HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0522 Study Session PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND °
Department of Community Development
a
Planning Division ;
MEMORANDUM •...pReGO�,,•
Y O ,
DATE: May 21, 1996
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
RE: Revised Annexation Criteria
Council Study Session for May 22, 1996 at 4pm.
BACKGROUND: The City Council directed Staff to research and recommend changes to
the current annexation criteria, specifically involving "adequate transportation' and
"affordable housing", addressing recent concerns of the Council and general citizens. Staff
has met with the Housing Commission and the Transportation Planning Advisory Committee
regarding those modifications,with the first cut of those modifications being presented here.
t
As stated, these are options presented by Staff and open to modification. We welcome your
ideas regarding this draft.
Since several of the recommendations involve affordable housing, the Housing Commission
will be sitting in on your study session to provide additional input.. Your study session is
scheduled at the same time as their regular meeting, so this provides a good opportunity for
interaction between the two groups.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council review and discuss the proposed modifications,
then direct Staff to schedule the modifications for a study session with the Planning
Commission. This would allow an opportunity adequate public involvement,and notice to
the necessary state agencies and affected groups (State Homebuilders, State Realtors, etc...)
After the Study Session,the modifications will be scheduled for public hearings and ultimate
adoption.
A second part relates to SDC deferment/waiver. The ordinance as it is now written states
the following:
4.20.080 Exemptions. The conditions under which all or part of the systems development
charges imposed in Section 4.20.040 may be waived are as follows:
N
B. Housing for low-income or elderly persons which is exempt from real property
taxes under state law.
4.20.085 Deferrals for Affordable Housin¢
A. The systems development charge for the development of qualified affordable
housing under the City's affordable housing laws, shall be deferred until the
transfer of ownership to an ineligible buyer occurs. Said systems
development charges shall be secured by a second mortgage acceptable to the
City, bearing interest at not less than five percent per annum. Accrued
interest and principal shall be due on sale to an ineligible buyer.
B. The systems development charge and second mortgage for the development
of qualified affordable housing shall terminate 20 years after the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy if the housing unit(s) have continued to meet the
affordable housing requirements during the 20 year period.
During the ACCESS hearings, concerns were raised about the waiver of SDC's for
affordable projects with annexations. The Housing Commission subcommittee, as part of
the review of this process, has recommended that the deferment and waiver be retained.
This is based primarily on the necessity of the waiver in encouraging affordable units, and
.the proposed change in annexation criteria, mandating affordable housing as part of all
annexations.
Annexation Criteria Modification
Planning Staff Proposal 1.0
May 21, 1996
Page 2
ANNEXATION CRITERIA
The criteria for approval of an Annexation are found in 18.106.130 and are as
follows:
1 . That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
2. That the proposed zoning �e �e -Hw[
:ao,. 4c � wwali ndprojec ?
`b"'« w .�?dy.+. 443 "?:i
x, m:4
' '111 e
This change is to clarify this criterion to match a previous LUBA decision regarding annexations. As
long as the proposed zoning for the annexed parcel matches the comprehensive plan map, and the
use proposed would be allowed (either outright, or as a conditional use), then the request is in
conformance with our comprehensive plan.
3. That the land is currently contiguous with the present City limits.
4. That adequate City facilities for watersie°'s
..5- E .�" Y:Y 4. "a,:'4:: awGUv ituw^;wv;A:AtW",6 :: �• aaRa<u''�'$u,:...... .0;A
` i t3SY� Yfi:+e� electrici
gvos� �. f 1y ji
urban storm drain5:£'..... u3ai
7C}CSIe`. f ; and adequate transportation..<. y ,15i can and
will be provided to and through the subject property. .n . s.= e`Ctty ties
y ,�,. � �"so �.!no •4�" ate',. a ° sS!i � k�:.'��`k{}''
ss y.
These modifications were done to clarify the provision of City facilities. The findings are based
upon the extension of adequate facilities (pipelines, etc...) to the site to provide the necessary
service. It clarifies that unless there is a moratorium, it is recognized that the current supplies are
adequate. For example, in the case of water, the City has adopted a study Indicating adequate
water supplies for our projected growth through the year 2018. It should be clear, that unless
something has changed dramatically, that there is adequate water to support our projected growth.
What then needs to be proven to the Commission/Council is that adequate facilities can be
constructed to provide the necessary water to support the development.
Annexation Criteria Modification
Planning Staff Proposal 1.0
May 21, 1996
Page 3
........ ..
This provides a first cut attempt at defining "adequate transportation" for annexations. These
recommendations were made after discussions with TPAC and are open for modification as
necessary. Staff believes that these more clearly define what is necessary for transportation, but
allows for adequate "wiggle room" to allow discretion on the part of the Council and Planning
Commission as part of annexation requests.
Annexation Criteria Modification
Planning Staff Proposal 1.0
May 21, 1996
Page 4
N
xe:na .....x<o:�;w /trw.»:.... p�i.,x<.,r..,.�•d?+c2^s: . ':an. '�`''' k..a•>w:y r/ya' io •xx•mac
xn:?'.�E.'."..�,�,�'.t�..d::::..r_ . v4 .��. 'd•2to:.<'.o o..k>.b?r .. ,.as
3:..A.. ct 'N e 4 d o x :'4?<:.A ydbx s.<•.gg:V.oa :.n>�w
OWN :<a:..A..r.
j::i? .s8 �
�?y.F�e,'�rf395�k ; .$ 'xa y '• tEJRts, „off
l<>ik.' .i<6 k'Sb.T YS':Y' ' `Oyv�a�,:kyS<c .:� >..,3`..„Se:2.3�:r�•:q;. 9¢h
i
This provision is to ensure that land to be annexed is developed as of as possible, as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. It also addresses issues where surrounding neighbors
(especially regarding annexation applications) are requesting that low-densities be required to better
match their existing home sites. This reasoning fails to recognize the long-term growth needs of
the city, and the necessity of utilizing all lands, whether through in-fill or annexation, to their
greatest efficiency. This also removes the option of the developer to "placate" neighbors by
reducing density, when, ultimately, it is in the City's best interests to maintain the density. The
criterion does allow for a reduction in density if there is such a large area of significant natural
features on the site that it is not possible to develop at the plan density without destroying the
naturalfeatures.
ANI i'�i
•r.:tt. .4.:v 4'Y•'::iL:`N.d::''i�j.::::. �R :k .i...:�..cor <:Y.L>dS4a 3>.9 ..�>. y<,y..r9f:ri<>:::.�,�.: � ..>VC..:.. �y,5'��i .L; .4
�u�i€��btn i��i�Y1�n�i�s�i�+�'r��° i�aat€:.�rt� �� fi����?Ct��� �>�f rr►;rrl��ita
■ <N".?S 45r i°A 4 •e°« S b gk�;qxb 2`C.:4�cbb o: 4 ,i°.y '>b 9, .:x:aF..
I.:: T 4.,: <e <., �'.,:o.>«. e::tNNglM:�. .c•�t..':<,�.'v.;Lx`ii�6':b li'Y# tR ..':
•�:3 c�i:3...:r'`OE:�Si;:<:k F4.> a.::oe i9gl.'c' aao a•o,."2M:$ .��;5...$:4k�ydtnc>>,� ..�;E.9.Y`::: 4�SC b.::Yby:.
. ..`�....'::.
>xjy.?L. ,E� <3'' B'.<�•
a .'rte'
ste.„<�...<>9,i`. a<X'..<.'. ?d:<:E<.:: Yi•„:£ @7>:4;&: 0.5:... ...2 Ee5 .: RYE;I 4'S.•;.?' w..<.� <,gs;::.o, s
<w«;23,:xa And'"«k,:�i7>G:4f..sy$y�.b,a>.a a,.�yx<��«igEb'$:?4�>,x «4..3 ..4?d:' „ :z:ass.,$.¢::b,s';s.:z, .s,nz e< 3"�°�€.::a,'?a3s�.,.g.•��;°:or'
� w...y,:<9kkia::«?a:ZUdi!u:k:4...:;;4b>s,::<:,.,:.��9;o ek;:.<L,� >;,•.2g n;,io>;;:>' .'. .:#� �$s�x u.�`o?a:K°ys,:.9is;S<x.<
ixt� 'a> �'�t�t�tS�7�i�l�atltys �«��� �Li&a'�Ys�t31t� �1781���f1C�@Tr�
This new criterion mandates that a certain percentage of the units within a residential annexation
are affordable. Three options are provided, as recommended by the Housing Commission
subcommittee. Staff has made additional recommendations regarding the number of units required,
including that the percentage of units be increased to 15% for units affordable to persons at 100%
of median income. The subcommittee recommended a 'buy-in” option, based on home prices
within the community. Staff would recommend that this only be allowed in the more difficult
annexation areas (Paradise Lane, upper Clay St., Wrights Creek/Ashland Mine Road) but that it not
be allowed as an option in other areas of the city. The mixture of housing within a development is
more important than the collection of money for the housing trust fund. Further, it is Staff's belief
that the City should not encourage the "buy-in” option. We believe that developers are better at
providing housing, and that we should encourage the development of affordable housing inclusively
with new development rather than the City collecting for a fund to manage and disburse.
Annexation Criteria Modification
Planning Staff Proposal 1.6
May 21, 1996
Page 5
§. That a public need for additional land, as defined" IetS
.. .�.a M
can be demonstrated;-,-w
a. That the PFOpesed 118t OF WS Shall be FesideRtially zoned unde
eee8Fd with the standaFds established by Feselutien ef the Ash!
�° u, se �17at3t116;3�W1o�edFa�a>for anr €aticsn$I7eil be residers;Fai�y
xanad, and t17FC8 IS°Stan furs-year alaplsty ttf�racan tatn tha
�tdpASk?e� l�ttd t>S� f ��tFGtk�+rttltrti �tFCYBttt Cilty[frntt�'r ��E1
� due year,suFt�1Y shaJ1 �errx>iined`frt3rn�iscant tar>d inusntctrfes,anl
bY,#he rnetltottilii fur;ld `Mans from th81IGFrsF
Element of the:�umprettenslue F�Jan
This "need" option explicitly states the 5-year supply option, rather than leaving it up to
interpretation out of the Comprehensive Plan.
b. That the proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 K61 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 probable public health hazard exists due to
lack of full 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.
Annexation Criteria Modification
Planning Staff Proposal 1.0
May 21, 1996
Page 6
1
i
1
4
1 coty. . '. .f :Ashland
_
P K
} 4e
x y.
1
1 BPA
1
1
1 -
1 Introduction
1
1 The City of Ashland, Hospital and Parks initiated an aggressive
program to manage utility expenditures and reduce the costs
1 associated with electricity, electrical demand, natural gas, water,
sewer, irrigation and refuse disposal.
1 The program is sponsored by the Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA) as an energy efficiency initiative designed to conserve
resources. BPA would like to acknowledge the guidance and support
received from the City of Ashland, particularly, Dick Wanderscheid for
contributing to the design of the program and Robbin Pearce for the
1 detailed work required to implement the utility management
information system.
' The lessons learned in the City of Ashland will serve as a model to
other communities dedicated to managing costs and preserving the
' environment.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 Total • •
1
1 This section presents a profile
1 of the utility costs and consumption
data for all City of Ashland sites,
1 Hospital and Parks
1
1 ✓ Total Annual Utility Costs
✓ Historical Costs Breakdown
1 ✓ Sites Ranked by Electricity Usage
1 ✓ Utility Costs by Month
1 ✓ Two-Year Utility Cost History
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
N o
N
co
c N �
' c0 V, co M LO
N N
N 5
f6
= L y v o o G)
0
U') , �, .�
oa E
t .a 04 m
N Z
Lf) NN
L ..
N d
�
C m
m �
' O CL L L
V YOI o �
� � m
o �
U N
co
16m 00
co o
M
' M
LO
U
' U
N
W
1
1
1
1
>
1 Z z
1
CO
L
0 Y 7
1 L
CU
3a
1 V _
c�
1 = E
ca Cn (D
1
m /�/�� 0)
i U
fs n
N N O
1 p O z L -
V = N
1 C)
CU
7
i
1 0
N
.— Cn
1 = rn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � �
0 0 0 0 0 o W
0 0 0 0 0 0 -
1 CO � � M N
siellod
i
1
1
1
1
1 0
1 Y � ° LO
a �
1 U) � U
N �
1 cc M � O C
CL N M
C
N
L � N
a _4
1 Ow
= o
C
1 o CO
-C m Z :03 — rn
O o ,� :? o co cfl
c o
m y m aci aci Y _ `m a Y
1 D U U U U rn
c
Z
c 5
! W
C
1 m
N i+
Y co
f6
LL LL
1
1 8
1 � g
0
1 B o 3q
F
1 z $
Cl) m € r
Q) 3: ' o F
Cl) $ 65 $
�\
�
L /
yO
r r
cu -0
CD
O O Q N N p W m P m O P
Q d I Q W W Q N 0 N N Q
1 O 1� (O W Q f0 0 tD
W
/1
cn � .O O
� O 0 N el b W W N N
1 m N Q wi
o $ $ N Q
W O N N m O N m N N
p m W W fp O N W W 0
Q pO N
1 aV
m n
4— y p n
yy qq O N m N W Oi
U L x O N m h W W W N
O W N 0
N N m W O N O N pm
9 b IO W m Q W N Q
-
{ W N n ^ 1O W N
r QS) 23' N Q m Q
y - F (n 4
F
R cs Q V a
r �
0
5 Cu 0
N
' m SSRRy� S$�p�388� gQ��m�o'�go�3�mgRg `o4'g$g.5u°5��3. .
Y � ob�mrSn�bi � `hr' �� ?Y�n��MRoT7m8S1TaS_ _
a
_ a
- -N N fV N � N r
N M M N N N N N N N N M N N N N M N N N N
O
.Rb . . � BNm $ N5i � F3 $
0 4i wwa9RNww� a�°v�www�ww
' T
�a°aa8Rnffi �dWoA gvWyS � °oq' apBORyN�pp�ppOp $flo
> r m N M� n 5� N n m N OD r C/ N N fV 10 t7 1h Y
r2Gm� e1n 17Sg -�
wwww.�wwwwww wwwwwwl�`1a`v3w w
s
O {N���gH�HtW��pWN�1H�� ON1� fN� {�NaND� (N� aN HtNVy M�y�pN�� �
1 p f 0 1 t. . . . l7 8 0. n 0 Ol N
MM�ppWN�9N mH 1m9 Np pN pHp Hfp9HNKgH Wp NN Np NN�Ny
' 1rn� (1Opy �apD��Op 1arpD.� pOO� I�mN pO� 1ta�? � O��y�O�p�¢OQ�1!/Op� 0 �p00S! pO 1(pVO� .
fD f0 Y .r p�.1p.�p q 1p�. _ (pg�.�(py.1(p� - _ _ _ _ _1{�y_ _ _ _
NNNIpY fV fVNNIVNN id Rw Rw MMMMwNwMH
M N M N N N N M N M
O cb dim> > H 1
m d
' 104e. � Q � � � QNO �LL � Q2 � � Qfq Z
1
Resource Conservation Management
' Steps
1
The following steps are being initiated by the
' City of Ashland, Hospital and Parks to manage
utility expenditures and reduce costs:
✓ ESTABLISH UTILITY ACCOUNTING
SYSTEM
' ✓ CONDUCT SITE SURVEYS
' ✓ ESTABLISH CONSERVATION GOALS
✓ IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES
' ✓ PROVIDE MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORTS