15 <br />1 The same is true of the maintenance shed. The maintenance shed is not in <br />z "actual residential use" because it is not a residence. The maintenance shed is also <br />3 not "reserved for the exclusive use of the residents in the development" because <br />4 there is nothing to demonstrate that those performing maintenance on the property <br />5 are actual residents of the development. The maintenance shed is not open space <br />6 or a recreation facility. <br />7 The notion that a leasing office that is open to the public is solely devoted to <br />s residential uses is contrary to the reality of the situation. The leasing office is not a <br />9 dwelling used solely for residential uses because it is open to the public and is <br />Zo staffed by the employees of the apartment complex. The same is true of the <br />11 maintenance shed: it is not a dwelling, and it will be staffed by employees of the <br />12 apartment complex. The City may find it inconvenient that its code contains these <br />13 requirements, but the City cannot wholly disregard the plain language of its code. <br />14 Here, the City is dealing with inconvenient language in its code by not <br />15 necessarily interpreting its code, but rather legislating through interpretation. This <br />16 Court has previously struck down such interpretations. See Foland v. Jackson <br />17 County, 215 Or App 157, 168 P3d 1238 (2007). In Foland, Jackson County <br />18 interpreted its local code provisions for destination resorts. That process contains <br />19 three stages: the conceptual site plan, the preliminary development plan, and the <br />20 final development plan. Id. at 1238-39. Each contains a deadline, and Jackson <br />