| On January 6, 2004, the City Council, at the request of
the Housing Commission, directed Staff to prepare an application for a minor
land partition for the city owned property at the top of Strawberry Lane.
After approval of the partition, the property would be sold and the proceeds
would be used to fund an Affordable Housing Trust Fund as well as offset
previous CDBG funds assigned to the Grove.
An application was submitted, approved administratively in March, 2004, and
a timely request for a public hearing was received from an affected property
owner. The hearing was scheduled for April 13 in front of the Hearings Board.
However, prior to the hearing, I requested that the action be postponed to
allow the City Council, as the applicant, to review the concerns raised by
the neighbors and provide additional direction to staff.
As presented to the Council in January, the property is 2.09 acres in size
and zoned RR-.5. The property was proposed to be partitioned into three parcels,
with one parcel able to be further split after 12 months. The ultimate
development of the property would be for four approximate one-half acre parcels.
Attached are two letters from the Concerned citizens in the upper Strawberry
Lane neighborhood. From the letter of March 30, 2004 come the following concerns
(with staff response following in bold.)
1. It appears that the City is proposing to ultimately divide the property
into four parcels, but this was not indicated on the notice. The City stated
previously that they would only create three parcels on this site. We request
that the partition only be approved for three parcels.
In 1996, the City prepared a draft neighborhood plan for the area, after
spending a substantial amount of time working with the neighborhood. One
of the recommendations of the plan was to rezone the property from RR-.5
to RR-1, or one acre lot sizes. Due to disagreements within the upper and
lower neighborhood, the plan was never adopted. Further, initial discussion
with DLCD indicated that they would not look favorably on downzoning urban
properties to a one-acre minimum lot size, especially given the relatively
flat slopes and proximity to downtown. While they did empathize with the
City's wildfire concerns and traffic issues, they could not agree with the
downzoning. Staff then continued to work with the neighborhood on a voluntary
approach. The developers on upper Strawberry continued to work towards an
overall density of one lot per acre (compared to the 1.2 units/acre based
density of the RR-.5 zone), however, individual lots would vary in size,
and the dedication of streets and open space would not diminish the overall
density allowed. Even with this approach, the ultimate development proposal
was very controversial, and ended up on appeal to both the City Council and
LUBA. The City's decision to approve a 25 lot subdivision on upper Strawberry
was ultimately upheld by LUBA.
Review of the original draft neighborhood plan shows a table that indicates
if the entire study area had been rezoned to RR-1 rather than RR-.5, the
density would have been reduced from 91 to 71 units. As it has developed
without rezoning (including properties outside of the immediate upper Strawberry
neighborhood), and if the City's property and the adjoining property to the
north develop at 4 parcels each, the total development would be 75 units,
and clearly within the intended development pattern of the draft neighborhood
plan.
Attached is a map showing the currently approved subdivision of the
surrounding properties, which include some open space areas (related to steep
slopes and natural drainages - generally unbuildable areas) as well as new
streets and access drives. Also included are the lot sizes for those surrounding
properties. As shown, the majority of these properties vary in size from
0.28 acres to 0.79 acres, with most falling around the 0.4-0.6 acre size.
The City's proposal is to ultimately create four 0.5 acre parcels on the
2.09 acre property at the corner of Strawberry and Westwood.
And similarly to the developers, the City has participated in the development
of neighborhood open space. The City has purchased and provided over 35 acres
of open space in the immediate vicinity of upper Strawberry Lane, including
the 11.66 acres across Westwood Street and west of the subject property;
19.8 acres at the top of Strawberry knoll which is now known as the
Strawberry-Hald property, and 5.67 acres that allows connection for the
neighborhood to the ditch trail. The City has made a substantial contribution
to the neighborhood in the provision of this open space, with the ultimate
development density being approximately four lots on 37 acres. Without these
purchases, even assuming a one acre density, there would have been an additional
35 homes developed in the neighborhood.
2. Notice was only mailed to 443 Strawberry, and no notice was posted on
the property.
Notice was provided in accord with the requirements of the land use ordinance.
The attached map and mailing list shows the properties notified of the action.
The notice areas are generated by a computer program that creates a 200'
buffer around the subject parcel and identifies all parcels within that buffer
area. Four different property owners were notified of the action. Notice
was posted on the site at the time of initial application by the Planning
Staff. However, that notice was either damaged or removed. We have re-posted
the property with a notice and will attempt to maintain the sign during the
notice period. The notice area can also be increased from the standard 200
feet to include additional properties.
3. There are no CC&R's proposed, landscaping plans, building envelopes
or other standards required of the adjoining subdivisions. This could result
in financial and non-financial consequences for the surrounding property
owners.
CC&R's are only required by the City for the maintenance of open areas
as required under the Performance Standards for subdivisions. There is no
open space required by ordinance as part of this application, and further,
the City has already dedicated over 35 acres of open space in the immediate
vicinity which is under the maintenance of the Parks and Recreation Department.
Landscaping plans are only required for open spaces, and not for individual
parcels. Street trees have been required as a condition of approval of the
project. Building envelopes are not required for minor land partitions. The
Council could ask that Staff prepare building envelopes for these parcels.
However, given the relatively benign slope of the property, lack of significant
natural features, standard setbacks required by the RR-.5 zone, and the 20%
lot coverage maximum, we do not believe they are necessary.
4. We find it difficult now to be presented with a situation wherein a new
intrusion is "shoe horned" into our space without discussion with the neighbors
who were so involved with the existing neighborhood that was so carefully
planned and executed at great expense.
Staff concurs that the area was planned and executed at great expense.
It was through the use of this neighborhood process that the City was able
to work with the property owner and acquire the almost 20 acre Strawberry-Hald
property. The City expended tremendous resources for staff time working with
the neighborhood on street improvement issues. Further, the City has financially
participated in excess of $450,000 in the formation of the Strawberry / Alnut
/ Scenic / Westwood LID. We have been a partner throughout this process,
providing open space, design assistance, and financial support which allows
for the ultimate development of the area. Given the development in the area
immediately surrounding the City's property, the 0.50 acre parcels proposed
are compatibly designed to the existing neighborhood fabric proposed by the
neighboring property owners.
The neighbors further believe that the City is proposing this land division
to optimize financial gain. In fact, that is exactly what the staff is proposing,
while maintaining compliance with all ordinances and compatibility with the
neighborhood. The "financial gain" of this land sale will be going directly
to address the needs of affordable housing in the community. It is recognized
that this land is not appropriate for the densities needed for affordable
housing, so rather than trying to create an incompatible development pattern,
it is in the City's interest to sell the property and maximize the return
for the benefit of affordable housing for the entire community.
A recent property sale of a lot adjacent to the City's showed a sale price
of $360,000 for a 0.67 acre parcel. To follow the request of the neighbors
and create parcels of approximately 0.70 acres in size would address their
immediate concerns, but would shortchange efforts to address affordable housing
by over $300,000.
5. Since the property is ultimately being divided into four parcels, the
City may require a development plan and compliance with all subdivision
regulations, CC&R's, and landscaping plans.
As stated previously, there is no open space directly associated with
these parcels, so no CC&R's or landscaping plans are required by the
City. The City does not require CC&R's for the purpose of controlling
architecture, only for ensuring maintenance of open space. Architectural
control is the choice of the developer. It is our opinion, given the cost
of these parcels, lot coverage standards, and height requirements, the
development will be appropriate to the neighborhood without specific
CC&R's. Full compliance with the City's subdivision ordinance would end
up creating lots larger than those found in the immediate vicinity, and reduce
the financial support to affordable housing for the community. |
