HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0521 ACCESS FINDINGSBEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
May 21, 1996
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #96-018, A REQUEST FOR )
ANNEXATION OF 11.25 ACRES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF A )
96-UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT )
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST MAIN STREET AND )
TOLMAN CREEK ROAD. THE REQUEST ONLY INVOLVES ANNEXATION )
INTO THE CITY OF ASHLAND. )
FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS
AND ORDERS
APPLICANT: ACCESS, INC.
RECITALS:
A. The applicant is requesting annexation of approximately 11.25 acres of land
identified as tax lots 1500 and 1600 of 39 1E 11 C, located at the southwest corner of East
Main Street and Tolman Creek Road. The property is presently zoned RR5 under Jackson
County's land use ordinance. The Ashland Comprehensive Plan identifies this land as
Suburban Residential with a future zoning of R-1-3.5P.
B. The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on
February 13, 1996 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the application for annexation.
C. The application was forwarded to the City Council for a decision in accord with
the Ashland land use ordinance. The Council, following proper public notice, held public
hearings on March 19, 1996 and April 2, 1996 at which time testimony was received and
exhibits were presented. The City Council approved the request at the April 2, 1996
meeting.
CRITERIA:
The approval of an annexation is subject to the criteria for approval in the Ashland
Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18.106., which are as follows:
1. That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
2. That the proposed zoning and project are in conforrnance with the City's
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-01 8
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 1
Comprehensive Plan.
3. That the land is currently contiguous with the present City limits.
4. That adequate City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation
can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
5. That a public need for additional land, as defined in the City's Comprehensive
Plan, can be demonstrated; or
a. That the proposed lot or lots shall be residentially zoned under the
City's Comprehensive Plan and that the applicant has agreed to provide 25%
of the proposed residential units at affordable levels, in accord with the
standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council. Such
agreement to be filed as part of the initial application and completed and
accepted by all parties prior to the final adoption of the ordinance annexing
the property; or
b. That the proposed lot or lots will be zoned E- 1 under the City's
Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval
for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the
annexation request or within one year of the annexation hearing and prior to
the final adoption of the ordinance annexing the property. Failure to obtain
subsequent site review approval shall invalidate any previous annexation
approval; or
c. That a current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of
furl City sanitary sewer or water services; or
d. That the existing development in the County has inadequate water or
sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one
year; or
e. That the area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland
water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a
signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and accepted by
the City of Ashland; or
That the lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 2
surrounded by lands within the city limits.
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 "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
All information presented to the 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. That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
The property, as indicated on the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan map, is
located within the adopted urban growth boundary. The council finds that the land
is within the Ashland urban growth boundary. This issue was not disputed by the
opponents.
2. That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant is proposing a zoning of R-1-3.SP, which is the zoning associated
with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Suburban Residential indicated for this
property. The council finds that this zoning is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan. This issue was not disputed by the opponents. While the
applicants indicated their desire, after annexation, to pursue approval of a 96-unit
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 3
affordable housing complex, no specific project or use was approved with this
annexation. The Council finds that a 96-unit housing complex would be a
permitted use in the R-1-3.5P zone, conforming with the land use ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
Opponents argued that the request did not comply with the Statewide Goals,
specifically goals 1,5,6,10,12,13, and 14. The Council finds that the City of
Ashland has an acknowledged comprehensive plan, complying with all statewide
goals at the time of acknowledgement. Therefore, compliance with statewide
goals cannot be used as a criterion for an annexation request.
3. That the land is currently contiguous with the present City limits.
The site plan presented by the applicant indicated that the southern boundary of
the property proposed for annexation abuts the present city limits for
approximately 630 feet. The council finds that the land proposed for annexation is
currently contiguous with the present city limits. This issue was not disputed by
the opponents.
4. That adequate City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will
be provided to and through the subject property.
Water: The city has determined that adequate water supplies exist for future
development through at least the year 2018 based upon current growth
projections. This determination was based upon the 1991 SRC Water Demand-
Side Resource Study adopted by the City of Ashland in 1992. The Council finds
that the future water needs for the development of this property can be
accommodated by the current supplies.
The site can be served with water by a water main currently existing in the Tolman
Creek Road right-of-way. This main will have to be extended to serve the property
at the time of development of additional housing units on the land. The city's
public works department has stated that this line is of adequate size and capacity
to accommodate a 96-unit development on the property.
Sewer: Adequate capacity exists in the current sewer treatment plant to
accommodate development of the property. The plant has a capacity of
approximately 3.1 million gallons per day (mpg), with current average daily flows
of approximately 1.4 mgd. The site is served by a sewer main in Tolman Creek
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 4
Road. The council finds that adequate facilities for sewer exist.
Paved Access to and through the development: Access to the site is provided by
two routes -- Tolman Creek Road and East Main Street. Both streets are paved,
dedicated public rights-of-way that provide paved access to the site. The Council
finds that these streets meet the criteria for access regarding annexation. At the
time of site review for development of this project, the internal street design patter
will be required to provide connected access through the development.
Electricity: The site is served by the City of Ashland electric utility, and it has been
determined that there is adequate capacity within the electrical system to serve
this land. The council finds that there is adequate electrical service to serve the
property. This fact was not disputed by the opponents.
Urban Storm Drainage: The site is drained currently by three natural drainage
channels. The applicants have stated that future development of the site will be
preceded by the preparation of a complete grading and drainage plan. The Council
finds that the natural drainages, combined with storm drain improvements on the
adjacent streets, will provided adequate urban storm drainage for the site. This
fact was not disputed by the opponents.
Opponents stated that some of the natural drainage areas constitute wetlands, and
must be protected. The applicant provided evidence indicating that wetlands exist
on the property, and that they would be addressed as part of a future development
proposal. The Council finds that the existence of wetlands on the property is not
an issue related to the criteria for approval of an annexation.
Adequate Transportation: The city has not defined adequate transportation, but
has generally required that all modes of transportation be considered when
annexing land.
We interpret the requirement for adequate transportation as it applies to vehicular
transportation to mean that the projected increase in vehicular traffic from the
annexation would not cause the streets serving the property to exceed their
capacities. As stated above, the site is adjacent to two publicly dedicated streets,
Tolman Creek Road and East Main Street. Tolman Creek Road is classified as a
collector and East Main Street as an arterial in the City's transportation plan.
Assuming a future development at the highest density permissible which would be
approximately 96 apartment units, the vehicular traffic increase would consist of
approximately 600-700 vehicle trips per day. The Council finds that both Tolman
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 5
Creek Road and East Main Street are capable of handling the additional traffic
increases and the capacity of these streets for vehicular traffic would not be
exceeded.
We interpret the requirement for adequate transportation as it applies to pedestrian
transportation to mean that sidewalks exist from the site which connect to the
city's existing sidewalk system. In this proposal, there is a fully improved public
sidewalk extending north from the intersection of Ashland Street and Tolman
Creek Road to the southeast corner of this property. This sidewalk is a part of the
city's sidewalk system and provides an approximate 5-10 minute walking route
from the project site to nearby retail businesses (grocery stores, general
merchandise/pharmacies, fast food restaurants, etc...) as well as the YMCA, local
park, and Department of Motor Vehicles office. In addition the sidewalk connects
in this shopping area to the public transit route. The sidewalk system does not
connect to Bellview grade school serving this area because the grade school has no
sidewalks serving it. The grade school is approximately 5500 feet (approx. 1 mile)
away and sidewalks from the site lead towards the grade school for approximately
3200 (approx. 0.6 mile) feet where the sidewalk ends. The area from the sidewalk
end to the grade school is too remote to require the applicant to resolve. Sidewalks
do not exist from the site to the middle and high schools along East Main Street.
Sidewalk access does exist on Tolman to Ashland Street to Siskiyou Boulevard
accessing Southern Oregon State College. We do not interpret adequate
transportation to require sidewalks to every school or to require an applicant to fill
every gap in the city's sidewalk system. We interpret adequate pedestrian
transportation to mean in this context that sidewalks are provided to connect to
the city's existing sidewalk system The council finds that this sidewalk system
route provides adequate pedestrian transportation to and from the site to be
annexed.
Opponents argued that there are no sidewalks on East Main Street from the
annexation site west toward the Ashland Middle School, Natural History Museum
and downtown. The applicants indicated that the site would be served by school
busses for students, and that while sidewalks do not exist on East Main Street,
wide shoulders do exist which are currently marked as a bike lane, and are used by
pedestrians. The Council concludes that the lack of sidewalks on East Main Street
does not mean that the pedestrian access to the site is inadequate, but rather that
other modes of travel may be necessary prior to the completion of a connected
sidewalk network. Sidewalks will be required to be developed along the East Main
frontage of the project at the time of future development in accord with current
city ordinances. Sidewalks do exist from the annexation site to all these areas by
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 6
using the Tolman Creek Road sidewalk to the Ashland Street sidewalk system.
We interpret the requirement for adequate transportation as it applies to bicycle
transportation to mean that a bike path exists from the site which connect to the
city's existing bikepaths. There is a continuous bike route from the project site to
the commercial center at the intersection of Tolman Creek Road and Ashland
Street, as well as to the local park and YMCA. An existing bike path exists on
Ashland Street. Bike routes also exist from the site to the Middle School, Natural
History Museum, and downtown along East Main Street. The Council finds that
there is adequate bicycle transportation to and from the project site on these
facilities.
We interpret the requirement for adequate transportation as it applies to public
transit to mean that the public transit system is within a 5-10 minute walk of the
annexation site. The regular transit service provided by the Rogue Valley
Transportation District exists on Ashland Street, with a stop at the intersection of
Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road. This transit stop is accessed by a
continuous sidewalk from the project site, with an approximate 5-10 minute
walking time. The Council finds that there is adequate transit transportation
available to this site.
Opponents argued that much of the site was greater than one quarter of a mile
from the nearest transit stop, and that transit would not be used due to the long
walk. The Council finds that there is no defined limit for distance from a transit
stop for development, but that walking distances of approximately five minutes, or
one quarter of a mile provide good guidance. The Council finds that a portion of
this development is within a 5-minute walk of the nearest transit stop. Further,
with the future development of this property, the extension of a new transit route
directly to the site becomes more likely.
5. That a public need for additional land, as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan,
can be demonstrated; or
a. That the proposed lot or lots shall be residentially zoned under the
City's Comprehensive Plan and that the applicant has agreed to provide 25%
of the proposed residential units at affordable levels, in accord with the
standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council. Such
agreement to be filed as part of the initial application and completed and
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 7
accepted by all parties prior to the final adoption of the ordinance annexing
the property; or
b. That the proposed lot or lots will be zoned E- 1 under the City's
Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval
for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the
annexation request or within one year of the annexation hearing and prior to
the final adoption of the ordinance annexing the property. Failure to obtain
subsequent site review approval shall invalidate any previous annexation
approval; or
c. That a current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of
full City sanitary sewer or water services; or
d. That the existing development in the County has inadequate water or
sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one
year; or
e. That the area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland
water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a
signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and accepted by
the City of Ashland; or
f. That the lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely
surrounded by lands within the city limits.
The council finds that in order for an application to meet this criterion, it must either meet
a public need as defined in the city's comprehensive plan, or only one of the items listed
as a-f.
In the urbanization element of the city's comprehensive plan, Goal XII states the
following:
It is the City of Ashland's goal to maintain a compact urban form and to include an
adequate supply of vacant land in the city so as to not hinder natural market forces
within the city, and to ensure an orderly and sequential development of land in the
City limits.
Policy XII-1 states:
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 8
The City shaft strive to maintain at least a 5-year supply of land for any particular
need in the City limits. The 5-year supply shall be determined by the rate of
consumption necessitated in the projections made in the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy XII-2 states the following:
The City shall incorporate vacant land only after a showing that land of similar
qualities does not already exist in the City limits, or
to incorporate lands which would result in increased opportunities for
affordable housing or economic development; or
if annexation is necessary to alleviate an existing or probable public health
hazard; or
when existing development in the County has or will have inadequate water
or sanitary sewer service; or
when the parcel has existing City of Ashland services.
While the comprehensive plan does not have a specific definition of "public need" as
identified in the annexation criteria, the City has historically relied upon the two above
referenced comprehensive plan policies as the definition of public need. For the purposes
of this decision, the city interprets these plan provisions as relevant to defining the scope
and meaning of the term "public need" with regard to annexation of the subject land to
the city. The City interprets these plan policies as relevant measurements of whether the
city has a public need to annex additional R-1-3.5 zoned land. Further, the
implementation of the referenced policies is through the annexation process (Chapter XIII-
Comprehensive Plan Policies And Their Implementation, Ashland Comprehensive Plan).
The City staff presented the results of a vacant land inventory of the community,
indicating that only 6.9 acres of vacant land zoned R-1-3.5 (Suburban Residential) exists
within the current city limits. Also shown was that the comprehensive plan identifies a
five year supply of R-1-3.5 land as being approximately 20.4 acres. Therefore, the
Council finds that there is less than a 5-year supply of land in the suburban residential
classification within the city limits, and that there is a need for additional land within the
city limits. Further, while the applicant has indicated a desire to develop a 96-unit
affordable housing project on this property, the City Council did not require as a condition
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 9
of annexation that the project be developed as presented. Rather, the Council annexed
the vacant land to allow for future development, regardless of the nature of the
development. Therefore, the vacant land is being annexed for future development
purposes and increasing the land inventory of R-1-3.5 acreage, consistent with the
purpose of the goal to assure an inventory of vacant developable land, not to only proved
land for a particular development.
As stated, the vacant land inventory indicates that only one parcel of land, 6.9 acres,
zoned R-1-3.5 exists within the city limits. It was stated during the hearing that this
property currently has an approved subdivision development plan, and was not available
for development of a multi-family housing complex. The council finds that this one
parcel does not constitute land of a similar quality that would preclude annexation of
additional property in the R-1-3.5 land classification. And even if the parcel were
available, there is still a need for additional land within the vacant land inventories for
property zoned R-1-3.5.
Opponents stated that other parcels, zoned for multi-family development (R-2 and R-3)
exist throughout the city, and that the applicant should break the project up into smaller
units on several parcels throughout the city. Opponents argued that these existing multi-
family lots constituted similar quality lands available within the city limits.
The applicant stated that they had researched availability of parcels within the city, and
that the costs were prohibitive. Further, they stated that no land of similar size (10+
acres) was available within the city limits, as indicated by the City's vacant lands
inventory and their research with local Realtors. No land zoned R-1-3.5 was available for
the development of a project of this size, according to the applicants.
We do not interpret the Comprehensive Plan to mean that the availability of several R-2
and R-3 parcels throughout the city does not constitute land of similar qualities to that of
a 11.35 acre parcel zoned R-1-3.5. Further, we interpret the Plan to mean that unless the
land is classified as Suburban Residential under the Comprehensive Plan, it cannot be
considered as land of similar quality. We interpret the Comprehensive Plan require
specific designation of land types for residential development, with those types being
multi-family residential, suburban residential, single-family residential, and low-density
residential. In the same way that low density residential cannot be substituted for multi-
family residential, the council interprets the plan to mean that multi-family residential
lands cannot be considered the same as suburban residential properties.
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 10
DECISION
All requirements have been met by the applicant for approval of the annexation as
requested. The request is approved by the Ashland City Council.
Mayor ~' Date
Attest - City Recorder
Date
Findings, Conclusions & Orders
Planning Action 96-018
Annexation -- ACCESS, Inc.
Page 11