Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-1117 Study Session Packet CITY OF ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 12:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street 1. Topics for Issue Paper - Croman Property Masterplan 2. Measure 37 Implementation In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TIT phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). r... , CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: TO: FROM: RE: November 17, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council ~ John McLaughlin, Director of Community Developmen~ Topics for Issue Paper - Croman Property Masterplan At the last study session on this item (September 22, 2004), the Council directed the Staff to prepare a list of items that would be the basis for an issue paper on the future development of the Croman Mill site. The Planning Commission also reviewed background information on this topic at their study session (September 28, 2004) and provided comments. The following represents the major topics that would be used as the basis for an issue paper: Transportation . Mistletoe Road Improvements . Tolman Creek Road/Mistletoe Road Intersection · Mistletoe Road/Siskiyou Boulevard intersection re-design · Interconnected Street Pattern - traditional design · Capacity Issues and Improvements to South 1-5 interchange · Overall traffic analysis and access patterns · Parking - on-street, structure parking, credits, diagonal head-in, ratios · Bike Path along Railroad Tracks - Tolman Creek Road to Crowson Road · Pedestrian access throughout development and connection to existing routes · Railroad .- integration to project land Use Mix · Ratio of employment-related lands to residential lands · Optimum mix for long-term community benefit · Recognition of this as last large parcel of industrial zoned land · Competition of this area with existing commercial zoned lands - Downtown & Ashland St.1T olman Cr. Rd. · Long-term job creation opportunities - industrial, employment, a.nd commercial Industrial/EmDlovment/Commercial · Relationship of new development to long-term economic goals · Realistic understanding of "industrial" in Ashland DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541488-5305 Fax: 541488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 r.t. ., . Encouragement for specific types of uses - "living wage jobs" . Need for intense commercial space? · Opportunity for a "smaller" big box retailer . Competition with Downtown? · Maintain opportunities for industrial users even though not immediate Housina . Housing types - single family detached vs. attached multi-family · Housing above commercial uses - how much? · Multi-story buildings - encourage "hi-rise" for housing · Affordable Housing - percentage of project and target incomes · Conflicts between housing and industrial/commercial uses Infrastructure · Water Service - capacity and lines · Sewer Service - capacity and lines · Storm Water management - bio-swales, detention systems . Electrical Service . AFN Project Design · Ultimate project layout . Town Center model . Suburban Office Park model · Traditional Neighborhood model . Industrial Park model · Sustainable model · Combination of the above? . Layout on property . Relationship to Entry · Relationship to railroad tracks · Relationship to Siskiyou Blvd. · Relationship to surrounding area . Tolman Creek Road Neighborhood · Ashland St.lTolman Creek Road Commercial area · Architecture · Traditional design · Current Period design DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541488-5305 Fax: 541488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 r.t. ., Parks and Open Spaces . Park opportunities . Need? Based up projected uses . Open space and landscaping . Bio-swales . Parkrows and street trees Adjoining Areas . Incorporation of surrounding areas in masterplanning efforts . Former L TM property . Tolman Creek Road neighborhood . iskiyou/Crowson area (manufactured dwelling park) . Across tracks - industrial area Annexation . Portion of the property outside city limits . Benefits to annexation . Annexing surrounding properties Timing . I ncentives for development . Market-rate of development . Encouragement for meeting current needs . Discouragement - growth inducing Public Process . Charrette model? . Development model? . City as lead . Developer as lead . Nature of public involvement DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541488-5305 Fax: 541488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 r.t. ., Update on Potential Masterplan Areas Croman ProDertv No changes have occurred since the September 22, 2004 study session. The potential developer appears to be wa!iting for the Council to provide additional direction through the preparation of the issue paper before proceeding. No applications have been filed. North Normal Area Staff completed a pre-application conference with the potential developers on July 28, 2004. Staff informed the applicant's representative of numerous concerns with development, from environmental to infrastructure to political. The applicants have not contacted the city since that initial meeting regardingl development proposals. No applications have been filed for this area. Railroad ProDertv Staff has implemented portions of the Railroad Master Plan, including updating the street dedication map and rezonin!~ the property to E-1 with a residential overlay (previously M-1 ). The area also has an overlay as a "Detail Site Review Zone" imposing greater design standards. No development applications have been submitted for the railroad land proper. Adjoining lands that had previous partition or subdivision approval continue to see small commercial development applications come forward. However, the majority of the vacant land is still under the ownership of Union Pacific, awaiting cleanup. Further, previous planning actions have limited development of this property until the issue of rail crossing at Fourth Street is addressed. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541488-5305 Fax: 541488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 r.t. ., 37 What to Do? Action items for cities before December 2, the effective date of Measure 37: · Don't accept claims before December 2. There is absolutely no reason to. · Make sure your elected officials give policy direction to statl and your city attorney for developing an implementation strategy. · Adopt a claims processing ordinance before December 2 if you choose to adopt fees or other options with associated litigation Hrisk" as described on page 2. · Identify where claims should be filed. Decide the type and quantity of information for claimants to provide. · Decide how staff should respond to requests for information about prior regulations. · Decide if your city will retain the services of one or more appraisers. · Research your city's ordinances that may be subject to the measure, including local planning and zoning ordinances. Identify specific provisions and dates of implementation. · Research your city's ordinances that may be exempted from the measure, including: historically recognized public nuisances; the selling of adult material; and health and safety ordinances that may fall in the exempted category. (Under the language of the measure, health and safety has not been clearly defined.) · Review or consider putting a "hold" on work plans for new land use regulations and comprehensive plan amendments to decide whether projects should go forward in the near term. · Get your city attorney's advice on every aspect of how you handle information, claims, regulations and decisions regarding Measure 37. There are risks for litigation not only from applicants, but from neighbors and advocacy organizations. Action items for cities soon after December 2: · Consider the pros and cons of adopting a claims processing ordinance if you have not done so. · Initiate discussions with the county regarding the handling of claims for property in the urban transition areal urban growth boundary area. This could include notification to cities of waiver provisions by counties, where applicable. · Discuss whether a valid claim will result in compensation, waiver or modification of regulations. · Decide whether to include budget provisions for compensation claims, administrative costs and legal costs. · Continue to review work plans tor new land use regulations or comprehensive plan amendments to decide whether projects should go forward. Options for Cities (w'ith some associated risk of litigation) Clainls process and implementation ordinance Measure 37 expressly authorizes local governments to adopt or apply "procedures for the processing of claims." However, the measure also explicitly states that "in no event shall these procedures act as a prerequisite to the filing of a compensation claim." A claims process or ordinance should define the minimum requirements for filing a claim, the fees that will be charged for processing the claim (if any), and the decision-maker for denial or approval of a claim. It 5.hould also contain two critical components: · Require action within 180 days of receiving the claim (or risk a lawsuit where you have to pay the claimant's attorneys fees); and · Provide that only the city council shall be responsible for waiving or modifying a land use regulation. Except for denials of claims with no merit - which a city manager or city administrator could lawfully do under Measure 37 - the city council should be involved in claims decisions. Claims that "have no merit" are those that would be made by an ineligible claimant, that are exempt from or do not concern a "land use regulation" or that have similar shortcomings. A decision to waive or modify a regulation must be made by the city council (Measure .3 7 authorizes the governing body that enacted a regulation to modify or waive). Under Measure 37, a decision to compensate a property owner could be made by the city manager or administrator (if thc council delegated such power), but only if thc council had already appropriated funds for payment of such claims. Using a public notice and hearings process to educate the voting public about the effects of the measure will be important in both the short and long term, although it adds time and expense. The claims processing ordinance should grant the council the following authority, where it agrees that a claim is valid: · Pay compensation; · Remove the regulation; · Modify the regulation; or · Purchase the entire property either to keep as a city asset, or to re-sell. Cities might also want to consider including thc standards of rcview or critcria in an ordinance that will be used in making a decision to waive, modify or pay. Fees for processing claims If a city decides that it wants to attempt to recover its costs of processing claims, then it will need to adopt an ordinance establishing a claims process. As noted above, Measure 37 authorizes a city to adopt procedures for processing claims, but compliancc with those procedures is not a prercquisite to filing a claim. Establishment of a fce may f~lll into that exception. Nevertheless, a city council likely can impose a fee for processing such claims, but there is some associated risk. A claims processing ordinance could contain a provision that requires claimants to pay a city's actual cost in processing the claim. Fees would be less for claimants that provide more complete information in their claims. City staff would keep track of their time (including time spent by the city's attorneys) and expenses (such as an appraisal) for processing a particular claim. At the end of the process, thc city could send the claimant a bill. If the claimant did not pay the bill, then the city could pursue collection efforts, or record a lien on the property for the amount of the bill. Option to "modify" regulations to authorize a particular project There may be some valid Measure 37 claims where a property owner is willing to work with the city to develop property in a manner that the city (i.e., the city council) determines would be beneficial, particularly if the alternative is to pay compensation or simply waive thc regulations. A claims processing ordinance could allow a city council the opportunity to considcr "modifying" the regulations to allmv a particular development project. Private cause of action Granting a waiver of regulations for a claimant may have the effect of reducing the value c.f a neighbor's property. Based on powers granted by many city charters, a city council may have the authority to authorize the neighbor whose property was devalued to flle a la\vsuit (in circuit court) to rccover from thc claimant the amount of the reduction in value. If a city has a charter with a general grant of power (usually section.3 or 4 of the charter), it is likely that the council has that power. If the city does not havc a charter with a general grant of power, and instead, has an enumerated powers charter (containing a specific list of cach power that the city posscsses), then thc question is whcther one of thc specific powcrs would authorize this type of provision. City attorneys would need to assess the risk of incorporating this provision in a claims ordinance. LOC is Here tl) Help Staff Contact: Linda Ludwig (503) 588,6550/800,452,0338 lludwig@Jorcities.org On the web: www.orcities.org (from the home lxlge, click on the "Current Issues" button to the left) Clainls form While it is logical to assume that a claimant would have to provide information validating ownership rights, changes over time in regulatory restrictions, or the amount of diminution of value, there is nothing in the measure's language that defines the nature of "written demand." A jurisdiction needs to weigh some additional risk associated with going beyond either requesting or requiring information beyond minimal amounts. Requested information could include: name, address and telephone number of claimant; names and addresses of all other owners of the same property; names and addresses of all owners of in terests in that property (trustees, lien holders and lessees); address, tax lot and legal description of the property subject to the claim; copy of the propcrty deed; title report issued within 30 days of the filing of the claim that reflects all of the ownership interests in the property; int~ormation on the chain of title back to original family member (if needed); current land use regulation or restriction that allegedly restrict the use of the property; the amount of the claim, including reduction in value; appraisal supporting the amount of the claim; copies on any leases or Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs) applicable to the real property; and a statement as to the preferred resolution of the claim (compensation, waiver, or modification of the applicable regulation). Other questions that have policy in1plications as well as associated legal risks: How should staff respond to requests for information about prior regulations? City staff could be asked questions by potential claimants about how to me Measure 37 claims or about prior regulations that would govern in the event of a waiver. Before that happens, the council (or city manager) should determine the extent to which staff should provide information. Consider having staff provide an information sheet that describes the city's claims processing ordinance (assuming that the council adopts one), and otherwise decline to answer questions related to Measure 37 since the information being requested would relate to threatened litigation. If the city chooses to perf<xm research for potential claimants, decide whether the city should recover its staff costs in performing that research. How should a city handle claims for property in urban transition area/urban growth boundary area? Claims that are related to property located outside the city limits, but inside the urban growth boundary, pose tricky policy and administrative issues. Many of these areas are covered by urban transition agreements between the city and county in which the city is delegated the authority and responsibility for administering the land use and building codes. Under Measure 37, only the governing body that enacted a regulation can waive or modify that regulation, most likely the state, county or Metro. Cities should decide how they would like Measure 37 claims arising in this urban transition area handled, and begin discussions with the county in the near future to reach agreement. Should a city track possible waivers in nearby jurisdictions? If a jurisdiction with land use authority over property relatively close to your city grants a "vaiver, the resulting development could have a significant impact on your city. Measure 37 does not authorize a governing body to waive a regulation for just any (continued next page) reason. Instead, it only authorizes waiver of "land use regulations" (as defined by the measure) that restrict the usc of privatc real property, and only if the regulation is not exempt (for example, health and safety regulations) and reduces the value of the property. In other words, Measure 37 authorizes a waiver only for valid Measure 37 claims. If a claim is not valid, but the governing body waives the regulation, a court may overturn the waivcr. A policy qucstion for a city council is whether city staff should track claims filed with nearby jurisdictions in case a waiver is granted that will significantly impact your city, where the waiver was not authorized. It is also worth noting that people dissatisfied with a city's waiver or modification of a land use regulation likely will be able to file a lawsuit against your city to challenge that modification or waiver. Such a lawsuit might be filed by the claimant's neighbor who doesn't want a commercial use next to the neighbor's house, or might be filed by a land use or environmental organization. How does a city review a work program? As noted above, adopting a new, non-exempt "land use regulation" that restricts thc use of property and results in a decrease in fair market value would be subject to compensation claims by every existing property owner. In light of that possibility, before a city devotes too much staff time (or funds for consultants) to continue working on updating land use codes or comprehensive plans, the city should ask itself whether the end-product of that work will be subject to a Yfilid Measure 37 claim. If the answer to the question is yes, then the city may want to postpone or cancel that work. In many cases, that work is being required by the state as part of a periodic review task. In discussions with the League, state officials have recently indicated their willingness to consider modification of the periodic review work task or the timeline, given the passage of Measure 37. SUll1ll1ary of Measure :,7 An owner of property (or interest in property, like a lease) is authorized to file a claim with a government that enacts or enforces certain types ofland use regulations, IE the regulations restrict the use of private real property, and IF the restriction reduces the value of the property. Claims !;?encral~must be filed with the governmental entity within two ycars of the regulation's enactment or enforcement. Not all regulations are covered. Local regulations that are covcrcd include: · "Comprehensive plans," "zoning ordinances," "land division ordinances" and "transportation ordinances" · Metropolitan scrvicc district regional framework plans, functional plans, planning goals and objectives · Existing as \vell as new regulations (i.e., the measure is retroactive) The following regulations are exempt from Measure 37 - i.e., the measure does not require a government to waive or compensate for them even if they reduce the value of the property: · Restrictions on uses commonly and historically recognized as public nuisances under common law · Restrictions to protect public health and safety, such as fire and building codes, health and sanitation regulations, solid or hazardous waste regulations, and pollution control regulations · Restrictions required to comply with federal law · Restrictions on use of property to sell pornography or perform nude dancing · Regulations enacted prior to the date of acquisition of the property by the owner or a family member Measure 37 does not define most of the terms contained in these exemptions. It is unclear how broadly or narrowly the courts wiU construe them. Consequently, there will be some risk if governmcnts decide to rely on one of the exemptions in order to deny a claim filed under the measure. Within 180 days of property owner filing a valid Measure 37 claim, a city may: · Pay "just compensation" (equal to reduction in the fair market value of the affected property interest resulting from enactment or enforcement of the land use regulation) and continue to apply and enforce the regulation; or · Modify, remove or not apply the regulation to allow the owner to use the property for a use permitted at the time the owner acquired the property. If the governmental entity does not payor waive a claim within 180 days, the property owner may file a lawsuit to obtain compensation, and likely will now be cntitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs. The government probably can waive or modify the regulation even after the lawsuit is filed, but the measure is ambiguous on this point. However, the property owner probably will be entitled to attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses even if government waives or modifies the restriction after the lawsuit is filed. The government can adopt or apply procedures for processing claims, but the procedures may not act as a prere4uisite to the filing of a compensation claim in court.