Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-0707 SAPIENZA FINDINGS ZONE CHANGE NO. 73-1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATION Ronald F. Corallo and Joseph J. Sapienza have heretofore filed an application for a change of zone from County F-R (Farm - Residential) to City of Ashland R-3 (Residential - Multiple Family). The application appertains to approximately 11 acres adjoining Clover Lane, Jackson County, Oregon. The Planning Commission held a hearing on said application on May 14, 1973, in accordance with Section 8, Zoning Ordinance No. 1361, the zoning ordinance of the City of Ashland. The Planning Commission has heretofore submitted to the Common Council its findings recommending by a vote of 4 to 3 that said application be denied for the reasons stated in the findings. The Common Council conducted a public hearing on June 6, 1973, which was continued to July 3, 1973, at which time interested parties were heard both for and against the issue. The only Opposi- tion to the application was from members of the Commission and con- tained in the findings of the Planning Commission. After considering all the evidence and being fully advised in the premises, the Common Council of the City of Ashland does hereby make and enter the following FINDINGS: Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan The intended use of the property is for a trailer or mobile home park for adult permanent residents, which use has been approved by the Zoning Adjustment Committee. The requested change conforms with the Ashland Comprehensive Plan that the City of Ashland adopted September 190 1967. The property is located in that area identified as Neighborhood NO. 12 in the Comprehensive Plan and, mQre specifi- the only parcels which the Comprehensive Plan specifically indicates as a possible area for trailer courts. The applicants have hereto- fore introduced evidence describing the use which will be made of the property. II. Public Need Evidence was introduced by the applicants in support of the proposition that the cost of residential construction is spiraling and that there is a tremendous demand for single family mobile homes. The evidence of the applicants indicated that mobile homes account for 94% of single family home sales under $15,000.00, 79% of those under $20,000.00, and 67% of th6se under $25,000.00. The trailer ordinance of the City of Ashland prohibits the use of mobile homes for permanent residences in the City of Ashland unless located within a trailer park, which must be constructed in accordance with the rules and regulations contained in said ordinance. Thus, the Common Council finds that there is a public need for mobile home parks unless there are a sufficient number of such parks within the City. The Common Council does hereby take cognizance of the'fact that there are.only two mobile home parks in the City, which are as follows: 'Pines Trailer Court, 1565 Siskiyou Boulevard: This park is composed of 61 units and the portion known as "No. A" was constructed over 40 years ago. The portion known as "No. B" was constructed approximately 15 years ago. The construction was prior to the existing trailer park Ordinance and thus, portions thereof, such as trailer space size, do not comply with present-day~standards The owner has indicated that the park is always full and there is a long waiting list. Wingspread Mobile Home Park, 321 Clay Street: This mobile home park is of modern design. 30 spaces were constructed last year and appear to be full. It is understood that approximately 40 units will be constructed this year and that ultimately the park will accommodate approximately 150 units. The number of mobile home parks on the periphery of the City of Ashland are few in number and existing county sanitary regula- tions and zoning laws should prohibit further parks being developed in the adjoining county zoned land. Neither of the aforementioned mobile home parks within the City of Ashland is limited to adults~' which will be one of the restrictions of the park proposed by the applicants. III. Other Available Land The Common Council has given particular attention to investi- gating whether there is other available land for mobile home parks because one of the grounds upon which the Planning Commission based its decision was the conclusion that there is other available land. There is no area in the City of Ashland where a trailer park can be established as a permitted use. In certain zones trailer parks may be constructed, but only as a conditional use. The Plan- ning Commission in its findings mentioned two parcels concerning which conditional uses apparently had been granted. Both condi- tional uses have expired under the zoning ordinance because con- struction was not commenced within one year. Consequently, the Common Council finds that there is presently no land available be improper at this time to attempt to determine which lands within the City it might or might not grant a conditional use permit. Since the Planning Commission did discuss three parcels of land, the Council has investigated those particular parcels. The Planning Commission mentioned the Wingspread Mobile Home Park on Clay Street and there is room for expansion of that mobile home park by the owner. The Planning Commission also mentioned the undeveloped C-1 land on Tolman Creek Road. At one time a conditional use was granted permitting mobile home use on this parcel. However, the parcel is only 5.23 acres in size and the conditional use has ex- pired under the zoning regulations. From the evidence presented by the applicants, it is questionable whether a conditional use would now be granted because of the inadequate size for develop- ment of a modern mobile home park, The applicants testified that most financial institutions require a minimum of 50 units in order to grant financing. The Planning Commission was also of the opinion that certain property on undeveloped R-3 land north of Clinton Street would be adequate. Many years ago this property was rezoned to R-3 for the purpose of permitting the construction of a mobile home park; how- ever, the City records do not indicate whether such permit was ever issued and, if so, it would now be revoked under the zoning regulations. Said property adjoins R-1 property to the east and R-F property to the west as described in the Comprehensive Plan as Neighborhood No. 3. Most of this neighborhood is proposed as medium density property and none other than the aforementioned parcel is designated as high density residential property in the property is somewhat lower than the adjoining properties and would be both difficult and expensive to utilize for a mobile home park because of inconvenience of access and drainage prob- lems that would arise. The applicants proposed development would afford its resi- dents safe and convenient vehicular access to a paved public street designed to allow free movement of traffic. It would be located near the freeway interchange and used as a transition between commercial and medium density residential areas. It would be within walking distance of a public golf course, res- taurant and new shopping center. IV. No Adverse Effect on Adjoining Land The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed develop- ment would be incompatible with the industrial use across the railroad track and, particularly, McGrew Bros. Sawmill. The Council finds that the closest mobile home on the development will be approximately 1250 feet from the sawmill and planing mill and thus, the noise should be minimal. The intervening parcels are land used as a log deck by McGrew Bros., undeveloped land owned by the City of Ashland, and the Southern Pacific Rail- road right of way which is immediately adjacent to the applicants' property.. The Siskiyou Trailer Village located at the intersection of Crowson Road and Pacific Highway S. is located approximately 800 feet from the McGrew Bros. Sawmill and Planing Mill. It is a large mobile home park and appears to have few, if any, vacancies. The remainder of the applicants' property is surrounded by land in the county and zoned as R-F. The portion Of approximately applicants testified that the owner of the property adjoining the easterly boundary does not object to the proposed project. No adjoining property owners have appeared in opposition to the rezoning although they have been notified in accordance with the provisions'of the zoning ordinance. The Common Council again takes cognizance of the fact that under Neighborhood 12 of the Comprehensive Plan, it was antici- pated that the property to the north on Highway 66 would be developed as business property and the aforementioned uses of the industrial property would continue. V. Degree of Chanqe The adjoining properties in the county are zoned R-F and the application is for a rezoning to R-3 when the property is annexed. Thus, the degree of change will be substantial; how- ever, the Council finds that the normal requirements for justi- fication of degree of change are not applicable in the instant case. The county cannot furnish utilities to property owners and thus, because of sanitary regulations and lack of sufficient water supply, it would be impossible to have high density develop- ment without annexation to the City. The Council further finds that the rapid expansion of the business community along Highway 66 near the proposed development will encourage further annexa- tions in the future. VI. Conditional Use Permit for Use of Property as Mobile Home Park After public hearing, the Zoning Adjustment Committee approved Conditional Use Permit No. 124 for use of the applicants' property as a mobile home park, subject to applicants agreeing to abide by It iS provided in Zoning Ordinance No. 1361 as amended, Section 39 (3) (a) as follows: "In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Commission must find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighbor- hood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvement in the neighborhood or to.the general welfare of the City." A considerable amount of the evidence and findings hereto- fore stated appertain to the foregoing requirements in order to grant a conditional use permit. However, some additional facts should be presented and findings made which appertain particularly to the conditional use permit. The Common Council finds: (a) That the proposed use will create no objection- able smoke, dust, noise, odors or other adverse influence. (b) The land contour and topography is appropriate for a mobile home park and will not create hazards to adjoining properties. (c) No part of the mobile home park will be used for nonresidential purposes except such as are required f6r the direct servicing and well being of park residents and for the management and maintenance of the park. '(d) With the location of the mobile home park on Clover Lane there will be free and safe movement of traffic. (e) Residents of the development will. be provided with all of the regular municipal services. (f) The developers propose to provide extensive recrea- tional facilities and a community building for indoor recrea- tion. (h) residing (i) It will be for the general welfare of persons or working in the neighborhood. The proposed development, including the restric- tions, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or the improvement of the neighborhood as evidenced by the findings heretofore made in paragraph IV. (j) The applicants have agreed that the conditions and standards of the construction and operation will meet, and exceed, those set forth in Ashland Mobile Home Park Ordinance No. 1433 and the conditions for granting the con- ditional use permit established by the Zoning Adjustment Committee. The standards will be adopted in compliance with Mobile Home Manufacturers Association, National Fire Protection Association, Trailer Coach Association and the American National Standards Institute. VII. Conclusion The Common Council hereby finds that the applicants have borne the burden of justifying the rezoning of their property to R-3 after the same has been annexed to the City of Ashland. The Common Council does further find that the applicants have borne the burden of justifying the granting of the Condi- tional UsE Permit No. 124 and have complied with the require- ments appertaining to conditional use permits. The Common Council does hereby support and find that the granting of such permit was justified and does hereby confirm and ratify the action of the Zoning Adjustment Committee. I hereby certify that the foregoing Findings were a~opted Of July, 1973, Ayes ~ Nays / Absent / the vote being as follows: for the City of Ashland