HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-137 Findings - Hillside DevelopmentBEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 2, 1997
Amendments to Chapter 18.62 of the
Ashland Municipal Code to Adopt
Hillside Development Standards
(Planning Action 97-044)
)
) Findings in Support of
) Legislative Adoption of
) Ordinance 2808
RECITALS:
A. The procedure for the adoption of legislative amendments to the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance (ALUO) (-ritle 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)) is set forth in
AMC Ch. 18.108.170.
B. The planning commission held a public hearing on June 10, 1997, at which time
persons appeared and statements were given and exhibits were presented regarding
the proposed amendments to AMC Ch. 18.62. The planning commission approved the
amendments and recommended approval to this council as provided in
AMC § 18.108.170.
C. This council held a public hearing on August 5, 1997, after first publishing notice in
the newspaper and meeting the requirements of AMC § 18.108.170. Subsequently, for
the reasons explained below, the council held another public hearing on November 18
and 19, 1997, after notice meeting the requirements of § 18.108.170.
D. No specific criteria exist in the ALUO or the Ashland Comprehensive Plan for the
adoption of legislative amendments. By statute, however, such amendments may be
reversed or remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals pursuant to ORS 197.835(7)
if:
"(a) The regulation is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan; or
(b) The comprehensive plan does not contain specific policies or other
provisions which provide the basis for the regulation, and the regulation is not in
compliance with the statewide planning goals."
The adoption of legislative amendments to the ALUO must comply with the
comprehensive plan (ORS 197.175, ORS 197.835). The following specific policies of
the comprehensive plan apply to the hillside development standards amendments to
ALUO Oh. 18.62 (Ordinance 97-2708):
1. The Environmental Resources Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter IV)
contains numerous specific policies and provisions which this ordinance implements
and is in compliance with.
1.1. This plan chapter recognizes that development on the steeper slopes within
the city is fraught with problems:
PAGE 1-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62 (p:planning\ hillside~findings)
"Future development on steeper slopes and on granitic terrain should be
planned with the contours of the terrain in mind, rather than following a
rectangular grid. In many areas of the city, streets are impassable during
icy conditions due to steep grades. Rain showers often tend to be short
and intense, favoring a high surface runoff. Deeply weathered, easily
eroded plutonic terrain commonly silts local storm drains, and diverts
volumes of water down the north-trending streets, occasionally flooding
streets and private property. These negative effects~could be diminished
by strict development controls on areas over 20% slope." (Plan p. IV-4,
emphasis added.)
We find that the area subject to the hillside standards ordinance is on steeper slopes
and on granitic terrain. Further we interpret the phrase "steeper slopes" as used in this
provision to include slopes of 35% or greater.
1.2. Another provision of the plan specifically addresses the problems with cuts
and excavations in granitic soils and steep slopes:
'~'he Ashland planning area has a moderate to high landslide potential,
especially where granitic terrains and steep slopes exist. * * * * * To prevent
activating potential slides, deep cuts and excavations should be forbidden
without extensive engineering and geologic study, surface runoff should be
directed toward existing natural drainage, and clearing vegetation on especially
steep slopes should be prohibited." (Plan p. IV-4.)
We find that the area to which this ordinance will be applied has a moderate to high
landslide potential with granitic terrains and steep slopes. Further, we interpret slopes
exceeding 35% to be especially steep slopes to which this provision applies.
1.3. Limiting development on steep slopes and granific soils complies with the
following specific policy:
'~Ztreas of steep slope on highly erosive granitic soils are very sensitive to
development activities. The best control to erosion is to limit development in
areas that are sensitive." (Plan p IV-8)
We find that the slopes to which this ordinance applies to be areas of highly erosive
granitic soils.
2. Many of the requirements of this ordinance support the goal within the
Environmental Resources Chapter addressing the importance of erosion control. The
goal set forth on Plan page IV-8 states:
"Have sound soil conservation and erosion control practices in and around
Ashland."
PAGE 2-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62
2.1. While the goal itself is not very specific, we interpret several policies under
the goal to be quite specific. Policy IV-5 requires
"that development be accommodated to natural topography, drainage, and soils
and make maximum use of existing vegetation to minimize erosion." (Plan p. IV-
8.)
We interpret this to mean that development may occur on slopes but to the extent that
lots can be left in their natural state, they should be. Amendments to ALUO Ch. 18.62
accommodate development in such a manner. See § 18.62.080.E. - Building Location
and Design Standards regarding accommodating natural topography, § 18.62.080.C. -
Surface and Groundwater Drainage regarding drainage, § 18.62.080.B. ~ Hillside
Grading and Erosion Control regarding soils and § 18.62.080.B. and D regarding
erosion control and vegetation.
2.2. Another specific policy implemented by this ordinance is Policy IV-6 at Plan
page IV-8:
"Prevent development and land management practices which result in rapid
runoff and accelerated erosion."
We interpret this section to especially impact slopes of 35%. The steeper the slope the
more rapid the runoff where development occurs and the more accelerated the
erosion. Sections 18.62.080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Drainage and 18.62.080.B.
- Hillside Grading and Erosion Control are in compliance with this policy and provide
the controls necessary to implement it.
2.3. Policy IV-7 specifically recognizes the role construction activities play in
erosion:
"Require site-preparation procedures and construction practices which minimize
erosion and sedimentation." (Plan p. IV-8)
Ordinance § 18.62.080.B - Hillside Grading and Erosion Control complies with this
section by implementing the necessary controls.
2.4. Adequate drainage is recognized as essential in managing runoff to prevent
erosion and is addressed in plan policy IV-8:
"Protect essential hillside drainage areas for absorption of storm runoff, and
other areas subject to severe soil erosion, unless control can be established."
We interpret slopes 35% and above as areas subject to severe soil erosion and
therefor should be protected under this policy. ALUO section 18.62.080.B. - Hillside
Grading and Erosion Control implements and is in compliance with this policy. The
ordinance is also in compliance with plan policy IV-9: "Incorporate site drainage
practices that reduce runoff velocity and volume, by utilizing the natural properties of
PAGE 3-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62
the soils and vegetation in conjunction with sound engineering practices" which is
implemented through section 18.62.080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Drainage.
2.5. Probably the most controversial part of this ordinance is its application to
slopes 35% or greater as opposed to 40%. We find that the reduction in slope
percentage is in compliance with the following policies:
"Policy IV-10. Insure that areas of general slope over 30% are zoned for two
dwelling units per acre or less, and permit total lot coverage to be no more than
20%.
"Policy IV-11. Restrict any new partitioning or subdivision of land on slopes
greater than 40%."
These policies are implemented by section 18.62.080.A. - General Requirements.
Policy IV-11 does not preclude this council from being more restrictive on partitions
and subdivisions by relegating such development to slopes less than 35%. We
interpret this policy as allowing greater restrictions. We also interpret our
comprehensive plan to permit implementation of the plan through ordinances more
restrictive than that which the plan may allow. In addition, we note that the
comprehensive plan goal at plan page IV-20 specifically allows development to be
directed to slopes less than 40%:
"Goal.' Direct development to areas that are less than 40% slope. Allow only low
density development at less than two dwelling units per acre on areas of greater
than 30% slope. Permit only low intensity development of steep lands, with strict
erosion control and slope stability measures."
We find that directing development to slopes of 35% or less and consequently
restricting development above 35% complies with this goal. We interpret this goal as
permitting restrictions on development as long as the slopes are less than 40%. We do
not interpret this goal as requiring development on all slopes up to 40%.
In the same light, we interpret policy IV-35 in the same manner. This policy reads:
"Restrict creation of new lots on land that is greater than 40% slope, unless a
buildable area of less than 40% slope is available on each lot."
We do not interpret this policy as requiring us to permit new lots on all slopes up to
and including 40%. We are required by this policy to restrict development above 40%
but we are not precluded from also restricting development below 40%. We find the
restrictions in this ordinance limiting development to slopes 35% or less to be in
compliance with the goal and policy quoted above.
We recognize, as argued by some opponents of this ordinance, that houses
appropriately engineered may be safely constructed on steeper slopes. That argument
misses the point, however. Continued development on these steeper slopes inevitably
PAGE 4-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62
means more streets, more driveways, more cuts, more fills, more soil disturbance. The
cumulative impact of the construction necessary to provide access to such homes
increases the chance, and perhaps ensures, that slope failures will occur. By
restricting such development, we lessen the odds that such failures will occur.
Lowering the odds also complies with the following specific housing element plan
policy:
"Slope protection and lot coverage performance standards shall be used to fit
development to topography, generally following the concept that density should
decrease with an increase in slope to avoid excessive erosion and hillside cuts.
This objective shall be used consistent with the desire to preserve land by using
the smallest lot coverage possible". Policy 3(a) at plan p. VI-11.
We find by reducing the slope percentage to 35% also complies with the following
specific plan policies:
"Zone all lands which have a slope generally greater than 30% for development
that will have no more than 2 dwelling units per acre or 20% lot coverage by
impervious surfaces." Policy IV-36 at plan p. IV-20.
"Forbid any new development or cuts and fills on slopes greater than 50%
unless absolutely necessary and scientific and geologic evidence is available
showing that it may be done safely. Policy IV-12 at plan p. IV-8.
These policies are implemented by ordinance sections 18.62.080.A. - General
Requirements and 18.62.100 - Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands.
3. By limiting the amount of soil disturbance through the requirement of leaving as
much land in its natural state as possible (short of precluding all development), other
specific plan goals and policies are complied with and implemented by this ordinance:
"Use development performance standards based on the natural topography,
drainage, soils, lot coverage, and densities in place of arbitrary subdivision
standards to ensure that natural features 'area an integral part of the design
phase of future developments. Policy IV-13 at plan p. 8.
"Preserve forest areas within and around the city for their visual, environmental,
wildlife habitat, and water quality values." Plan goal at page IV-19.
"Emphasize the preservation of forest vegetation to the extent feasible as
forested areas of the City are converted to urban uses." Policy IV-37 at
plan p. IV-19.
This goal and these policies are implemented by ordinance section 18.62.080. D. -Tree
Conservation, Protection and Removal and we find this section to be in compliance
with them. See also policy IV-38 at page 1%19: "Use low-density zoning to ensure that
PAGE 5-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62 (p:plannlng\ hlll~de\findlng=)
development of the forested hillsides is kept at a level that maintains the forested
integrity of the areas."
4. The ordinance meets all comprehensive plan polices for housing. The goal of the
comprehensive plan is to "ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing
opportunities for the total cross-section of ashland's population, consistent with
preserving the character and appearance of the city." Plan goal at page VI-11.
During the course of the many public hearings, committee meetings, phone calls and
conversations we have observed or been involved with, many persons raised the issue
of the affect of this ordinance on affordable or needed housing and on buildable lands.
4.1. There is no comprehensive plan policy that requires affordable, moderate
or low income housing to be located on the hillsides. In the words of the Community
Development Director:
"It has not been the City's policy to meet affordable housing needs through new
development on hillside lands. It is recognized that hillside development
generally involves higher cost property, greater construction costs, and
additional economic obstacles that make the provision of truly affordable
housing (affordable to households at median income or below) unrealistic. As
an example, the City defines moderate cost housing (affordable to households
at 125% of median income for Jackson County) to be $113,000. The average
sales price of single family homes in Ashland in 1996 was $163,110, or
approximately $50,000 above moderate cost housing. The average assessed
value of single family homes within the hillside area of Ashland is approximately
$207,152, or approximately $94,000 above moderate cost housing and $44,000
above the average sales price of Ashland homes.
"Recognizing that the $207,152 value is for existing homes, and that newly
constructed homes tend to be higher in value than existing homes, it is very
unlikely that any truly affordable housing would be created on existing hillside
properties, with or without this ordinance." Memorandum to Ad Hoc Hillside
Ordinance Committee from John McLaughlin, Director of Community
Development dated November 3, 1997.
We find persuasive and credible the information supplied by the Director of Community
Development and adopt this information as a finding.
We also find that in determining the impact the new development standards for hillside
lands would have on the City's buildable lands inventory, the planning department
utilized the existing vacant lands inventory prepared by the city. This inventory was
prepared and presented to the City Council in January, 1996.
The vacant lands inventory was prepared by doing a site inspection of all vacant
parcels within the city limits of Ashland. The site inspection information was combined
with tax lot information to accurately determine size and zoning of the parcel. The
PAGE 6-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62
planning department assigned a potential development number to each parcel,
indicating the likely number of dwelling units that would be developed. This portion of
the analysis took into account several factors, including slope, street access, and utility
availability. A conservative approach was taken in determining the developability of
each parcel. The purpose was to not unrealistically inflate the total number of potential
dwelling units available within the city when utilizing the information in growth
management analysis.
For the buildable lands analysis of the hillside ordinance, the planning department
utilized the vacant lands inventory, identifying all vacant parcels within the Hillside
Lands overlay. From that identification, 415 potential dwelling units were determined to
be in the new overlay area. Each of the parcels were then further reviewed for
development potential. 38 parcels were identified as having development potential
beyond one unit. 219 parcels were identified as having a development potential of one
unit, and no further analysis was performed on these parcels.
Of the 38 parcels identified as having further development potential, each lot was then
examined for slope utilizing the city's topographic maps. The city has a topographic
survey of lands within the city limits at 1"= 100' scale, with a contour interval of 5'. Of
the lots reviewed, nine were determined to have potential limited developability due to
the new hillside standards. Those lots and the estimated impact are as follows:
Map ID Inventory After 35% limit Zone
39-1E-16AB 1900 8 6 (-2) R-1-7.5
39-1E-16AB 2001 4 3 (-1) R-1-7.5
39-1E-05BA 1700 8 6 (-2) R-1-7.5P
39-1E-08AC 101 10 6 (-4) RR-.5-P*
39-1E-08AC 200 10 6 (-4) RR-.5-P*
39-1E-08AC 201 8 4 (-4) RR-.5-P*
39-1E-08AC 500 10 3 (-7) RR-.5-P
39-1E-16AC 300 10 3 (-7) RR-.5-P
39-1E-16BC 100 5 3 (-2) WR
TOTALS 73 40 (-33)
* These three properties are part of · proposal at the top of Strawberry Lane in an area identified
as Hillside Lands. The reductions are proposed by the applicants as part of their subdivision
request, and may not necessarily be due to slope limitations from the new hillside ordinance.
The total impact is a potential reduction in the inventory of buildable units of 33
dwellings. Again, the planning staff took a conservative approach in determining the
impact. Other opportunities are available in the ordinance for maintaining the
developability of the parcel, specifically through the density transfer option.
In summary, the city identified a potential of 415 new dwelling units possible in the
Hillside Lands overlay. Of that total, 33 units may be not be built due to slope
constraints. From the city's vacant lands inventory, there were 1674 potential units
PAGE 7-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62
within the entire city limits, and the reduction of 33 units only results in less than a 2%
loss of total buildable units.
Further, from the vacant lands inventory of the city, there is a 36 year inventory of
buildable units in large lot zoning within the city limits. With the estimated potential
reduction (28 units in these zones) as a result of the ordinance, the inventory is
reduced to a 33 year supply, still well in excess of a 20-year inventory for this housing
type. Within the R-1 zone, the inventory indicates a 10-year supply of buildable units.
With the estimated potential reduction (5 units in these zones), the inventory remains
at approximately 10-years, in excess of the 5-year supply indicated by Policy XII-1 of
the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
We find information supplied through the Medford planning consultant and others
retained by the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors to be less credible. Admittedly
they did not utilize the reports and information available to them in their projection of
the impact this ordinance would have on buildable lands. From the information
submitted in the record by the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors, through their
agent Richard Stevens, of the Richard Stevens Company, it was stated that 1129.31
dwelling units would be lost due to the ordinance. There is a great discrepancy
between this estimate and that of the Planning Department - 33 units.
It appears that Mr. Stevens used a very broad-brush approach in arriving at this
estimate. From a generalized slope map of the City prepared at a 1 "=800' scale, Mr.
Stevens estimated lands greater than 25 and 35 percent slope. He then utilized the
zoning map to generalize the area of different zoning districts within these slopes. It
appears that he then assigned a density factor to each zone classification, resulting in
the total number of units that would be determined to be unbuildable.
The difficulty with Mr. Stevens approach is that he assumed that already developed
parcels would be unbuildable, that existing streets and right-of-way had development
potential that would unbuildable, and that city-owned parks and open space had
development potential that would be unbuildable. By not utilizing a parcel by parcel
analysis, with accurate slope information, Mr. Stevens has grossly over-estimated the
impact of the ordinance.
We find that the methodology utilized by the planning department accurately indicates
the impact of the proposed hillside ordinance on the City's buildable lands inventory.
5. Late objections to this ordinance were first raised by the Rogue Valley Association
of Realtors two months after the August 5 public hearing held by this council. The
objection to the citizen participation process raised by this group deserves some
response. The two and one-half year citizen involvement process in the development
of this legislation was one of the most involved and comprehensive efforts undertaken
by the city. The applicable goal and policies of the plan read for citizen involvement as
follows:
PAGE 8-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62
'9'0 maintain a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Plan Goal at page
111-2.
Policies:
1) Continue the existing Ashland Citizens' Planning Advisory Committee to assist
the Ashland Planning Commission and Ashland City Council on significant
planning issues, implementing ordinances, and all LCDC and Comprehensive
Plan goals.
2) Ensure, as much as possible, that the 16-member Citizens' Planning Advisory
Committee represents a geographic, occupational and ideological cross-section
of the citizenship of Ashland. All future selections to the Committee should be
with the ideal of representing a cross-section of Ashland's population.
3) Ensure in the future that all citizens are given the opportunity to contribute
their views to planning issues through the public hearing process.
4) The City shall sponsor informal workshops during the development of
significant elements of the Plan or implementing ordinances, so that complex
issues may be better understood by the public." Plan policies are located at
page 111-2.
The process started in June 1995 in a planning commission study session for which
public notice was given. Eventually the process involved many concerned citizens,
affected owners, builders, real estate brokers, elected and appointed city officials all of
whom participated in numerous meetings, study sessions including joint city council
and planning commission sessions and several public hearings. The process included
the following:
Initial PC Study Session
Concerned Citizens Meeting
Concerned Citizens Meeting
Sub-committee - Architecture
Sub-committee-Land Integrity
Sub-committee- Fire/Traffic
Concerned Citizens Meeting
Concerned Citizens Meeting
First Draft by Planning Staff and
PC/Concerned Citizens
Review Meeting
Concerned Citizens Meeting
Planning Commission
Study Session
Concerned Citizens Meeting
6/27/95 Legal notice in newspaper.
3/11/96 Article in paper, notices mailed.
3/16/96 Article in paper, notices mailed.
3/18/96 Article in paper
3/20/96 Article in paper
4/3/96 Article in paper
4/8/96 Article in paper, mailed notice
4/29/96 Article in paper, previous
meeting notice
6/17/96
7/8/96
7/30/96
10/2/96
Mailed notice
Mailed notice + article in paper
Mailed notice + newspaper
Notice by Concerned Citizens
PAGE 9-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62
Technical Committee Review
PC/City Council Study Sess.
Technical Committee Review
Technical Committee Review -
PC/City Council Study Sess.
Concerned Citizens Meeting
Planning Commission
Public Hearing
City Council Public Hearing
City Council/First Reading
City Council/Second Reading
City Council/Second Reading
First Ad hoc committee
meeting1:
Second Ad hoc committee
meeting
City Council Public Hearing
11/21/96
11/26/96
4/9/97
4/16/97
4/29/97
6/2/97
6/10/97
8/5/97
9/2/97
9/16/97
10/7/97
10/20/97
11/3/97
11/18/97
11/19/97
Mailed notice to committee
members
Mailed notice + newspaper
notice
Mailed notice to committee
members
Mailed notice to committee
members
Newspaper notice
Notice by Concerned Citizens
Newspaper notice
Newspaper notice
Newspaper, published agenda
Newspaper
Newspaper
Newspaper ad
announced at previous meeting
Newspaper notice
The objections to this process essentially revolve around the lack of involvement by
the Citizen's Planning Advisory Committee described in the plan policy noted above.
We find, however, that the process used in the adoption of this ordinance complies
with the comprehensive plan goal and policies related to citizen participation. The goal
of maintaining "a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens
to be involved in all phases of the planning process" has been met by the numerous
meetings, study sessions and public hearings described above. The policies for citizen
involvement have also been met. Policy 1 quoted above requires the CPAC to assist
the planning commission and city council on ordinances implementing the
comprehensive plan. We do not interpret this provision, however, as requiring CP^C
to meet and assist on every ordinance. The prefatory language on plan page II1-1
explains:
"This committee will shoulder the bulk of the ongoing citizens' involvement in
the planning process. All major changes in Plan direction or implementation
will be reviewed by the committee, and the committee will be responsible to
assist in increasing communication between the City and the government
decision-makers." (Emphasis added.)
i Created by the council with members appointed by the mayor for further review of the ordinance
and additional public input.
PAGE 10-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62 ~..~,~,~\
We interpret this language to mean that not all ordinance adoptions are required to be
processed through CPAC. In addition we do not interpret this ordinance to be a major
change in the implementation of the plan. We find the amendments to be of significant
importance to the city and those directly and indirectly affected by the ordinance, but
matters of significant importance do not signal a major change in the manner the plan
has been and is being implemented.
We also find that the any perceived imperfection in the process by not utilizing CPAC
was more than cured by the "geographic, occupational and ideological cross-section
of the citizenship" appointments by the mayor to the ad hoc committee who met,
conducting public hearings and made recommendations to the council prior to the
final public hearing held by the council. This committee was made up of two
engineers, a residential building contractor, a realtor, two council members who am
otherwise employed by or owners of private businesses and one citizen activist who is
employed by the Rogue Institute for Ecology and Economy. The committee members
live in all sections of the city including the hillside areas. Similarly the planning
commission members, who held at least five study sessions and meetings on the
ordinance plus one public hearing, represent a geographical, occupational and
ideological cross-section of the community.
We also find that policy 3 was complied with as them was notice and opportunity for
public input in the three public hearings conducted by the planning commission and
council regarding this ordinance.
DECISION
We find that ordinance 97-2708 is in compliance with the comprehensive plan and that
the comprehensive plan contains specific policies and provisions which provide the
basis for this ordinance.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 2, 1997.
PAGE 11-FINDINGS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO AMC CH. 18.62