HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-1221.FINDINGS (Ord. #2808)BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 21, 1999
Determination of issues remanded )
By the Land Use Board of Appeals )
in the case of the Rogue Valley )
Association of Realtors v. the City )
Of Ashland, LUBA No. 97-260. )
regarding the Hillside Development )
Ordinance. )
Findings in support
of Legislative adoption
of Hillside Development
Ordinance - Ordinance 2808.
RECITALS:
A. In December, 1997, the City of Ashland adopted the Hillside Development
Ordinance (HDO), Ordinance 2808.
B. In January, 1998, the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors (RVAR)appealed
the adoption to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
In September, 1998, LUBA remanded the decision, requesting the City to
clarify and determine that the loss of five potential building lots due to the
revised slope restrictions could be accommodated on other lands within the
urban growth boundary (UGB) and still be in compliance with the
comprehensive plan. Further, as part of the remand, the City was requested
to clarify that Ashland Land Use Ordinance section 18.62.080(E)(2)(g) is a
suggestion and not a mandatory approval standard.
In September, 1999, the City of Ashland adopted a new Buildable Lands
Inventory (BLI) as a supporting document of the comprehensive plan. This
inventory was adopted by Resolution 99-58. The BLI indicated that there was
a greater than 20-year supply of single family zoned lands within the city limits
and UGB to accommodate future residential development. The BLI was
conducted utilizing the limitations on development due to slope imposed by
the HDO.
E. This council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999, after first publishing
notice in the newspaper and meeting the requirements of AMC 18.108.170.
F. We find that, based on the adopted BLI, that there is in excess of a 20-year
supply of buildable lands in the single family residential zoning district,
indicating that the imposition of development restrictions based on slope in
the HDO will not adversely affect the buildable lands inventory of the city. No
evidence was presented refuting this finding.
G. We interpret the ordinance language in section 18.62.080(E)(2)(g):
"It is recommended that color selection for new structures be coordinated
with the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize
contrast between the structure and the natural environment." (underline
added)
to be a suggestion and not a mandatory approval standard. The use of the
word "recommended" in the ordinance clearly indicates that this is not a
mandatory approval standard.
DECISION
We find that based upon the Buildable Lands Inventory that there is a greater
than 20-year supply of single family zoned lands within the city limits and urban
growth boundary for future development, and that the imposition of the HDO will
not reduce the inventory below amounts required by the comprehensive plan.
We further find that the language in section 18.62.080(E)(2)(g) is a suggestion
and not a mandatory approval standard.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 21,
1999.
Mayor Catherine Shaw