Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDeBoer - Swales Addt. Info advice staff has given in the past and it is based on an opinion of the Oregon Attorney General contained in the AG's Public Records Manual at page A-I. It should be made clear that the appellants or any other citizen who requested that copies be made were given the opportunity to inspect the plans during regular office hours. It should also be made clear that when noticed, the applicant's architect did lift the copyright restrictions and plans were copied and made available to the public on November 3rd, 2003. Staff concurs with the applicants and Hearings Board that the rights of the appellants were not prejudiced due to the fact that the information was available to the public at all times and that personal copies of the plans were made available nine days before the Hearings Board's November lih, 2003 Public Hearing with an additional seven days left open by request of appellant Colin Swales. Staff Response to Appellants' Areument 3) The Hearings Board concluded the "surrounding impact area" is the same as the 200' public notice boundary (Pg. A-25 of the Hearings Board's Adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law). Staff would also state that developments subject to a Physical & Environmental Constraint Permit are reviewed based upon its impacts to "nearby areas" and the "surrounding area", as specifically noted in Criteria #1 and #3 (ALUO 18.62.040 I.). Furthermore, the appellants refer to a definition in the Conditional Use Permit section of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. The subject application is for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit (P&E Permit), not a Conditional Use Permit. Recommendation: The Hearings Board found the project complied with the standards in effect at the time of the application, and approved the project by a 3-0 vote. Staff supports the decision of the Hearings Board and recommends the Council approve the request with the attached nine conditions as stated in the findings on pages A67-A68 of the record. By ordinance, the public testimony is required to either be completed by 9:30pm or continued to another meeting. Should the hearing need to be continued; it has been scheduled for 7pm on Thursday, April 8th, 2004 in the Council Chambers. Further, in order to comply with the requirement that the City complete its decision within 120 days, another meeting to adopt the findings has been tentatively set for Monday, April 12 2004. Background: The record for Planning Action 2003-118 was previously sent to the Council on March 26th. Attachments: Previously submitted packet. r~' ADITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR COUNCIL, FROM APPELLANT COLIN SWALES. CITY OF ASHLAND ~\) \Tl oC\2J A~ l W Fa fD~ (S:,-j \'.J C ll-. 'fie D 'I 1\ \"\~ ~ L Li\ ;0, r S'~h~S Department of Community Development Planning Division MEMORANDUM DATE: October 30, 1997 TO: Ad Hoc Hillside Ordinance Committee FROM: h:]\ John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development V RE: Response to issues - new Standards for Hillside Development ordinance I. Affordable Housing It has not been the City's policy to meet affordable housing needs through new development on hillside lands. It is recognized that hillside development generally involves higher cost property, greater construction costs, and additional economic obstacles that make the provision of truly affordable housing (affordable to households at median Income or below) unrealistic. As an example, the City defines moderate cost hous.ing (affordable to households at 1250/0 of median Income for Jackson County) to be $ 11 3,000. The average sales price of single family homes in Ashland in 1 996 was $163,110, or approxhnately $50,000 above moderate cost housing. The average assessed value of single family homes within the hillside area. of Ashland is approximately $207,152, or approximately $94,000 above moderate cost housing and $44,000 above the average sales price of Ashland homes. Recognizing that the $207,152 val4e Is for existing homes, and that newly constructed homes tend to be higher In value than existing homes, It Is very unlikely that any truly affordable housing would be created on existing hillside properties, with <?r without this ordinance. . II. Impact on Buildable Lands Opponents to the ordinance have raised the issue of the reduction of buildable lands and the impact on the City's buildable lands inventory. From the city's vacant lands Inventory, there are approximately 415 potential new dwelling units possible in the Hillside Lands area. After Implementation of the ordinance, It is estimated that the total number of dwelling units would be reduced by 33, to 382. This Is due to change In slope restriction from 40% to 350/0 for buildable lands. c "-0~ F\ . b r~) ~co rA ?~~ Within the city limits, there is an estimated vacant lands inventory for 1674 dwelling units. The . reduction of 33 units represents less than 20/0 of the total developable units. Of the 33 units potentially lost from the Inventory, 26 are In the RR-.5 zoning district, 2 are In the WR zoning district, and 5 are in the R- 1 zoning district. Again, from the Vacant Lands Inventory, there is currently a 36-year inventory of large lot development opportunities, and the reduction of 26 units changes that to a 33.5-year inventory. Within the R- 1 district, there is essentially no change, with a 10 year inventory still remaining. These inventories are greater than the 5-year inventories required by the City's acknowledged comprehensive plan, and provide many opportunities for the construction of large lot housing within the City. The reduction of 33 units is an estimate by the City regarding tOe effect of the ordinance, and the total reduction may be less due to the availability of density transfers as allowed under the ordinance - 1 8.62. 11 O~ Further, Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 for the implementation of Goal 10 - Housing, OAR 660-08-005 defines "Buildable land" as follows: UBuildable land means residentially designated vacant and, at the option of the local jurisdiction, redevelopable land within the Metro urban growth boundary that is not severely constrained by natural hazards (Statewide Planning Goal 7) or subject to natural resource protection measures (Statewide Planning Goals 5 and 15). Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential use. land with slopes of 25% or greater unless otherwise provided for at the time of acknowledgment and land within the 1 OO-year floodplain is. generally considered unbuildable for purposes of density calculation." From this definition, it is clear that from a statewide perspective, urban residential growth is not exp~ed to be accommodated in any significant way on hillside slopes greater than 250/0. The City of Ashland has recognized that a significant portion of our community is located on steeper hillside slopes and has, through the comprehensive plan, chosen to recognize slopes up to 400/0 as potentially buildable. However, that decision Is clearly a local decision, and cities' have the right to adopt Implementing ordinances more restrictive than their comprehensive plan. Therefore, the adoption of a 350/0 limit on buildable lands In the ordinance Is clearly a Justifiable decision by the City. .111. Ashland Comprehensive Plan Policies Opponents have raised the issue that the adoption of revised hillside standards is not supported by the comprehensive plan. The following represent plan policies and text that Staff believes support the adoption of hillside standards: CHAPTER IV - ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES "Future development on steeper slopes and on granitic terrain should be planned with the contours of the terrain In mind, rather than following a rectangular grid. In many areas of the city, streets are Impassable during icy conditions due to steep grades. Rain showers often tend to be short and Intense, favoring a high surface runoff. Deeply weathered, easily eroded plutonic terrain commonly silts local stann drains, and dlvens volumes of water down the north-trending streets, occasionally flooding streets and private property. These ne23tlve effects could be diminished bY strict e:,Q3 develonment controls on areas over 20% slone." "The Ashland planning area has a moderate to high landslide potential, especially where granitic terrains and steep slopes exist. ... To prevent activating potential sUdes, deep cuts and excavations should be forbidden without extensive engineering and geologic study, surface runoff should be directed toward existing natural drainages, and clearing vegetation on especially steep slopes should be prohibited." (Ashland Comprehensive Plan -- Page IV-4, emphasis ~dded) "Areas of steep slope on highly erosive granitic soils are very sensitive to development activities. The best control to erosion is to limit development in areas that are sensitive. "(Ashland Comprehensive Plan - Page IV-8) GOAL: HAVE SOUND SOIL CONSERVATION AND EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES IN AND AROUND ASHLAND. Policy IV-5 Require that development be accommodated to natural tOPography, drainage, and soils and make maximum uSe of existing vegetation to minimize erosion. See ordinance section 18.62.080.E. - Building Location and Design Standards regarding accommodating natural topography. See ordinance section 18.62.080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Drainage regarding drainage. See ordinance section 18.62.080.B. - Hillside Grading and Erosion Control regarding soils. See ordinance section 18.62.080.B. and D. regarding erosion control and vegetation. Policy IV -6 Prevent development and land management practices which result in rapid runoff and accelerated erosion. See ordinance section 18.62.080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Drainage, and 18.62.080.B. _ Hillside Grading and Erosion Control." Policy IV -7 Require site-preparation procedures and construction practices which minimize erosion and sedimentation. See ordinance section 18.62.080.8. - Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. Policy IV -8 Protect essential hillside drainage areas for absorption of storm runoff, and other areas subject to severe soil erosion, unless control can be established. See ordinance section 18.62.080.B. - Hillside Grading" and Erosion Control. Policy IV -9 Incorporate site drainage practices that reduce runoff velocity and volume, by utilizing the natural properties of the soils and vegetation in conjunction with"sound engineering practices. See ordinance section 18.62.080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Drainage. Policy IV - I 0 Insure that areas of general slope over 30% are zoned for two dwelling units per acre or less, and permit total lot coverage to be no more than 20%. Policy IV - I I Restrict any new partitioning or subdivision of land on slopes greater than 40%. e:,qL/- See ordinance section 18.62.080.A. - General Requirements Policy IV -12 Forbid any new development or cuts and fills on slopes greater than 50% unless absolutely necessary and scientific and geologic evidence is available showing that it may be done safely. See ordinance section 18.62.080.A. - General Requirements, 18.62.100 - Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands. Policy IV -13 Use development perfonnance standards based on the natural topography, drainage, soils, lot coverage, and densities in place of arbitrary subdivision standards to ensure that natural features area an integral part of the design phase of future developments. GOAL: PRESERVE FOREST AREAS WITHIN AND AROUND THE CITY FOR THEIR VISUAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND WATER QUALITY VALUES. Policy IV -37 Emphasize the preservation of forest vegetation to the extent feasible as forested areas of the City are converted to urban uses. See ordinance section 18.62.080.0. - Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. Policy IV-38 Use low-density zoning to ensure that development of the forested hillsides is kept at a level that maintains the forested integrity of the areas. GOAL: DIRECT DEVELOPMENT TO AREAS THAT ARE LESS THAN 400/0 SLOPE. ALLOW ONLY LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT AT LESS THAN TWO DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ON AREAS OF GREATER THAN 30%. SLOPE. PERMIT ONLY LOW INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT OF STEEP LANDS, WITH STRICT EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILITY MEASURES. Policy IV-34 Develop erosion control standards to ensure that development of these forested areas will not cause erosion problems. See ordinance section 18.62.080.8. - Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. Policy IV-35 Restrict creation of new lots on land that is greater than 400/0 slope, unless a buildable area of less than 40% slope is available on each lot. See ordinance section 18.62.080.A. - General Requirements Policy IV -36 Zone all lands which have a slope generally greater than 300/0 for development that will have no more than 2 dwelling units per acre or 20% lot coverage by impervious surfaces. GOAL: TO PRESERVE EXISTING WILDLIFE HABITATS AND NATURAL AREAS WITHIN THE CITY WHEREVER POSSIBLE. Policy IV -41 Continue to strengthen the site review process to assess accurately the envirorunental impact and ensure that changes in.land use acknowledges limitations and opportwlities of the site and have as little detrimental. act as ssible. See ordinan~ 18.62 - Physical and Environmental Constraints &15' CHAPTER VI - HOUSING GOAL: ENSURE A VARIETY OF DWELLING TYPES AND PROVIDE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE TOTAL CROSS-SECTION OF ASHLAND'S POPULATION, CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVING THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE CITY. Policy VI-3 a) Slope protection and lot coverage performance standards shall be used to fit development to topography, generally following the concept th~t density should decrease with an increase in slope to avoid excessive erosion and hillside cuts. This objective shall be used consistent with the desire to preserve land by using the smallest lot coverage possible. See section 18.62.080 - Development Standards for Hillside Lands CHAPTER IX - PUBLIC SERVICES GOAL: TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY OF ASHLAND. Policy IX-23 Ensure that all new developments include a drainage system which protects adjoining property as much as possible. See ordinance section 18.62.080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Drainage. Policy IX-24 Encourage drainage systems that utilize natural drainageways and minimize the amount and rate of surface runoff. See ordinance section 18.62.080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Drainage. IV. 350/0 Slope vs 400/0 Slope for Buildable Areas The City currently defines the maximum buildable slope for the creation of new building sites as 400/0. The proposed Hillside Development Standards ordinance reduces that maximum down to 350/0. As stated above, the impact of this change is minimal on the buildable land supply within the city. However, .the positive Impact on the environmental resource can be great. From the Soil Survey of Jackson County, prepared by the Soil Conservation Service of the USDA, the majority of solis on Ashland's hillsides that are impacted by the ordinance are rated as having severe limitations affecting the construction of dwellings and local streets. From the survey, the following definition Is taken: IISevere - soil properties or site features are so unfavorable or so difficult to overcome that special design, significant increases in construction costs, and possible increased maintenance are required. Special feasibility studies may be required where the soil limitations are severe." The new ordinance recognizes these slope di.fficulties and follows the comprehensive plan, which states "The best control to erosion Is to limit development in areas that are sensltlve./I Slides have shown to the committee Indicating the difficulties with development on Ashland's hillsides and the erosion and landslide potential of these areas. The reduction of buildable areas from 40% to 35% provides the city with an ro q G:, additional buffer from the potential damage caused by slope disturbance during and after development. Infonnatlon has been provided indicating that steep slopes can be successfully developed, even up to 100010 slope. It is not disputed tha~ there is an engineering solution to almost all environmental concerns. The concern is not with the construction of new foundations for homes, but rather, with the total site disturbance which leads to further erosion of the hillsides, stonn drain blockage, and damage to downhill properties. As stated in the soli survey, "s.ignificant increases in construction costs" occur with development on hillside lands, and the steeper the slopes, the greater the costs. From the "Land Use Geology of Central Jackson County, Oregon" prepared by Department of Geology and Minerallndustrles of the State of Oregon, much of Ashland's hillside areas are classified as: "Local slopes 10-50%; landfonns include moderately steep hills and valley, hazards include moderate slope-erosion potential and local to large scale mass movement; land use potential variable. " "Reliance on human memory to define slide hazards completely is not adequate. Memory is incomplete and often Inaccurate and makes no allowance for changing stability with changing land use. Furthennore, it does not provide the sophistication required to address all pertinent factors of potential mass movement." "The grading provisions of the Unifonn Building Code should be adhered to in all cuts and fills. On steep slopes, areas of mass-movement potential, or areas of past mass movement, more detailed and rigorous treatment is generally required." It is our opinion that the reduction of buildable areas down to 3 5010 is a justifiable decision of the city, based on the desire to reduce the potential damages that can be caused by hillside disturbance. The balance of a relatively small number of potential dwellings removed from the city's inventory, compared to the benefits of not developing on slopes greater than 3 50/0 appear to be clearly favorable to adoption of this new standard. V. Wildfire Lands/Fuel Reduction The Forest Lands Commission has ralse~ concerns that the ordinance, as proposed, requires a rather rigorous review process for landowners who wish to only reduce the wildfire hazards of their property. The ordinance does not distinguish between tree removal associated with subdivision development and for wildfire management - the same standards apply. We have made recommended language adjustments in the ordinance to address this concern. The definition of "development" has been modified to not include tree removal, and a tree removal for wildfire management under review of the Fire Department does not require a Physical Constraints Pennit, nor all of the required studies. VI. Building location and Design Standards ~ q 1 This section of the ordinance has proved to be the most controversial. The use of design standards for single family dwellings Is a little used planning tool In Oregon, and has raised concerns from the real estate and development community, as well as general citizens. The basis for the standards was a recognition of the hillside areas as a significant feature of our community, and increased sc'rutiny on new development in this area would be appropriate. This section is broken into two parts - building location and bUilding deSign. The bUilding design portion Is primarily concerned with the provision of bUilding envelopes on parcels, clearly indicating the potential areas for development. The bUilding design portion has seven sections regarding the actual appearance of new structures on hillside lands. Staff has provided three options addressing the concerns raised regarding this section: 1 . Maintain the standards as they have been presented with no modification. This recognizes the original concerns and input from the groups that came before the Council requesting that new hillside standards be adopted. 2. Delete all building design standards (18.62.080.E.2. a-g) and the bUilding location requirement avoiding ridgeline locations (18.62.080 E.l.d). This recognizes the concern of the real estate and development community- who have recently become involved in the process. 3. Remove the more discretionary location and design standards, maintain the more measurable standards, and provide a separate handout on recommended design guidelines for hillside development. This would involve the deletion of 18.62.080.E. l.d - (ridgeline exposures), 18.62.080.E.2.e. (roof fonns), 18.62.080.E.2.f. (overhanging decks), and 18.62.080.E.2.g. (color selection). The remaining standards would be retained including those addreSSing building envelopes (18.62.080.E.l. a-c); and those addressing building design - 18.62.080.E.2.a (hillside building height - 30' max.), 18.62.080.E.2.b. (utilize stepped foundations), 18.62.080.E.2.c. (building stepback and wall height - 20' max.), and 18.62.080.E.2.d. (horizontal bUilding planes - 36' max.). It is our recommendation that the committee consider Option 3. It still provides increased standards for development addressing bulk, scale, and site disturbance in an objective manner, while not being so prescriptive as to prohibit individual choice of color or roof orientation. The changes representing Option 3 are Indicated in the attached ordinance. We have not prepared a booklet of guidelines at this time, but we believe that one could be prepared in a reasonably short period of time for adoption at a later date. VII. Other Issues Other minor changes have been made in the ordinance to address. "housekeeping" concerns raised in the process. These are clearly marked in the ordinance. Notice - The city' attorney has reviewed the requirements for notice regarding this action and has detennlned that Individual notice to property owners is not required by state statute or local ordinance. 01~ Public Involvement - the fonnation of an additional committee to take additional testimony and address concerns, and the scheduling of an additional public hearing before the Ashland City Council on November 1 8 has provided oppOrbJnltles for additional public Involvement. Conclusion Overall, It Is Staff's opinion that this ordinance represents an appropriate tool for the regulation of development on Ashland's hillsides. With minor changes, We believe that It should be forwarded to the City Council for a public hearing and ultimate adoption on November 18, 1997. ~ 1'1 S')1\I~ ~D ~ fJUNt:- -\ ( Hillside Development Permit Process Is land regulated? Determine location Determine slope (above boulevard'1) (>25%'1) If both of the above, land is subject to Hillside Development Standards. Is proposed development regulated? Earth moving > 50 cu. yds. or > 1000 sq. ft. Removal of trees Construction of road, building, etc... or addition > 20 % of existing footprint Prepare Plan - Obtain Professional Assistance: Geotechnical Engmeer to prepare grading and erosion control plans Professional Arborist to. prepare tree plans See section 18.62.040.E.l. Contour Map Existing natufal features Trees Methods of erosion control Methods of water runoff control Methods of tree protection Proposed land disturbances Proposed storage areas for excess materials If partition or subdivision, additional geotechnical studies reg3!ding geologic hazards ~ required. Development Area: All lands > 35 % slope shall be unbuildable, mcluding streets & drives. Exceptions: Entire lot is > 35 %, then one building site . Streets as indicated on street 4edication map Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plans Required Must be designed by a Geotechnical Expert Land disturbance shall occur only from May 1 to October 31 25 + %. .of the area must be retained in a natural .state Cut slopes shall be protected from erosion Fill slopes shall be protected from erosion Revegetation required - planting plan required All erQsion controUgrading shall be maintained in perpetuity. Performance bond required Site grading must consider sensitive nature of site ~1 Final inspection report required from project geotechnical expert. Surface and Groundwater Drainage All drainage systems must be designed to avoid erosion Divert storm water from cut faces or fill slopes Use flow-retarding devices to minimize runoff volumes. Tree Preservation Inventory existit:1g trees all trees > 6" dbh species, extent of tree canopy, location (:i:3') for subdivisions & partitions, must be by landscape professional Evaluate for Preservation Tree health Tree structure Species Potential Longevity Tree Preservation in "Project Design Protect and incorporate trees into project design Locate improvements. such that maximum number of trees are preserved Locate building envelopes such that max. # trees are preserved Tree Protection Before beginning construction, fence trees, etc... as per 18.62.080.D.4. Protect root zone Avoid changes in soil hydrology and site drainage Tree Removal Determine if"tree can be removed within building envelope within street, parking area, etc.. within utility easement tree is a hazard within or near cuts and fills Tree Replacement Prepared replanting plan that provides canopy over the project site, and reduces impact. Tree Enforcement Trees must be removed in accord with plans If trees removed without approval, must pay 3 time cost of replacement or market value, whichever is greater. Damaged trees - fine of $50 per scar Building Location and Design Standards. Building envelopes required Shall maintain % of natural state Shall maximize tree preservation Shall avoid ridgeline exposures ~;<i Building Design Max height of 30' Cut buildings into hillside to reduce visual bulk Utilize building stepbacks Orient roof slope with hillside Reduce horizontal building planes A void overhanging decks Minimize building color contrast with natural environment Aclminic;trative Variances If option can be provided that is better than ordinance standards, variance may be granted by hearing ~uthority. Additional Standards If application is for partition or subdivision (creating new lots), then geotechnical study must be provided analyzing geologic risks of project, project site, and affect on surrounding properties. 18.62.080.A.2. 9> e2 'J