HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-053 Findings - PA #81-25 Lithia Homes PLANNING ACTION #81-25 is a request for a 45-unit Planned Unit
Development proposed at 538 Granite St . The request involves four
phases over a 10-year time frame . There are 28 attached units and
17 detached units proposed. Comprehensive Plan designation: Rural
Residential . Zoning : RR- .5 (Rural Residential) . Assessor's map # :
17 AA. Tax lots : 2200 , 1101, 1102 .
APPLICANT: Lithia Homes , Inc.
The Planning Commission' s recommendations reduced the total number
of units to 28 and attached 37 conditions for approval. The appeal
was filed by the developer and also by affected property owners
in the vicinity. The appeal was heard July 14, 1981, at the Ashland
Senior High School English Lecture Hall , with five Councilmembers
and the Mayor present . \
In reviewing the data and testimony which are in the records of
Planning Action #81-25 , we make the following findings regarding
the appeal by the applicant :
1) The Planning Commission made its findings and conclusions based
on evidence already in the record which went largely uncon-
tested by the applicant.
2) The Planning Commission was correct in its determination that
11 acres of the property were so remote that they were unusable
as common open space, and, therefore, should be deleted from
the consideration of computing the allowable density for the
project.
3) The applicant produced no evidence that the conditions attached
by the Planning Commission were unreasonable or were not
related to the general public health, safety, or welfare .
We therefore deny the appeal by the applicant .
In regards to the appeal by the property owners , we make the follow-
ing findings :
1) The Planning Commission did not err in allowing two dwelling
units per acre for the remainder of the property. There was
no evidence submitted which indicated that the Planning Com-
mission should have done otherwise .
2) The Planning Commission adequately considered the negative
impact on the neighborhood and mitigated them as much as
possible.
3) We found there was no evidence submitted which would indicate
that a reduction in the number of units would substantially
meet the intent and purpose of the Performance Standards in
any way better than that already found by the Planning Commission.
-1-
In reviewing the total evidence in the record, we hereby approve
Planning Action #81-25 with the following findings of fact and
conditions attached:
1) That 11 acres of the proposal are in excess of 55% average
slope .
2) That there exists evidence in the report "Slope Stability &
Mass Wasting in the Ashland Creek Watershed, " March 1975 , by
Sandra A. Wilson and B.G. Hicks for the U.S . Forest Service,
that land in excess of 52% is subject to spontaneous mass
wasting.
3) That disturbing the land which has a slope in excess of 52%
would be unsafe due to the potential for landslides and mass
wasting.
4) That attempting to develop the entire property with homesites
would not be feasible and would be unsafe due to geologic
hazards .
5) That transferring the density of the undevelopable acres to
other portions of the property would result in densities which
are inappropriate for the rural residential zoning of the
property and would not be in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood.
6) That the Ashland Comprehensive Plan states that "slope protec-
tion and lot coverage performance standards shall be used to fit
development to topography, generally following the concept
that density should decrease with an increase in slope . " This
project, as originally proposed, had not decreased density due
to slope, but simply transferred it to the more buildable
areas of the site .
7) That the original proposal of 45 units would violate the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan designation of rural residential
zones which are "areas meant to be at fairly low densities ,
up to 2 dwelling units per acre , with a predominance of single-
family homes on large lots . "
8) That the Performance Standards Guidelines clearly state that
open space should be accessible and usable , and should be part
of the dialy life of the residents of the project . Eleven
acres of the open space areas shown in the original proposal are
so steep and so far from the developed areas that the lands are
essentially unusable as open space . Therefore, the purpose
and intent of the Performance Standards code cannot be met
with the project density as it was originally proposed.
-2-
I '
9) That , in order to meet the intent of the City ' s Comprehensive
Plan, Land Use Ordinance, and Performance Standards Guidelines ,
it is necessary to reduce the density of the project from
45 units to 28 units .
10) That reducing the project to 28 units would reduce the poten-
tial traffic impact on Lithia Park and Granite St.
11) That discounting 11 unbuildable acres from the total project
density because of slope would still allow the applicant to
a) receive a density bonus for this land dedicated as open
space, and b) more importantly, it would be computed in the
overall lot coverage percentage . If this discounted land were
not included, lot coverage would be reduced to such an extent
that it would be almost impossible to build even a few struc-
tures on the buildable portions of the property.
12) That there exists adequate public facilities to service the
project during and after construction.
13) That Section 18 . 88. 030(5) (b) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance
gives the Planning Commission the authority to require changes ,
or impose conditions of approval which are necessary in its
judgment to ensure conformance with the outline plan approval
section and the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards
Ordinance Chapter.
14) That there exists a number of unknown quantities in this pro-
posal , due to the lack of knowledge about development in this
area and the lack of information regarding development of
the area presented by the applicant . Because of this , it may
be necessary to further modify the project during the final
plan phases due to information which will surface during the
more detailed design and construction phases .
15) That there exists authority in the City Land Use Ordinance,
Fire Code , and Building Code to set the following attached
conditions .
16) That the proposal, with attached conditions , minimizes the
impact of the project on the neighborhood, Granite St. , and-
the Park as much as is feasibly possible .
17) That, in order to meet the intent of the City ' s Comprehensive
Plan, Land Use Ordinance , and Performance Standards Guidelines ,
it is necessary to attach conditions to the approval . Without
each and every one of the conditions , the proposal cannot
satisfy the required findings that must be made to grant
approval of the request.
18) That there was additional evidence submitted to the Council
-3-
I
that this area contains a significant danger of wildfire ,
and the project did not have any method to minimize the danger
of wildfire .
Based on our overall conclusions and upon the development being
subject to each of the following conditions , we approve Planning
Action #81-25 . Further, if any one or more of the following condi-
tions are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then
Planning Action #81-25 is denied. The following are the conditions
and they are attached to the approval :
1) Due to the large amount of unbuildable land, all land shown
on the map as being dedicated for common open space and over
55% in average slope shall not be counted for density.
2) That no more than the following number of units be built in
each of the phases :
a) Phase I - no more than 7 units
b) Phase II - no more than 8 units
c) Phase III - no more than 7 units
d) Phase IV - no more than 6 units
for a total of no more than 28 units total .
3) That the following areas be included with each of the phases :
a) Phase I - at least 6 .4 acres .
b) Phase II - at least 7 . 3 acres
c) Phase III - at least 6 .4 acres
d) Phase IV - at least 5 . 5 acres
4) That the applicant sign in favor of future street improvements
to the portion of Granite St. which would not be paved, as
shown on the site plan.
5) That there shall be no vehicular access to Granite St . other
than the single entrance for the major subcollector road.
6) That Granite St. be paved as indicated on the outline plan and
the plans be approved by Public Works prior to approval of
Phase I of the project, or a local improvement district be
formed. If construction of the homes begins before the road
is paved, the applicant would be required to take dust-control
measures to the satisfaction of the Public Works Dept .
7) That all the roads in each phase of the development be built
to City street standards and be approved by the City Engineers
and inspected by City Engineers prior to any building construc-
tion commencing on the property.
8) That the width of the major roads be 20 ft. throughout their
entire length and that all necessary public easements be dedi-
cated to the requirements of the City' s Public Works Dept .
-4-
9) That at least one trail be paved with an all-weather surface
throughout the length of the project to replace conventional
sidewalks .
10) That all retaining walls on the roads be designed to the
satisfaction of the City ' s Public Works Dept. , and any re-
taining walls necessary during construction be designed to the
satisfaction of the City' s Building Official.
11) That water line easements required by Public Works be dedi-
cated prior to Phase I plat approval.
12) That there be no gate or other visible restriction to access
to the roads . A sign of up to 2 sq . ft . may be permitted
indicating that the roads are private property.
13) That the storm water drainage system be approved by the Director
of Public Works prior to approval of each phase of the project,
that storm drainage into Ashland Creek be designed as to not
erode in any way the creek by hydraulic head generated by the
great height of the project .
14) That all units on the project be set back at least 50 ft . from
project boundaries if there is a single-family residence within
30 ft. of the project boundaries . Otherwise, that all units
meet all setback standards applicable to the RR- .5 zone .
perimeter.
15) That recreational improvements detailed in the final plan
phase in accordance with the presentations in detailing of
uses in the recreational areas that are presented in a prelim-
inary plan phase.
16) That an erosion control plan be required in the final plan
stage in accordance with the general erosion control plans
submitted by the applicant. The plans shall be detailed in the
improvement agreement with the City and the cost for implement-
ing the plans shall be included in the subdivisionbond. Any
erosion control areas are to have a temporary easement , per-
mitting the City to implement the erosion control plan should
the developer fail to do so during construction, according to
the agreed upon erosion control plan. The erosion control plan
shall be subject to mutual agreements signed by the City and
the developer prior to approval of the final plan.
17) That the Fire Dept . approve the final plan location of fire
hydrants , and all turning radii be acceptable for emergency
vehicle access .
18) That no average street grade by above 15% slope and no street
section over 25% slope for more than 100 ft.
-5-
19) That no driveway grade exceed 23%.
20) That all runoff from roofs and driveways be adequately piped
or channeled to the storm drain system.
21) That the storm sewer system be engineered.
22) That no buildings be placed on slopes in excess of 39%.
23) That an all-weather pedestrian pathway be provided along
Granite St . to the satisfaction of the Public Works Dept.
24) That the path running along Marklyn Dr. be an all-weather
surface.
25) That all perimeter setbacks be equal to at least the height
of the building, except as noted in Condition #15 .
26) That no bonuses be allowed for minimal disturbance of the land.
27) That cuts and fills at the roadsides and driveways shall be
graded to a slope no greater than 2 to 1 and be protected with
hydromulching and wattles ; retaining walls are to be used where
grading is not possible.
28) That the trail at the bottom of the development be relocated
in front of the proposed units and away from the property line.
29) That foundation types be included in the final plan.
30) That the creek be left in as natural a state as possible and
that there be no culverting of the creek except where it must
be crossed by the roadway, and that there be no development
on the north-facing slope from a line 40 ft. north of the creek
to the ridge.
31) That the final plan be approved as a Type II hearing.
32) That the final plan show accurate details of all cuts and fills
for streets , driveways , and foundations , and be subject to
review and change by the Planning Commission.
33) That Marklyn Dr. follow the line of the existing road in the
section before it crosses the creek, and that it not be re-
aligned any closer to the eastern boundary than it presently is .
34) That a road improvement reserve or depreciation fund be set
up by the homeowners ' association for the long-term maintenance
of the road.
35) That performance bonding be required for all community improvements .
-6-
N , .
36) That the applicant sign an agreement agreeing with required
conditions and submit a modified master plan reflecting these
conditions prior to approval of Phase 1 within 180 days of the
adoption of these findings .
37) That the Planning Commission be allowed to review Phases II ,
III, and IV after actual construction of Phase I . This review
would be limited to road location, unit location, and erosion
control measures . The review would be based upon statutes ,
ordinances , and public health and safety issues . This condi-
tion does not imply that the number of units can be reduced.
38) That a fire prevention plan be submitted and implemented with
the final plan of each phase. Such plan shall contain restrictions
at a minimum to include a 40-foot fuel break to be installed and
perpetually maintained around the perimeter of the developed area
of the property with each phase and a covenant added to the deeds
for strict compliance of such restrictions . A fuel break is an
area freed of dead, diseased, and dying vegetation, .and :suffici-
ently thinned of quick-burning, native vegetation to prevent the
. rapid spread of wildfire. The fuel break areas shall be contained
in the erosion control plan, and methods for minimizing erosion
shall be detailed in the erosion control plan.
39) That a covenant be added to the deeds of the lots. that no home
be constructed with a wood shingle or shake roof, or other
combustible material, as defined in the Uniform Building Code,
and that an approved spark arrester be installed on all chimneys ,
flues or other devices venting the combustion products of wood,
oil, or natural gas .
40) That hose bibs be provided to the front and rear of all units .
L . Gordon Me aris
Mayor
ATTEST:
Nan E ,r nc in
City ecor/deer
Date: 97-
-7-