City of Ashland

1. City of Ashland Review of Land Use Procedures

2. Purpose • To address one of the 5 key recommendations presented to the Planning Commission in February: • Create a cohesive planning framework that provides time for the public, elected officials, commission’s and staff to address the major policy issues facing the community.

3. Options • Moving more land use actions to staff approvals • Hearings Officer • Design Review Board • More Efficient Meetings • More Meetings • Move land use policy to different process, such as CPAC

4. Need for Staff Time • It appears that staffing levels might be frozen due to budget reasons, including the loss of the position authorized in last year’s budget. • The net result is that city staff available for long range planning with no changes to procedures is approximately 1.5 FTE, which will be further reduced if permit activity increases. • The ability to do an aggressive long range planning program is seriously compromised by staffing levels under the current procedures.

5. What benefits would come from more staff time? • Planning Manager and Senior Planner will not be required to be involved with as many development projects, freeing them up to do long range planning. • Current planning staff can help supplement long range staff • Current planning staff can undertake: • Customer service enhancements (web page, brochures, pre-application) • Enforcement of permit conditions (e.g., tree protection, landscaping, etc.)

6. What benefits would come from more Planning Commission time? • Planning Commission can spend more time on policy, plan and code amendments • Elimination of the Hearings Board would enable the members to consider establishing committees to work on elements, perhaps in concert with other advisory commissions (historic, housing, tree, traffic, bike & pedestrian)

7. Review of Ashland’s existing permit types

8. Existing Permit Types • Ministerial Actions (18.108.020.A) • Staff Permit Procedure (18.108.030) • Type I Procedure (18.108.040) • Type II Procedure (18.108.050) • Type III Procedure (18.108.060)

9. Ministerial Actions • The Staff Advisor has the authority to review and approve or deny the following matters as ministerial actions: • Final subdivision plat approval. (18.80.050) • Final partition map approval. (18.76.120) • Minor amendments to subdivisions and partitions. • Boundary line adjustments. (18.76.140) • Zoning permits. (18.112.010) • Sign permits. (18.96.050) • Home occupation permits. (18.94.130)

10. Staff Permits • Site Review for two or three residential units on a single lot. • Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permits as allowed in Chapter 18.62. • Variances described in Section 18.70.060. (Solar waiver) • Site Reviews in C-1, E-1, HC and M zones for expansions of an existing use that do not require new building area in excess of 2,500 square feet, or modification of more than 10% of the area of the site. • Extension of time limits for approved planning actions. • The following developments subject to the Site Design and Use Standards in section 18.72.040.A: • Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. • Any addition less than 2,500 square feet or ten percent of the building's square footage, whichever is less, to a building. • All installations of mechanical equipment in any zone. • Installation of disc antennas subject to the requirements of Section 18.72.160. Any disc antenna for commercial use in a residential zone shall also be subject to a Conditional Use Permit (18.104). • Any exterior change to a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

11. Staff Permit Procedures • Process: • Staff has 14 days to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. • Notice mailed within 7 days to the applicant, owner, and property owners within 100 feet. • Persons have 10 days to request a public hearing. There are no fees currently charged to request a public hearing.

12. Type I Permits • Final Plan Approval for Performance Standards Subdivisions. • Site Reviews other than those subject to a Staff Permit Procedure or Type II Procedure. • Partitions which require no variances or only variances subject to Type I procedures. • Amendments to conditions of approval. • Creation of a private way, as allowed in section 18.80.030.B. • Conditional Use Permits involving existing structures or additions to existing structures, and not involving more than 3 residential dwelling units, or temporary uses.

13. Type I Permits, con’t. • Variances for: • Sign placement. • Non-conforming signs, when bringing them into conformance as described in section 18.96.130.D. • Up to 50% reduction of standard yard requirements. • Parking in setback areas. • Up to 10% reduction in the number of required parking spaces. • Up to 10% reduction in the required minimum lot area. • Up to 10% increase in the maximum lot coverage percentage. • Up to 20% reduction in lot width or lot depth requirements. • Up to 50% reduction for parking requirements in Ashland's Historic District as described in section 18.92.055. • Up to 10% variance on height, width, depth, length or other dimension not otherwise listed in this section. • Site Design and Use Standards as provided in section 18.72.090. • The following developments subject to the Site Design and Use Standards in section 18.72.040.B: • Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined by the zoning regulations of this Code. • Any residential use which results in four dwelling units or more on a lot. • All new structures or additions greater than 2,500 square feet, except for developments included in section 18.108.030.A.6.

14. Type I Procedures • Staff approves, approves with conditions or denies the application. • Notice sent within 7 days of the decision. • A public hearing may be requested within 10 days of mailing. • These permits must be reviewed at the Hearings Board meeting even if a hearing has not been requested. Hearings Board can amend the decision, which would require re-noticing and opportunity to request a hearing. • Commission can initiate a public hearing to be heard at the following month’s regularly scheduled meeting. Commission can take no action at the meeting when the decision is scheduled. • Applicant or staff can have a Type I heard by the Commission or Hearings Board.

15. Type II Permits • All Conditional Use Permits not subject to a Type I procedure. • All variances not subject to the Type I procedure. • Outline Plan for subdivisions under the Performance Standard Options (AMC Chapter 18.88). • Preliminary Plat for subdivisions under the standard subdivision code (AMC Chapter 18.80). • Final Plan approval for all subdivision requests under the Performance Standard Options not requiring Outline Plan approval. • Any public hearing of a Staff decision resulting from the Staff Permit Procedure.

16. Type II Procedures • Public hearing held before the Commission in accord with the requirements of 18.108.100. • Under the authority of 2.14.020, the Hearings Board may be assigned Type II variances and conditional use permits not involving complete new multi-family, commercial or industrial buildings, partitions and site review and other minor land use matters.

17. Type III Permits • Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for legislative amendments. • Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except for legislative amendments. • Annexations • Urban Growth Boundary Amendments

18. Type III Procedures • Public hearing held before the Planning Commission. Planning Commission has final approval, unless appealed, on zone or plan map changes

19. Oregon Land Use Permits • Oregon land use law (ORS 197) outlines some land use permit and appeal procedures • Ashland’s code is in addition to Oregon law • Oregon law permit types: • Land Use decision (ORS 197.015.11) • Limited Land Use decision (ORS 197.015.13) • Expedited Land Division (ORS 197.360)

20. Limited Land Use • Limited land use decisions are defined by ORS 197.015 (13) and apply to two types of actions: • 1) approval or denial of tentative subdivision or partition plans and • 2) approval or denial of applications based on discretionary standards designed to regulate the physical characteristics of a use permitted outright, including but not limited to site review and design review. • The ORS requires the city to incorporate all comprehensive plan standards applicable to limited land use decisions into their land use regulations. • If a city or county does not incorporate its comprehensive plan provisions into its land use regulations, the comprehensive plan provisions may not be used as a basis for a decision by the city or county or on appeal from that decision • The city has amended the code to include the Site Design Standards by reference in the code, so is compliant with this ORS. The city’s limited land use procedures exceed the ORS requirements.

21. Limited Land Use Procedures • Limited land use decisions follow the procedures of ORS 197.195 and are not required to follow the requirements for other land use decisions outlined in ORS 197.763. • Notice has to be provided to owners within 100 feet of the site and a 14-day period for submission of written comments prior to the decision must be provided. • A public hearing on limited land use decisions is not required. • While the written notice must identify the appeal procedures, nothing in state law requires a local appeal procedure, so appeals could go directly to LUBA

22. Expedited Land Division • An expedited land division under ORS 197.360 is an action for land zoned residential in an urban growth boundary that • creates enough lots or parcels to allow building residential units at 80% or more of the maximum net density permitted by the zoning designation of the site, • creates three or fewer parcels and • complies with street and other standards of the city. • Not included in these procedures are: • land that is specifically mapped and designated in the comprehensive plan and land use regulations for full or partial protection of natural features under the statewide planning goals that protect open spaces, scenic and historic areas and natural resources • Procedure appears to be required by ORS, but Ashland does not have any such written procedures. See ORS 197.365 • “When requested by an applicant for an expedited land division, in lieu of the procedure set forth in its comprehensive plan and land use regulations, the local government shall use the following procedures…”

23. Expedited Land Division Procedures • The procedure for approval of an expedited land division includes: • Notice to owners of property within 100 feet and allows for written comments in a 14-day period. • The city is precluded from holding a hearing on the application. • A decision on the application must be made within 63 days of the application being deemed complete. • Appeal of the decision can be made within 14 days. A “referee” must be appointed who is not an employee or official of the local government. However, a hearings officer may act in such capacity. • It is not clear at the time of this writing whether the Planning Commission constitutes an official under this section. Could the appeal go to the Planning Commission instead of a hearings officer?

24. Land Use Decision • These types of decisions include: • any final land use decision or determination that concerns the adoption, amendment or application of the state land use goals, • a comprehensive plan provision, • a land use regulation or a new land use regulation. • The process for consideration of land use decisions excludes: • limited land use decisions or an expedited land division. • permits issued under clear and objective land use standards (would be considered ministerial) or • that requires interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment

25. Land Use Decision Procedures • Procedures are found in two different statutes: • Chapter 227, regarding City Planning and Zoning, sets forth definitions for permits and the process for consideration of these permits, but does not require hearings for all permits; • ORS 197.763 outlines the procedures to be followed for land use decisions to be conducted through a public hearing process

26. Land Use Decision Procedures, con’t. • Oregon law requires that the city establish a consolidated procedure by which an applicant may apply at one time for all permits or zone changes needed for a development project (ORS 227.175). • This provision might be applicable in areas where, for example, the Historic Commission issues permits and the Planning Commission issues permits. • In Ashland, the only permitting authority is the Planning Commission, so the requirement under Oregon law needs to be remembered only if we adopt different procedures. • A hearing is not required on permit applications or zone changes, provided that the hearings officer or other person designated gives notice of the decision and provides an opportunity for any person to file an appeal. (ORS 227.175(10)) • An appeal from a hearings officer’s decision made without hearing must be to the Planning Commission or the City Council. • Since no initial hearing would be held in this case, the appeal hearing must be de novo and subject to the requirements of ORS 197.763

27. Hearings Officer • Oregon law allows the city to appoint one or more planning and zoning hearings officers to conduct hearings on applications for permits and zone changes as the council designates. (ORS 227.165) • The Hearings Officer could be hired under contract, or could be a staff member. • Different permit types could be assigned to different officers, with different appeal rights. However, if a hearings officer makes a decision without a public hearing, then appeal rights on permits and zone changes must be to the Planning Commission or City Council (ORS 227.175(10)(a)(D))

28. Recommendations (General Principles) • Respect the input received from citizens in the process of reviewing applications. • Continue to allow neighbors of projects to provide comments on applications before making final decisions. • Remove only those projects from public notice where clear, objective standards that provide an expected outcome can be achieved. • Respect the knowledge of citizen advisory members in providing input and improving proposed development projects. • Respect the knowledge and expertise of city staff in the review of applications against adopted city standards. • Distinguish procedures for projects with clear and objective standards from projects with discretionary standards or legal standards (e.g., variances). • Understand the impact of public notice and deliberation on time and workload. • Savings of staff time in permit processing can be utilized directly in the development of city policy and planning programs. • Savings of Planning Commission time can be utilized directly in the development of city planning standards. • Consider the benefits of making any changes temporary while the city undertakes a review and update of the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations.

29. General Recommendations • Review Land Use Code for ways to relieve staff time in order to allocate staff to long range planning. Ideas: • Move some staff permits to ministerial (e.g. change in ownership, solar waiver, extension of time) • Adopt expedited land division procedures as outlined in ORS • Revise Type I procedures to make staff decision final, subject to appeal • Staff might act as Hearings Officer to gather additional information • Look at Type II permits that might move to Type I • Review appeal, request for hearing and fee structures.

30. Impact of Recommendations • Staff time savings could be large: • No staff reports • No meetings • No minutes • Public process and input is still respected: • Notice to adjacent property owners maintained • Advisory commissions (historic, tree, bike, etc.) would still provide input • Appeal rights to Planning Commission would remain • Hearings Board could be cancelled • Planning Commission items might be removed if some Type II permits lowered to Type I • Remaining Type II and all Type III permits would remain with Planning Commission as now exists

31. Yes Planning Commission Hearing & Decision Application submitted Notice Provided No Yes Appeal? Decision Final Send to Planning Com-mission? No Staff Decision Yes Appeal to Hearings Officer, Council or LUBA Appeal to Planning Commission or Council Type I Procedure – Conceptual Process

32. Other Options • Hearings Officer • Design Review Board • More Efficient Meetings • More Meetings • Move land use policy to different process, such as CPAC

33. Hearings Officer • Not recommended because it does not save staff time on Type I permits • Only benefit is if Planning Commission would want to assign more Type II permits to Hearings Officer, or appeals • Need to research whether Expedited Land Division “referee” must go to Hearings Officer, or if Planning Commission will do

34. Design Review Board • Benefit to relieve Planning Commission of Site Design and Review functions • Benefit in that members would be selected based on ability to use and interpret site design and use standards • Staff time would not be saved, and another committee would be formed (could be duplicative of some Historic Commission functions as well)

35. More Efficient Meetings • All would benefit, but it would not benefit staff workload to the point of helping on long range planning program • Can only get so much efficiency out of a 9-member citizen panel

36. More Meetings • Benefit would be that the public process and citizen decision making would be preserved. • Burn out of volunteers would need to be considered. • Increase in staff workload due to attendance, minutes, etc. • Should more meetings be focused on policy, versus development?

37. Move Policy to CPAC • Benefit is to involve more people in planning • More involvement is a given to any good long range planning program • Planning Commission still must make recommendations to council, so there may not be any time savings, and the “cohesive planning framework” might not happen

38. Discussion