HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-139 Findings - HassellBEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
April 15, 1997
In the matter of planning action #96-094,
request for outline plan approval for a
seven-lot subdivision under the performance
standards option located at 25 Westwood
Street.
Applicant: Anna Hassell
)
) Findings,
) Conclusions
) and Decision
)
)
)
RECITALS:
A. The applicant is requesting approval of a seven lot subdivision pursuant to the
requirements of Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 18.88.
B. The planning commission held a public hearing on September 10, 1996, at which time
testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved
the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
C. Neighbors of the proposed subdivision appealed the decision of the planning
commission to the city council. The city council held a public hearing on December 17,
1996, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. A unanimous
decision to approve the application was made at the city council meeting on February 4,'
1997.
D. The basis of the appeal to the city council was, as stated in the letter of appeal filed
October 15, 1996: "Planning Commission 'Criteria for Outline Plan Approval' was not met.
Section b. 'paved access to and through the development' has not been addressed or
finalized."
CRITERIA:
The approval of an Outline Plan for a subdivision is based on the criteria contained in
AMC § 18.88.030.4:
a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City
of Ashland.
b) That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved
access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police
and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not
1
cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.
c) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wet/ands, floodplain
corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the
plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open
space, common areas, and unbuildable areas.
d) That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being
developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and
common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in
phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as
proposed in the entire project.
f) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards
established under this Chapter.
EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits,
data, and testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
All information presented to the Planning Commission and City Council and
included as exhibits are incorporated as part of this decision and made a part of
the record for this action.
TESTIMONY, EVIDENCE, AND FINDINGS:
The council makes the following findings and conclusions regarding the relevant criteria:
1. Concerning AMC § 18.88.030.4.a: 'That the development meets all applicable
ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland."
As explained below, we interpret this section as requiring only the ordinance requirements
of AMC Chapter 18.88 to be addressed. Subdivisions within the City of Ashland can be
processed under one of two chapters of the land use ordinance: AMC Chapter 18.80 -
Subdivisions, or AMC Chapter 18.88 - Performance Standards Options. The subject
property consists of Tax lot 900 of 391E 8BA and is located at 25 Westwood Street. It is
zoned RR-5-P (Rural Residential subject to the "P-Overlay") and WR (Woodland
Residential). Should a property be subject to the "P-Overlay" as this one is, then it is
required that a development application be processed under the Performance Standards
Option under AMC Chapter 18.88. See AMC § 18.88.080. B. Further, the entire parcel is
greater than two acres, allowing for the use of the Performance Standards Option by
applicant's choice. See AMC § 18.88.080.D.1.
The opponents have questioned the notice issued for the public hearing held before the
council as being inadequate. The opponents identify in their unsolicited "Findings for
Denial" (Ex. 0-2), presented for the first time at the public hearing before the council, that
the notice failed to comply with ORS 197.763(3) in that it did not identify all of the
applicable criteria. The opponents specifically point out that AMC § 18.88.030.4.a requires
that "the development meets all of the applicable ordinance requirements of the City of
Ashland." (The opponents also fault the notice for the hearing before the planning
commission for the same defect. Significantly they did not raise this issue before the
planning commission. Nor did they raise it in their notice of appeal to this council.) As
noted above, there are no other ordinances applicable to this application. For those
ordinances specifically identified for the first time at the public hearing by the opponents
as being applicable, we address each of those contentions below. For the reasons there
stated, we do not interpret this section as requiring the application of any of the
ordinances cited by the opponents.
Along the same line, the opponents argue that the requirements of AMC Chapter 18.80
were neither in the notice as applicable criteria nor addressed by the applicant. For the
reasons stated above, Chapter 18.80 - subdivisions - does not contain applicable criteria
and does not need to be addressed as part of this application.
2. Concerning AMC § 18.88.030.4.b: 'q'hat adequate key City facilities can be provided
including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban
storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the
development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity."
The City Council finds that adequate key city facilities can be provided.
Water: The site is served by a water main within the Westwood right-of-way.
The main is of sufficient size to accommodate the future development area, as
determined by the City of Ashland Public Works Department. The Council finds
that there is adequate water to serve the proposed development, and the
development will not cause the water system to operate beyond capacity. No
evidence was presented disputing this finding.
Sewer: An existing sanitary sewer main exists within the Westwood right-of-
way approximately 150' north of the applicant's property. The applicant has
presented a plan to extend the 8" sanitary sewer main from the existing main
through the property within the Westwood Street right-of-way. The Council finds
that this extension will provide adequate sewer service to the proposed
development, and will not cause the sanitary sewer system to operate beyond
capacity. No evidence was presented disputing this finding.
Paved access to and through the development: Paved access is provided from
Wimer Street (collector street) via Wrights Creek Drive and Orchard Street to
Westwood Street. Westwood Street is presently an unimproved city street from
Orchard Street through the proposed development. The applicant has proposed
to improve Westwood through her entire development to its connection with
Orchard Street through the formation of a local improvement district. The Council
further conditioned the approval that the improvement could be made through the
use of a local improvement district prior to the signature of the final survey plat, or
that the applicant be solely responsible for the improvement.
Opponents argued that they would be opposed to the formation of a local
improvement district and requested that the applicant be wholly responsible for the
street improvement.
The Council finds, that through the imposition of conditions, that paved access can
be provided to and through the development. The council finds that the street
improvement, either through the formation of a local improvement district or
constructed wholly by the applicant, will provide paved access to and through the
development. The Council finds that the issue of whether to form a local
improvement district, or not, is not an issue which can be addressed at the time
of subdivision approval, but rather is subject to a separate process outlined by
statute and local ordinance. The council finds that adequate assurance is provided
by the conditions of approval to ensure the improvement of the street prior to the
final approval of the subdivision, thereby meeting the criteria for approval of paved
access to and through the development.
Electricity: The site is presently served by the City of Ashland electric utility. The
Council finds that the existing electric facilities will provide adequate service to the
proposed development, and that development will not cause the electric utility to
operate beyond capacity. No evidence was presented disputing this finding.
Urban Storm Drainage: Storm drainage from the development site is proposed to
be accommodated as indicated in the "Drainage and Erosion Control Plans,
Proposed Westwood Subdivision" prepared by certified engineering geologist
Thomas Ferraro and made part of this record. Further, a storm drainage system
for the Westwood Street area has been designed on the preliminary street design
presented by David B. Hammond, registered professional engineer. The Council
finds that from the submitted plans for storm drainage improvements, adequate
storm drainage will provided to the proposed development, and the development
will not cause the proposed or existing storm drain system to operate beyond
capacity. No evidence was presented disputing this finding.
Police: The project site for the creation of new homes is within the city limits
of the City of Ashland. The City has its own police department to provide
protection to the area. The Council finds that adequate police protection will be
available to this proposed development, and not require the police department to
operate beyond capacity. No evidence was presented disputing this finding.
Fire: The project site for the creation of new homes is within the city limits of the
City of Ashland. The City has its own fire department for fire protection. In
addition, the City has a mutual aid agreement with Fire District 5 for supplemental
fire protection. The applicant submitted as part of the development proposal a Fire
Prevention and Control plan approved by the Ashland Fire Department. The
Council finds that adequate fire protection exists for the proposed development,
and the development will not exceed the capacity of the fire department to provide
protection. No evidence was presented disputing this finding.
Adequate transportation: The site is served by public rights-of-way providing
adequate access to the city's transportation system. With the improvements as
proposed by the applicant and required by the conditions of approval, adequate
transportation will be available to the site. No evidence was presented disputing
this finding.
3. Concerning AMC § 18.88.030.4.c: '?'hat the existing and natural features of the land;
such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have
been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included
in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas."
The Council finds that significant natural features have been incorporated in the
project. The building envelopes for each lot have been designed taking into
account the actual dripline of significant trees and topographical features on the
property. The building envelopes have been delineated so that very little, and in
most cases none, of a significant tree's (greater than 6" in diameter) canopy
overhangs the potential building site. The Council finds that these envelopes along
with the installation of temporary fencing around the root zone during construction
should provide the greatest opportunity for individual tree survival.
The Council finds that the design of the subdivision protects the Wrights Creek
floodplain corridor. No development is proposed for any portion of the Wrights
Creek floodplain corridor, with all building envelopes and driveway accesses to be
constructed outside of the corridor.
The opponents argued that there may be other significant physical features on site
which require consideration. No specific features were identified by the opponents
other than Wrights Creek. The Council finds that significant features have been
identified in the plan, and included in unbuildable areas.
4. Concerning AMC § 18.88.030.4.d: "'l'hat the development of the land will not prevent
adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan."
This criterion provides that the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from
being developed for uses shown on the Comprehensive Plan. Argument was made by
those in opposition to the application that this criterion is not met because a portion of
Applicant's parcel across Wrights Creek may not be able to be developed as a result of
this application. As indicated on the applicant's proposal, the area to the west of Wrights
Creek is included as part of Lot I and included as part of the subdivision proposal. The
City Council finds that since the land to the west of Wrights Creek is a part of the
application and part of the entire parcel it is not "adjacent", and therefore this criterion
does not apply as suggested by the opponents. In addition, the Council finds that, after
reviewing the proposed plan and vicinity map, that the proposal does not prevent truly
adjacent lands from being developed for the uses shown on the Comprehensive Plan.
5. Concerning AMC § 18.88.030.4.e: '9'hat there are adequate provisions for the
maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if
developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of
amenities as proposed in the entire project."
The seven lot subdivision plan proposed by the applicant does not include a proposal for
common open space -- such a designation is not required with this application. This
being the case, the City Council finds that this criterion does not apply since no open
space has been required or provided.
6. Concerning AMC § 18.88.030.4.f: '?'hat the proposed density meets the base and bonus
density standards established under this Chapter."
City Council finds that the information submitted by the applicant regarding the
determination of appropriate density is correct. The subject property is zoned RR-.5-P
(8.7 acres) and WR (1.3 acres). Under the performance standards base density
calculation, the RR-.5-P area has a base density of 1.2 dwellings per acre. 8.7 x 1.2 =
10.44 units for the RR-.5-P zoned area. The based density for the WR area is 0.3
units/acre. 1.3 x 0.3 = .39 units. The total base density for the project area is 10.44 +
0.39 = 10.83, or 10 dwellings. The applicant is proposing 7 dwellings. The Council finds
6
that the proposed density meets the base density standards under Chapter 18.88 of the
land use ordinance.
The opponents contend that the density calculations are flawed because a portion of the
applicant's property lies outside the city. At the hearing the representative for the
opponent specifically identified "Lot 11" as being outside the city and therefor subject to
county zoning ordinances. This is an application for a seven-lot subdivision. There is no
Lot 11. The parcel owned by the applicant has a split jurisdiction, with a portion of the
applicant's property outside of the Urban Growth Boundary and city limits, and under the
jurisdiction of Jackson County. No change in the size or use of that portion of the parcel
under Jackson County jurisdiction has been proposed. No modification of the lot area
under county zoning has been proposed as part of this application. The area of the
development under Jackson County jurisdiction was not considered for the purposes of
determining project density.
The opponents assert that Jackson County ordinances, specifically § 60.010(1) would not
permit this subdivision because it leaves that portion of the property outside the city more
non-conforming that the existing unsubdivided property of the applicant. The Jackson
County ordinance does not apply within the city. We interpret the requirements of our
ordinance as they apply to property within the city. No change in the non-conforming
nature of the property under Jackson County jurisdiction has been proposed. The density
for the proposed subdivision falls within the densities required by the ordinance. We do
not interpret the ordinance as requiring the inclusion of property outside the city in order
to calculate densities.
7. Opponents assert in their "Findings of Denial" that AMC Chapter 18.62 concerning
physical constraints is an applicable standard that has not been addressed by the
applicant. We interpret the development standards and criteria for approval of the Physical
and Environmental Constraints chapter apply only when "development," as defined in
AMC § 18.62.030.D. occurs on lands identified as Floodplain Corridor, Riparian Preserve,
Erosive and Slope Failure, or Severe Constraint lands. The definition of "development"
in this section is as follows:
"Development - alteration of the land surface by:
Grading, filling, cutting or other earth-moving activity involving more
than 50 cubic yards on any lot;
The removal of three or more living trees of over six inches diameter
at breast height (DBH), or the removal of five percent of the total
number of living (or dead trees) over six inches DBH, whichever is
greater, on any lot within any one calendar year, or any form of
commercial logging;
Construction of a building, road, driveway, parking area, or other
structure;
7
4. Culverting of any stream."
In this application, no development is proposed for any areas subject to
AMC Chapter 18.62. The applicant's property does have an area identified as riparian
preservation land, but no development has been proposed for this portion. Therefore,
thero is nothing in AMC Chapter 18.62 applicable to this proposed subdivision.
8. The opponents maintain that the criteria in AMC Chapter 18.14, Woodland Residential
District, have not been addressed and were not in the notice. We do not interpret
AMC Chapter 18.88 to require any criteria in Chapter 18.14 to be addressed. The
opponents have specifically cited AMC § 18.14.030.h for the requirement regarding the
minimum access drive to penetrate this area (Ex. O-1). No proposal has been made by
the applicant to develop a road or access in the area zoned WR. Since no development
has been proposed in this zone, we interpret the requirements of the zone as not
applicable.
9. The opponents have also raised the requirements of AMC Chapter 18.16, Rural
Residential, as criteria which need to be addressed in this application. Specifically, the
opponents cite AMC § 18.16.040.c which requires a minimum lot width of 150 feet. The
opponents note that lot three of the proposed development fails to meet this standard
(Ex. O-1).
This application was processed under the Performance Standards Option for subdivision
development. Section 18.88.100 states that "Developments exercising the Performance
Standards option shall be required to meet all other applicable sections of the Land Use
Development Ordinance except for minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth and setback
requirements, and except as otherwise provided in this Chapter .... "Therefore, the 150
foot minimum lot width requirement of the parent zone does not apply to a Performance
Standards development.
DECISION
The proposal for a seven-lot subdivision meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan
approval described in the Performance Standards chapter 18.88. All requirements have
been met by the applicant for approval of the subdivision and the subdivision is approved
with the following conditions:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That a local improvement district for the improvement of Westwood Street be
approved by the Council prior to the signature of the final survey plat or that
Westwood be improved to full City standards wholly by the applicant prior to the
signature of the final survey plat, or that the applicant post a bond or full payment
8
of the full improvement prior to the signature of the final survey plat.
3) That a 20' wide drainage way easement be provided along Wrights Creek and
shown on the final survey map.
4) That a plan for accommodating storm drainage on lots 3, 4, & 5 be providing
at the time of Final Plan approval.
5) That access to lots #6 and #7 be through a shared driveway. A mutual access
easement be provided along the flag drive serving Lot 7, allowing Lot 6 to use the
driveway for access to a new residence.
6) That a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan be provided for review and
approval by the Ashland Fire Department at the time of Final Plan.
7) That a "Conservation Easement" be provided and indicated on the final survey
plat for the area surrounding Wrights Creek and zoned Woodland Residential
(WR).
8) That temporary fencing be installed around the dripline of trees designated for
protection prior to the issuance of a building permit for residential home
construction, prohibiting the storage of building materials or construction vehicles
and/or equipment.
9) That the subdivision as a whole sign in favor of a Local Improvement District for
the future improvement of the new street, prior to the signature of the final survey
plat.
Approved and adopted by the Ashland City Council on the 15th day of April, 1997.
Acting Mayor St~ve Hauck
Attest - Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
9