Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0821 SS MINCITY OF ASHLAND Council Study Session August 21, 1996 Meeting called to order at 4:05 p.m. Attendance: Mayor Golden and Councilors Reid, Hagen and Laws; City Administrator Almquist, staff McLaughlin, Lovrovich, City Attorney Nolte and local media. Letter submitted by Carl Oates reeardine the approval of a minor land partition middle Clay Street. Planning Director John McLaughlin submitted to council memo addressing concerns by Carl Oates. Oates raised the issue of how thoroughly the Planning Staff briefed the hearings board on the facts before approved decision was made and whether the Council expected the Planning Staff to adhere to the stated goals for the year 1996-97. McLaughlin explained that the hearings board received a written staff report regarding the request as well as an oral presentation at the hearing. All members of the hearings board made site visits and were aware of the site, access and surroundings. McLaughlin believes that the Planning Staff is working towards the goals of the City Council. The goals of the City Council are not directly applicable to a minor land partition request. Staff is working at addressing the goals through the adoption of the Transportation Plan as well as future ordinance amendments implementing the goals and policies of the plan. It was explained that middle Clay Street is a county road within the city limits. As a county road, the maintenance responsibilities fall on Jackson County. It has been the City's policy not to accept jurisdiction of county roads until they have been improved to city standards. Due to the historic development patter of middle Clay Street, it has been the policy that this improvement would occur as a local improvement district once approximately 50 % of the frontage of the street had signed letter of remonstrance to the formation of a district. It is estimated that approximately 40 % of the properties fronting on Clay have signed agreements. The street currently, is a deteriorating chip seal surface without curb, gutter or sidewalks. New lot creation would be through the use of flag partitions. Where development has occurred has resulted in neighborhood opposition due to incompatible densities or design. McLaughlin suggested that council discuss further minimum access standard for approval of a minor land partition, and to open up the criteria to allow the surrounding property owners to raise other aspects of neighborhood character. Council may also discuss refinements of our current standards regarding access. Council was cautioned that Oregon law requires that our land use laws be "clear and objective", and this appears to be especially so for minor land partitions. Council Study Session 8-21-96 1 - 2 - Implications of Rpproval, Planning Action 96-048 (cont.) SOME COMMENTS 1. Inadequatly developed infrastructure will not support infill or continued density increases. Infill requires the development of all transportation elements. 2. Ps pointed out to the Planning Commission on August 13th, current city ordinances require paved driveways to the deep lot, flag developments. This is paving over ~shland with attendant deleterious drainage, erosion, and tributary stream conditions. A serious investigation of pervious paving should be sought as soon as possible with ordinance changes accordingly. 3. Tolman Creek road, to the Southwest has some of the same conditions cited above, and will come at issue if planning changes are not made. SOME RECOMMENDATIONS 1. To avoid possible future legal action which will cost all taxpayers money, it is recommended that minor land partitions resulting in deep flag lot developments be discontinued until Middle Clay is dedicated, and a plan is in place for upgrading the infrastructure. 2. ~ indicated in my letter of April 12th, it is recommended that the criteria for approving land partitions be changed to permit neighbors to introduce and discuss neighborhood aspects beyond the plot of land under consideration. Perhaps, this letter and appearance before the Council would not have been necessary if someone in authority in city government had responded to my two earlier communications. Si ncerel y, Carl Oates 776 Glendale Ave City should change land partition criteria This is about .'hat ! will call.' "The New Guy "ThursdaY, lCla~ 9, 1996 - The Ash|and Daily ll~lings on the Block." He or she may be a dream-home builder, contractor, developer, speculator, or someone called "other. "But in all instances, New Guy wants to develop a piece of land next to you or somewhere down the block from your proper- ty. Well and good since he/she bought the land, he/she has a property right to develop same with- in the guidance of city ordinances and the plan- ning stag The large question is: Is his/her prop- erty right superior to that of the oM guys on the block? Answer: Yes, under the present rules by which development takes place in Ashland. How do I conclude that there exists this superior right? Read on for a recent example. Following is a let- ter that I wrote to the Ashland City Council on April 12 that makes the point of New Guy's supe- rior property right: Planning Action 96--048: A Minor Land Partition is a major impediment to Council Goals '96. This minor land partition was heard and approved on April 9. It has major implications for your objectives in Goals One and Three. As most of you know, middle Clay Street (from Siskiyou Boulevard to the railroad tracks) is: I) not maintained by the city, 2) without side- walks, 3) the home for a private school in an active church, 4) already burdened with large stances.. They have a property right to this inter- vention not permitted by the present criteria. Carl Oates apartment complexes at either end, 5) a school child's walking route to Bellview Elementary School, 6) !aid out with deep lots containing vacant off-street land (subject to minor !and parti- lions and subsequent in-fill opportunities). Subject partition will pu.t two more houses on a street that cannot safely support pedestrian and auto traffic now! Bikers, walkers, and joggers sei- dom use this street because of its unsafe surface condition. The restrictive criteria now in place for approving minor land partitions precludes adja- cent property owners from raising the concerns outlined above. Several actions need to be taken concerning middle Clay: 1) Immediately restrict further building on middle Clay until it is "brought into the city;" 2) pave, curb and gutter the street; 3) install a sidewalk and bike lanes. Beyond the street improvements, change the minor land partition criteria to include a statement that would give adjacent property owners a point of intervention in these types of unusual circum- It is hoped that you will take the above actions soon in support of the Council Goals for 1996-- 7. I ask interested citizens to defend their right to see their surroundings developed within the ordi- nances and the goals that the council has set out for our city. In the above example, those goals were set aside to accommodate New Guy. And as stated in the letter to the council, the restrictive criteria by which minor land partitions are judged conveniently excludes the participation of old guys because old guys are not permitted to address the hearing concerning the condition of the rest of the block. (This is also true of site reviews on larger projects.) If the reader is an old guy on the block, and has vacant land adjacent, or lives on a neglected street like middle Clay, he/she had better become well-acquainted with the Planning Commission and the guidelines by which it currently approves land development. Post commentary comment: I am an old guy on my block and it is not on middle Clay. Carl Oates lives on Glendale Avenue in Ashland and is a member of the Ashland Wetland Coalition. Illl Council discussed how other lots in area compare to those on Clay Street and how it is determined that some lots are large enough to support a flag lot and some are not along with access to these lots. Questioned if Clay Street is adequate enough to allow additional lots and if neighborhood character aspects that don't get raised in land use issues could be addressed. Council questioned whether it would be possible to have a pedestrian/bikeway in this area. McLaughlin explained that in order to acquire easements the city would need to show an increase demand of pedestrian traffic in the neighborhood. Council would have to take action in order to do this. Council was reminded that they do have policy that whenever possible to create these types of types of walkways and access. Councilor Reid would like to discuss this particular development at a regular scheduled council meeting. Councilor Thompson commented on custom set-backs and encouraging this as another means of land use. Cad Oates/Questioned traffic patterns not related to minor land partitions. Did not see that council was looking at the large picture. Feels that if any property owner had a surveyor come to their home on Sunday, it is intimidation. There was comment that there are very little car and traffic on Clay Street. Oates stated that the issue is, whether the city is going to go ahead and development Clay Street without neighborhood cooperation or approval. He raised the issue regarding site reviews and minor land partitions. Stated that he had not been allowed to speak of neighborhood issues and only on the land use issue. Believes that as long as there is a split jurisdiction between the city and the county there will be problems. Discussion on what the difference is between SDC and LID and how these charges are used for funding projects. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjoumed at 5 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Council Study Session 8-21-96 2 Aug. 19, 1996 To The Mayor and Council City of ~_ehland Subject: The Implications of Approval-- Minor Land Partition, Planning Action 96-048 Heard and Approved April 9, 1996. Reference: My letter to the Council of April 12, 1996 The purpose of this letter is to remind the Council of the implications brought about by the approval of this Planning Action. SOME FACTS ABOUT MIDDLE CLAY STREET: 1. It is that portion of this street which is between Siskiyou Blvd and the railroad-right-a-way. 2. It is not maintained by the City, but by Jackson County. 3. It is, therefore a split jurisdiction. With some services and fees provided by one government and some by another. 4. The City collects monthly fees for services such as storm drains and street maintenance uhich it does not provide. 5. Due to the nature of earlier developments into this formerly rural area, there are very deep lots on both Northwest and Southeast sides. Lot depths range from 160 to 300 feet. Some parcels remain vacant, others have been partitioned and developed with flag lots, and still others have single homes. 6. It is flanked on either end by high density, multi-family developments. Some with inadequate off street parking. On-street parking results in a safety-of-the-street factor. ?, It is questionable whether fire fighting equipment accesss is adequate to some deep lot dwellings. SOME QUESTIONS 1. How thoroughly did the Planning Staff brief the hearings officers on the above facts before the approval decision was taken? 2. Does the Council expect the Planning Staff to adhere to the stated 6oals for the Year 1996-?? This question refers to stated goals One and Three which have to do with multi-modal transportation and growth management policies as they affect density.