City of Ashland
Review of Land Use Procedures
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.
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
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.
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.)
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)
Review of Ashland’s
existing permit types
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Type III Procedures
• Public hearing held before the
Planning Commission. Planning
Commission has final approval, unless
appealed, on zone or plan map
changes
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)
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.
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
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:
•
Procedure appears to be required by ORS, but Ashland does not
have any such written procedures. See ORS 197.365
– 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
–
“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…”
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?
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
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
•
•
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
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))
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.
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.
Impact of
Recommendations
•
Staff time savings could be large:
•
Public process and input is still respected:
•
•
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
•
– No staff reports
– No meetings
– No minutes
– Notice to adjacent property owners maintained
– Advisory commissions (historic, tree, bike, etc.) would still provide
input
– Appeal rights to Planning Commission would remain
Type I Procedure – Conceptual Process
Planning
Commission
Hearing
& Decision
Yes
Application
submitted
Send to
Planning
Commission?
Notice
Provided
No
Yes
Appeal?
No
De
cisi
on
Fin
al
Staff
Decision
Yes
Appeal to
Planning
Commission or
Council
Appeal to
Hearings
Officer,
Council or
LUBA
Other Options
•
•
•
•
•
Hearings Officer
Design Review Board
More Efficient Meetings
More Meetings
Move land use policy to different
process, such as CPAC
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
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)
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
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?
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
Discussion