Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-0801 DIAMOND D FINDINGSBEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 1, 1995 IN THE MATrER OF PLANNING ACTION #95-036, A REQUEST FOR ) ANNEXATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 47.7 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF ) INTERSTATE 5 AND WEST OF EAST MAIN, NORTH OF ASHLAND ) HILLS INN. A ZONE CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL (C-1) TO ) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1-5) IS REQUEST FOR A ) PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, WHILE THE REMAINDER OF THE ) PROPERTY WITHIN THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY IS DESIGNATED ) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ) APPLICANT: DOUGLAS LEE, DIAMOND D CORPORATION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION 1. RECITALS: _ 1.1 Tax lots 100, 200, 300, 500, 600, 700, and 800 of 391E 11D are located at east of Interstate 5, west of East Main Street, and north of Ashland Hills Inn, and are zoned RR-5 (Rural Residential/Jackson County). Access to the property is provided from two directions, eastbound and westbound on East Main Street, currently a county road. Eastbound access on East Main Street comes from the downtown area out East Main Street. Westbound access on East Main Street comes from Highway 66. Both East Main Street and Highway 66 have overcrossings of Interstate 5 between the project site and the majority area of the City of Ashland. 1.2 The applicant is requesting annexation of approximately 47.7 acres of land, and a zone change from Commercial (C-1) to Single Family Residential (R-1-5) for a portion of the property presently within the city limits. 1.3 The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on May 9, 1995, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The applicant and applicant's representatives appeared and participated in the hearing. The Planning Commission found that the application for an annexat. ion was supported by substantial evidence in the record and recommended approval of the request to the City Council. Further, the Planning Commission found that the zone change request was also supported by substantial evidence in the record and recommended approval of that request to the City Council. 1.4 The application was forwarded to the Ashland City Council The City Council, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on July 18, 1995, and continued the hearing to August 1, 1995. At both meetings, testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The record before the planning commission was presented and received as evidence by the council. 2. CRITERIA 2.1 The approval of an annexation request is regulated by the Land Use Ordinance (T'rtle 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)) in Chapter 18.108. Section 18,108,065.C. requires that the following criteria be met for approval of an annexation request: "1. That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. 2. That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the City's 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 residentiaily 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 proparty; 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 probably 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 f. That the lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits." 2.2 Section 18.108.065.C.5. requires that the applicant provide findings of a public need for additional land, or provide evidence of compliance with one of the six alternatives (a-f) listed. That applicant chose to comply with criterion a. 2.3 The approval of a zone change request is regulated by the Land Use Ordinance (Title 18 of the AMC) in Chapter 18.108. Section 18.108.060 defines Type III Procedures, and includes the following actions: "1. Zone changes or amendments to the Zoning Map 2. Zoning ordinance text amendments, additions or deletions 3. Comprehensive plan map changes or amendments 4. Comprehensive plan text amendments, additions, or deletions 5. Annexations 6. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments" 2.4 Section 18.108.080.B. requires that one of the following criteria be met for approval of a zone change request: "a) A public need, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. b) The need to correct mistakes. c) The need to adjust to new conditions. Where compelling circumstances relating to the general public welfare require such an action." 3. 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" 3 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 4. ANNEXATION REQUEST 4.1 That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. From the staff report and review of the record before the planning commission we find that the property proposed for annexation lies wholly within the City's urban growth boundary. This fact was not disputed during the hearings. 4.2 That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. From the staff report and review of the record before the planning commission we find that the zoning proposed for the property for annexation conforms with the City's comprehensive plan. The applicant's materials state that the proposed zoning would be R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). The comprehensive plan designation for this property is Single Family Residential. The applicant proposes to develop a single family subdivision in the future for the property. Subdivisions are a permitted use in the R-1-5 zone. The applicant, while not requesting subdivision approval during this hearing process, provided a subdivision design for the property that would be pursued should the annexation be approved. We find that the development of the property as a single family subdivision would be an allowable use in the R-1-5 zone, and would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 4.3 That the land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. From the staff report and review of the record before the planning commission, we find that the property is proposed for annexation is currently contiguous with the present City limits. This fact was not disputed during the hearings. 4.4 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. From the staff report and review of the record before the planning commission, and from review of additional information submitted by the applicant to the City Council, we find that there are adequate City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, and urban storm drainage. The Council finds that there is not adequate evidence in the record to conclude that adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. 4.4.1 Water. The applicant provided evidence in their proposed findings 4 of fact and conclusions, dated July 18, 1995, indicating that adequate water was available for the proposed development of this property. Opponents stated that the City has restricted water use by curtailment in two of the past three summers, and that adequate water is not available. The Council finds that the arguments prepared by the applicant accurately reflect the availability of water for this potential development and find that there are adequate facilities for water for this annexation request. 4.4.2 Sewer. The applicant provided evidence in their proposed findings of fact and conclusions, dated July 18, 1995, indicating that the current sewage treatment facilities have adequate capacity for the development of this property. Opponents stated that the city is currently exploring options for a $30 million sewage treatment plant upgrade, and that until that process is complete, this application cannot be approved. The Council finds that the issues raised by the opponents are related to sewage treatment quality, and must be addressed by the city independent of this annexation request. The council finds that there is adequate sewage treatment quantity, or capacity, for this development. 4.4.3 Paved Access. The applicant provided evidence in their proposed findings of fact and conclusions, dated July 18, 1995, indicating that there is adequate paved access to and through the subject property. The applicant further agreed to improve the street frontage of East Main Street along the property proposed for annexation, improving it from a county road standard to an urban standard with curb, gutter, and sidewalks. All of the proposed streets in the future development will be paved with sidewalks. Further, the applicant agreed to participate in the future improvements to the intersection of East Main Street and Highway 66. The Council finds that the applicant met the burden of proof for this criterion. 4.4.4 Electricity. The applicant provided evidence in their proposed findings of fact and conclusions, indicating that there is adequate public utility service to the property, including electricity. The Council finds that there is adequate electricity to serve this property. This was not disputed during the public hearing. 4.4.5 Storm Drainage. The applicant provided evidence in their proposed findings of fact and conclusions, indicating that there is adequate storm drainage for the proposed development of the property. The Council finds this to be true. This fact was not disputed during the public hearing. 4.4.6 Adequate Transportation. In addition to finding that there is adequate paved access to and through the site, the City also requires that it be shown that thera is adequate transportation to and through the site. The Council specifically interprets its ordinance to mean that adequate transportation includes auto, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit. The applicant provided evidence in their proposed findings indicating adequate street capacity for the additional auto traffic that would be generated by the future development. The council finds that them is adequate street capacity for this development. The applicant stated that them is a transit route, and bus shelter, accessible on nearby Highway 66, provided public transit into Ashland. Further, the applicant stated that should transit service be established on East Main Street, that they would provide bus shelters as necessary to provide covered protection for transit riders. The Council finds that bus mutes are established by the Rogue Valley Transportation District, and that this property is adequately served by the existing system, and will be well served by the future expansions of the system. The applicant stated that them are currently bicycle lanes on East Main Street along 'the project 'frontage, and along Highway 66 south of the project site. The applicant also proposed additional bicycle and pedestrian paths within the project to provide safe connections to the regional bicycle system. At present, East Main Street does not have sidewalks. The two major accesses to the property require the crossing of Interstate 5, utilizing the existing overcrossings. These routes provide the access from the project site to the nearest major shopping opportunities, schools, and services. Both the Highway 66 and the East Main Street overcrossings are designed as a two lane roads, with a narrow shy distances from the bridge edge. There are no bicycle or pedestrian facilities located on these overcrossings. Current bicyclists share the travel lanes with automobiles. Pedestrians utilize the narrow shy distance area. The East Main overcrossing is located as part of a road under the jurisdiction of Jackson County, while the overcrossing is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation. The Highway 66 overcrossing is located on a state highway, and both the highway and overcrossing are under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation. Testimony was presented that the current overcrossings have inadequate provisions for both pedestrians and bicyclists. As stated in the Staff Report dated May 9, 1995: "Interstate 5 provides a formidable barrier which naturally isolates the project, making it difficult to provide convenient bicycle and pedestrian connections to nearby commercial activity centers. While the site is adjacent to a local bicycle route, it has limited access to transit and pedestrian systems.' This was not refuted by the applicant. To address the issue, the applicant stated the following in the proposed findings of fact and conclusions, dated July 18, 1995: 'q'he applicant will participate in a reasonable manner toward improved pedestrian and bicycle access across Interstate 5 in the vicinity of this project if deemed necessary. Options may included: a. Participation in the cost of widening the Highway 66 overpass (preliminary planning for this improvement has begun, but is neither programmed or funded by the State at this time); b. Participation in the addition of a pedestrian/bike way attached to one or the other of the existing overpasses, if such an approach is feasible; c. Participation in the construction of a separate pedestrian and/or bicycle bridge; or d. Participation in the installation of a pedestrian and/or bicycle path under the freeway along the Bear Creek corridor, which is a short distance north of the subject property. The extent and method of participation would be determined through discussions with the City. Any options selected must be feasible from both the community's and property-owner's perspectives." The City Council finds that the two accesses to the property require the crossing of Interstate 5, and that the two overcrossings do not provide adequate transportation facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. Further, the Council finds that the applicant's offer to participate in future improvements fails to guarantee that the necessary facility can and will be provided. The offer to participate merely defers the decision to a later date, as evidenced by the applicanrs statement that "any options selected must be feasible from both the community's and property-owner's perspectives." Without a definitive solution to the lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on these two overcrossings, the Council cannot find that this criterion has been met. Further, the overcrossings are not under the jurisdiction of the City of Ashland, and any modifications require the approval of the Oregon Department of Transportation. No evidence has been provided that such approval would be granted. 4.5 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 7 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; The applicant chose, as part of its application, to meet this criterion through the affordable housing option. The applicant provided evidence in their findings indicating their compliance with the City's affordable housing requirements. Substantial testimony was presented regarding the issue of affordable housing, however no evidence was submitted indicating that the applicant failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. The Council finds that the application meets the criterion for need through the provision of affordable housing. 5. ZONE CHANGE REQUEST The applicant prepared findings addressing the criteria for approval of a zone change, as indicated in their proposed findings of fact and conclusions, dated July 18, 1995. The Council finds that the applicant has failed to meet the burden of proof for approval of a zone change in this instance. The Council finds that the application does not meet a public need supported by the Comprehensive Plan, as indicated by the applicant. The plan does not indicate that the need for affordable housing is greater than that of commercial development, and that the loss of commercially zoned lands is not outweighed by the need for affordable housing. The Council finds that insufficient evidence was provided to conclude that the original zoning of this property to commercial was a mistake. Reference was made to text in the comprehensive plan regarding the limitations for development of this property, but no evidence was provided that the zoning was mistakenly applied. The Council finds that the applicant failed to provide facts and evidence to indicate that there were new conditions requiring the zoning to be change. Limited information regarding the surrounding properties fails to indicate that these constitute new conditions. 8 The Council finds that the need for affordable housing is not a compelling circumstance related to the general public welfare, and does not provide a basis for approval of the zone change. 8. DECISION 8.1 Based on evidence and testimony contained in the whole record, the City Council finds that the application for an annexation'fails to meet the criteria for adequate transportation as required in 18.108.065.C.4. The Coundl denies the request for annexation. 8.2 Based on evidence and testimony contained in the whole record, the City Council finds that the criteria for approval of a zone change for a portion of the property from commercial to single family residential has not been met. The Council denies the request for rezoning. APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1995. Attest-City Recorder 9