Estate Guide | Weather | Subscribe | Contact Us Copyright 2005 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers All Rights Reserved Deep Muscle Stimulator Ceramic Piggy Banks FREE Entertainment Guide Women's & Men's Slippers Accelerate Weightloss Products Backpacks Online Pharmacy Vegas Travel Guide Search Engine Optimization Student Loans Hotel & Airline Reservations Hammocks Water Filter Helzberg Diamonds Online Casinos Community Bonus Casino Mortgage Calculator Security Systems Mailing Lists Click Here Advertisement .:Advertisements:. Site Search: RESOURCES - Mail Tribune News - ODOT Road Cams