Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1002 Council Mtg PACKET Important: Any citizen attending Council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you wish to speak, please rise and after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and address. The Chair will then allow you to speak and also inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda. 71... ~ II. III. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 1990 7:30 P.M., Civic Center Council Chambers I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 18, 1990. ~ /- Execut1ve Session and Regular Meeting of IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: 1. Proclamations: a. "Disability Employment Awareness Month". b. "Fire Prevention Week in Ashland". c. "Recycling Awareness Week". V. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions & Committees. 2. Letter of resignation from Fire Chief, effective January 1, 1991. 3. Memo from Finance Director adjusting assessments. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Request for amendment to Land-use Ordinance to not allow variances to vision clearance standards. 2. Request for amendment to Land-use Ordinance restricting grades on driveways and flag drives. 3. Appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a request for a Final Plan Modification to modify the street location and lot layout for previously approved 1S-lot subdivision at intersection of proposed Logan Drive and Scenic Drive. (Ed Houghton, Applicant & Appellant) VII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 15 minutes) V~II~ ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: rf~., 1. Second reading by title of an ordinance amending the Municipal Code with respect to unnecessary noises and declaring an emergency. IX. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS ~ }g{)jJ.IiI, ADJOURNMENT: To Executive Session on October 11, 1990 at-4le~ P.M., civic Center Conference room to discuss litigation under authority of O.R.S. 192.660(1)(h) X. ~;--:,~..':'"..1,.. '.._~~_.'- _'.':'_".~.-_,:'2T"""""""'~--"'--~ ..-,,___PT'__ . - ....v. - MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Catherine Golden led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M. on the above date in the Council Chambers. Laws, Acklin, Winthrop, and Arnold were present. Reid and Williams were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 4, 1990, Special Meeting of September 11, 1990, and Adjourned Meeting of September 12, 1990 were approved as presented. SPECIAL REPORT Water Quality superintendent Dennis Barnts reported on an algae problem in Reeder Reservoir, which is affecting the taste and smell of our water but is not hazardous to the health. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS A proclamation was read declaring September 23-30, 1990 as "World Summit for Children" week. CONSENT AGENDA Acklin moved to accept the Consent Agenda items as follows: 1) Minutes of Boards, Commissions & committees; 2) Monthly Departmental Reports - August 1990; 3) Letter from Jackson Co. Commissioners soliciting nominations for community Service Award; 4) Appointment of Anne Nunes to the Tree Commission for a term expiring April 30, 1992; and 5) Appointment of Larry Medinger to the Planning commission for a term expiring April 30, 1994. Winthrop seconded the motion which carried on voice vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Decision on P.A. 90-120 (Secure Storage Annexation) - Planning Dir. Fregonese said no new information will be added to the record, and Staff recommends a contract annexation whereby approval will be for the proposed project only. Mayor Golden said she has read the record and watched the video tapes concerning the project. Winthrop said three City Commissions recommended approval, the project is ideal for the site because of the Airport zone, and he reco~ended adding a condition approving contract annexation only. Golden said public need has not been proven and the project only provides 1/2 job per acre. Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - September 18, 1990 - P. 1 P.A. 90-120 (Continued) Winthrop declared ex-parte contacts with Larry Medinger and Dan Harris. Golden talked with Dan Harris. Winthrop said the Planning commission's Findings are not conclusory concerning the Condition Use Permit for a mini-storage unit and suggested the Council adopt Findings at the next meeting. Acklin declared ex-parte contact with the realtor and property owner and then moved to request Staff to bring back Findings including a condition for contract annexation. Winthrop seconded the motion. Arnold agrees with Golden on the lack of need for the facility and said the burden of proof has not been met for compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood. The motion pa$sed on roll call vote as follows: Laws, Acklin, and Winthrop, YES; Arnold, NO. NEW , MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS Set ~lic Hearing - Vacation of Portion of Hillview Drive - There were no objections to setting the public hearing for November 6, 1990. PUBLIC FORUM A liquor license application was received from Abhay Bhagat, dba Club Mirage at 1700 Ashland street. Arnold moved to place same on the agenda, Winthrop seconded, all AYES on voice vote. Mr. Bhagat assured the Council that the Club would not feature exotic male dancers as was advertised in the newspaper recently. Arnold moved to approve the application, Laws seconded, all AYES on voice vote. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS , CONTRACTS L.I.D. - Paradise Lane/Peachey Road - Second reading by title only of an ordinance authorizing and ordering the improvement of Peachey Road and Paradise Lane by construction sanitary sewers and authorizing the assessment of the cost of the improvements against property to be benefitted, and providing that warrants issued for the cost of improvements be general obligations of the City of Ashland. Arnold moved to adopt same, Winthrop seconded, all YES on roll call vote. (Ord. 2599) Noise Regulation Standards - First reading of an ordinance adopting noise regulation standards. Acklin moved to second reading and Winthrop seconded. Laws is opposed to using the emergency clause except in the case of a real emergency. Arnold said the clause is necessary and Winthrop agreed. The motion passed on roll call vote as follows: ACklin, Winthrop, and Arnold, YES; Laws, NO. Downtown Parking District - Postponed until October 2, 1990. Regular Meeting - Ashland City council - September 18, 1990 - P. 2 Wastewater Facilities Planninq - A resolution was read authorizing the Public Works Director to sign documents for wastewater facilities planning. Acklin moved to adopt same and Winthrop seconded. Almquist assured Council that Public Wks. Dir. Hall would give them regular updates on the process. The motion passed unanimously on roll call vote. (Reso. 90-46) verify street Grades - Acklin suggested that this policy include other aspects of engineering. Almquist will discuss this with Hall and Fregonese and bring back a revised policy. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Open Space Fundinq - Arnold noted that a letter was received from rlse Nicholson with a $25.00 donation for the Open Space Program. He thanked rlse for the donation and explained that the Park Commission has set up a fund for donations from other citizens. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder Catherine M. Golden Mayor Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - September 18, 1990 - P. 3 '".> , r----..-. ----- - __0. ~_.._- - - - -. . .- .....' ~ ..~.,l... th 1 t. I "1".t'.e;,..J ,ImmjJ~:'~~, OC ama tOn 1~:~/lllf~Hf t".:"._,~~,,,, II' .l.\~.,::... WHEREAS, a fire is reported every 15 seconds for a total of ~bt~ 2,115,000 fires in the united States of which there .~:!\~~' f~:,;i;~:'1 were 513,500 residential fires I. and .~-::.~~:::,,: '.'h'lf}" nil Jr.. .-<>- -.',;:' ~*~~ WHEREAS, fire destroys $274 every second for a total of i}~~i; l:.t:i1! h:f, $7 , 518,000,000 in property damage, residential "/I{l~\;m: ~;:::~ i~~P~~yy;~~Sl~~~~U~~~d for 53% or $3,998,000,000 ~~~I .!t~&~t~~ . .: ~ I~~j~~::~~ ~[~: WHEREAS, the Ashland Fire Department and fire services ~~ .. I'))'z:'" throughout the State of Oregon are dedicated to the II~ rt{=-'!;::.' ~~~ safety of life and property of its protected ~~~Wi ~W~_l~ citizens from the devastating effects of fire, and ,f~M~ 4.~~{ recognize the value of fire safety education for '~~::::~f; ~~~ everyone, young and old alike; and 7ii~i *,-JfS.i\.~{ WHEREAS, the members of the fire service are joined by the.\~.~, citizens of this community, businesses, schools, service clubs and organizations in their efforts towards fire prevention. WHEREAS, every 97 minutes in the United States of 4,335 persons killed in the year fire kills with a total 1989; and WHEREAS, fire incurred civilian minutes for a total of injuries happen 28,150; and every 19 NOW THEREFORE, I, Catherine Golden, Mayor of the City of Ashland do hereby proclaim the week of October 7-13, 1990, as: "FIRE PREVENTION WEEK IN ASHLAND" the people of Ashland to participate in home, work and school, and to remember, as Fire Prevention Week suggests: "MAKE YOUR HUNT FOR HOME HAZARDS". and call upon activities at 1990 National PLACE FIRESAFE: the Dated this ____ day October, of 1990. Catherine M. Mayor Golden, Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder r'.-'.'-".'--- ..-.--....-- -. . _.- --~ -~- .--. . -- --- ---- - --.-- - .._--+--- thnclamattnn I [~.~.=:-;"rl/"" ! "'\\''''''~-~ WHEREAS, by recycling materials rather than throwing them away, we can save valuable landfill space, preserve natural resources and conserve energy; and WHEREAS, recycling creates jobs for many oregonians working in industries dependent upon supply of used materials for manufacturing; and WHEREAS, recycling contributes to our role as one of the 't.'.l',}, ,~" . , I d' t t . t f . t 1 /(. "1,,-::, h,~~ltld&.~ Natl.on s ea l.ng S a es l.n erms 0 enVl.ronmen a ~;:~Y.~l!W;.~ .~:~;:;..f(E~l awareness and natural beauty :~.~!~~:t.'..;::~: '. ..~ ~tl:h~~' · ....,';..., Ji\'" .. :~: Hla~~;:' \;>{lItHW' I I _ !~rl! . . !1~~Ji~~fij- ~~w~ NOW THEREFORE, I, cather7ne M. Golden, Mayor of the Cl.ty of ~~~~. ,~rfff5:'<.: Ashland do hereby proclal.m the week of October 6 13, 1990, :'~5n~~ l!~~: as: ~~~ , U}}}!~~l "RECYCLING AWARENESS WEEK" lw:~1~JiHW ~~~ ~~ :f":tqf~~~' and encourage all of the citizens of Ashland to learn about ~~1.':'/(Il\;i:' recycling, and to actively participate in the recycling opportunites available to them in Ashland. Catherine M. Golden Mayor Dated this ____ day of October, 1990. .i:HI) I; '~" ,.~ Alt'!=-" Nan E. Franklin City Recorder ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes September 5, 1990 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jim Lewis at 7:40 p.m. Members present were Jim Lewis, Terry Skibby, Deane Bradshaw, Thomas Hunt, Jean MacKenzie, Mark Reitinger and Keith Chambers (who arrived at 8:25 p.m.). Also present was Secretary Sonja Akerman. Commission members Susan Reynolds and Lorraine Whitten were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Skibby moved and Hunt seconded to approve the Minutes of the August 8, 1990 meeting as mailed. Motion passed unanimously. STAFF REPORTS PA 90-170 Minor Land Partition 337 Oak Street Michael VanAusdall Lewis stated the applicant is requesting approval to divide his property into two parcels. The rear parcel will access onto VanNess Avenue and the structures involved are existing. Hunt declared he was disturbed by the tall fence on the VanNess side of the property because of view obstruction. He added that VanNess is extremely heavily traveled at a rapid pace, which makes it unsafe for cars and pedestrians. The Commission agreed with this. Michael VanAusdall also agreed and stated. it might help to post a 25 mph speed limit on the street. When questioned about the driveways, he stated the City is requiring a driveway to the left of the house on Oak Street and the rear parcel will access off an existing driveway by the shop. There will be no difference, he added, in traffic generated as a result of this partition. He stated he will be adding on to the studio for his residence. Because VanNess Avenue is used as a bypass, this route generates a great deal of traffic. Therefore, the Commission would like to suggest Public W orles look at the traffic flow (both vehicular and pedestrian) on VanNess Avenue between Water Street and Oak Street to determine safety measures which could be undertaken. Reitinger then moved to recommend approval of this partition and Bradshaw seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved. Ashland Historic Commission September 5, 1990 PA 90-184 Conditional Use Permit 134 High Street Larry Medinger Lewis explained this application is necessary because the owner wishes to enlarge her kitchen and her home does not meet setback requirements. Reitinger said he had a problem with the shed roof because it looks as though the addition is just being tacked on. The Commission agreed with him that the design would be improved if the addition had a gabled roof to match the existing roof line. Bradshaw added, however, that shed roof additions have frequently been built because they are less .. expensive. Skibby moved to recommend approval to the Planning Commission with the suggestion the addition have a gabled roof (if possible) which will match the main roof pitch. Reitinger seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. PA 90-190 StafT Permit 137 North Main Street Brad Parker /Bobbi Williams (Note: This was a preliminary meeting with the Historic Commission and Brad Parker. Notices have not yet been mailed to property owners surrounding this site and will be reviewed again either by the entire Commission or the Review Board. This house, since it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is required to receive approval from the Planning Department, Historic Commission and the State Historic Preservation Office for any exterior alterations.) Parker is in the process of restoring his house. While removing dry rot from the porch, he discovered an extensive rot problem. Therefore, he decided to remove the Craftsman porch and begin restoration of the original Italianate porch which was removed in 1929. He did this, however, without obtaining the proper permits and approval. Parker stated he has since been working with James Hamrick, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, who is pleased with the restoration attempt. He added that the lines will be kept the same and done as closely as possible to the original and assured the Commission of SHPO support. (Chambers arrived at this time.) 2 Ashland Historic Commission September 5, 1990 The Commission concurred the restored porch will be an asset to the house, but would like to see detailed drawings of the final plans and not just historic photos of the original porch. Everyone agreed that because of present day safety and building codes as opposed to the 1870's, there will have to be some compromises. Parker stated he is working on plans and will be having Skibby blow up photos of the original porch. Also, he requested Skibby be available for consulting during the remainder of the Craftsman porch demolition. BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of .. August follow: Chris/Elizabeth Larke Norby-Gordon AP Group Bob Cresap Richard Wagner AI/Carol Gray The Family Tree Sister Moon 247 Seventh St. 558 Holly S1. 521 N. Main S1. 149 Pioneer S1. 92 Alida S1. 14 Beach Ave. 130 E. Main S1. 268 E. Main S1. Remodel Deck Office/ Apartment Re-Roof* Addition Foundation Sign Sign * Denotes Historic Commission disapproval. OLD BUSINESS Historic Sip Code Ordinance Reitinger, Skibby and Reynolds attended the City Council meeting the previous evening. Reitinger reported on the results, stating that although the Council did not take a fmal vote on the revisions, no more public testimony will be taken. The Ordinance will be read at the next Council meeting. Review Board Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: September 6 September 13 Skibby, Bradshaw, Lewis and Reitinger Skibby, Bradshaw, Reitinger and Lewis 3 Ashland Historic Commission September 5, 1990 September 20 September 27 Skibby, Bradshaw, Reitinger, MacKenzie and Chambers Skibby, Bradshaw, Reynolds, Hunt and Chambers NEW BUSINESS Skibby stated he would like the Historic Commission to have a study session on alternatives to alley paving, especially in the Railroad District. Last month the Planning Commission accepted recommendations made by the Historic Commission with regard to Conditional Use Permit approval of 637 and 649 East Main Street. Chambers said he is on the committee which was formed last year to come up with alternatives to alley paving. The committee has been to meetings with the City Council and \ CP AC. It also has maps of the Railroad District and he thinks it is important to get color coding on them depicting paved and unpaved portions. He will coordinate a meeting with this committee and Commission members who would like to attend. The Commission also discussed the blue facia on the building at the corner of North Main Street and Granite Street and the Big Town Hero sign which was installed above the parapet on the same building. It was decided the Commission would ask the City's Enforcement Officer to speak with the owner about moving the sign so it will comply with the Sign Code Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT With a motion by Skibby and second by Chambers, it was the unanimous decision of the Historic Commission to adjourn the meeting at 9:28 p.m. 4 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes August 8, 1990 C~LL :ro ORJ)ER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Susan Reynolds at 7:35 p.m. Members present were Terry Skibby, Deane Bradshaw, Susan Reynolds, Lorraine Whitten, Thomas Hunt, Jean MacKenzie, Mark Reitinger and Keith Chambers., Also present were Senior Planner John McLaughlin and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Commission member Jim Lewis was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Whitten moved and Hunt seconded to approve the Minutes of the July 5, 1990 meeting as m~led. Motion. passed unanimously. STAFF REPORTS PA90-129 Conditional Use Permit 637 and 649 East Main Street Bernie Zieminski McLaughlin explained this application is for a traveller's accommodation in a commercial zone, hence the term "motel" is used and the, owner is not required to live on site. Two units are proposed for 649 East Main Street and three units for 637 East Main Street. Parking will be paved, as will be the alley from Fifth Street to the end of the property. \ Staff feels this is an appropriate use and will have a lesser impact in all aspects than many other uses which would be allowed on the site, and is therefore recommending approval. The use will maintain the residential structures and is compatible with the residential area. When questioned about the alley paving, McLaughlin answered it has been City Council policy that when traffic will be increased, the alley will be paved. There may be some exceptions in the Railroad District, however, this is iri a commercial zone and paving would likely be required. Bernie Zieminski stated he plans to fix up the outside of the houses and feels major remodelling will not be necessary on the insides since the existing. rooms are large. . One window will change to a door at 637 East Main. The building in back is currently. used as a storage shed and will continue to be used as such. If, in the future, he needs more parking, he may demolish the shed. The fence will be moved to allow 24 feet for parking in the rear and it will screen the parking area from the yard. The same fence will be used. Ashland Historic Commission August 8, 1990 Tom Phillips, 60 Fifth Street, stated the letter he submitted (included in the packet) included his main concerns -- that of traffic and visibility in a one lane alley. Chambers feels there will be an impact on the historical character of the alley if it is paved and believes alleys give character in the. human scope. The nature of the alley would become sterile and uninviting and it would create more traffic. The Historic Commission would be abrogating its responsibility if approval is recommended because of the ordinance. He also stated two low-income rental units would be lost if this application were approved, and wondered what would be in the best interest of the City. McLaughlin said the Planning Department would certainly raise the question of affordable housing if this was located in a residential zone. When questioned by Reynolds as .to why the area is zoned commercial, he answered it has been this way since the 1960's, mainly since the area is an extension of Downtown and East Main Street is designated an arterial street. The paving of the alley was again discussed and McLaughlin related a big issue is air quality. Also, maintenance of alleys are low priority with the City. Tom Giordano, President of CP AC, remarked that CP AC has discussed alleys and looks at them as a resource and open space. CP AC will be looking more thoroughly at alternatives to alley paving with the Traffic Safety Commission toward the end of the year. He agrees that there are many alleys which should be paved. He would ask that the applicant forego improvement to the alley until a later date. Tom Phillips again expressed his concerns regarding the facts that 1). since a portion of the alley that T's with the alley in question was paved, the traffic has increased and the speed of the traffic has increased; 2) most people that come to the area plan a lot of activities \ and do not just attend the plays, therefore, cars will be coming and going throughout the day; 3) though the zoning cannot be changed, a motel would be an isolated business in a residential area. and should not set a precedence; and 4) improved buildings would get a higher rent if needed. Chambers moved to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the Planning Commission with the proviso that the importance of the historic character of the alley be recognized, therefore recommending 1) the alley remain unpaved until CP AC recommendations are submitted; 2) the applicant sign in favor of future improvements to the alley; and 3) the parking be designed with an unpaved character of alley in mind (i.e. paver bricks) in line with a pedestrian corridor. Whitten seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. 2 Ashland Historic Commission August 8, 1990 PA 90-153 Conditional Use Permit and Variance 90 Fourth Street Light Valley Waldorf School - Ashland McLaughlin explained this request is to operate a private school in the Church of the Nazarene Annex (across from the Rogue Valley Unitarian Church). An office is proposed to be located in the residence next door. Parking will be behind the residence, with access off Golden Spike Way. Code requires seven and one-half to eight spaces. The applicant contends there would be six employees who would be car pooling and eight spaces would be in excess. The building will remain relatively unchanged, depending on building code requirements (fire walls, etc.). Forty or fifty students will be attending the school. The playground will be located across the street on the Church grounds. Staff is recommending approval. (Reynolds stated she is a member of the Rogue Valley Unitarian Church.) Tom Giordano asserted that due to fire separation, the house will remain residential and will not be used as an office. The peripheral plantings will be kept. The school, he added, is looking for temporary space and plans to build within a couple of years. Three years at this location would be the maximum. Most of the remodelling will be done on the inside to accommodate the classrooms. Because of their condition, some windows will be replaced, and because of budget restraints, they will most likely be metal. He also stated he had talked with John Dagget (Superintendent of Schools) who said he would welcome another school since the public schools are at a maximum now and 300 more students are expected next year. Parking and paving blocks were discussed. Jon Reinhardt, 159 North Main Street, interjected he put in pavers for parking at his traveller's accommodation. They were very expensive and labor extensive. Grass was planted, but because of the continued use, now there is none. He suggested the applicant use gravel. Whitten moved to recommend approval of this .application with the suggestion that the parking area be gravel, which would enable the residence to reclaim the backyard when. the school moves, and with the strong advice that the historic preservation of the residence be retained, and that window replacement in the annex be compatible. Chambers seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 3 Ashland Historic Commission August 8, 1990 PA 9(}-164 Conditional Use Permit 132 and 140 Van Ness Avenue Davidson/Tucek McLaughlin stated this application is for the conversion of apartments to condominiums. The Planning Commission recently approved a similar request because of the abundance of rental units and a greater vacancy rate. People need the opportunity to break into the housing market and this is one way to accomplish that. Chambers questioned Lee Davidson (owner) about the yard area. She answered there is a designated garden area with each lot, but she would have no problem if one were converted to a play area to accommodate families. Reitinger moved and Skibby seconded to recommend approval of this Conditional Use Permit application. The motion passed unanimously. PA 90-163 Conditional Use Permit 159 North Main Street Cowslips Belle McLaughlin explained the applicant would like to add on to his traveller's accommodation and that a portion of the structure is non-conforming, thus a Conditional Use Permit is required. There will be no change in units. Staff feels this is an appropriate request and is recommending approval. Jon Reinhardt, owner, conveyed that although there is only a few feet between his house , and property line, there will be at least 50 feet between his house and the Parish house next door. Currently, the room that will be expanded has no direct access to the bathroom and no closet. He will use existing windows and wood and will only add a door for outside entrance/exit. Chambers moved and Whitten seconded to recommend approval of this application, and it passed unanimously. 90-168 Final Plan Modification Logan Drive (oft' Scenic Drive) Ed Houghton McLaughlin said that Logan Drive is being built 100 feet from what was originally laid out because Public Works recommended it be moved closer to the intersection of Grandview 4 Ashland Historic Commission August 8, 1990 and Scenic Drives. However, the map which was submitted for Final Plan Approval depicted Logan Drive as initially proposed, therefore, property owners were noticed as such. Work has stopped because the City Attorney has ruled this is a land use matter. According to Public Works Director Steve Hall, this is the safest configuration. Logan Drive, as it is being constructed, will have a 15% grade and the landing at the bottom will be 6%. Whitten questioned if any history was available for winter repair work at the intersection of Scenic and Grandview. McLaughlin stated the cuts excavated for the road will be terraced and trees and shrubs planted (actually drilled in the granite, irrigated, etc.) for full erosion control. Logan Drive will be paved with curbs and gutters. McLaughlin agreed that Grandview Drive is a problem because it is not paved and because of the slope as it intersects with Scenic Drive. When questioned about the paving of Grandview Drive, McLaughlin stated the City is trying to get alternative funding other than Bancrofting because an unfair burden would be placed on owners of large lots with frontage on Grandview. The City's position from the beginning, McLaughlin reiterated, has been to locate Logan Drive where it is because of traffic safety issues. Paul Fischer, 135 Scenic Drive, stated that work has stopped on Logan Drive and worries about erosion in case it rains. He is also very concerned about speeders along Grandview Drive and Scenic Drive. Steve Barnett, 182 Scenic Drive, said he has lived at that address for four years and sees the intersection of Grandview and Scenic Drives (directly across from his house) every day. The facts. that this is not a level area, there is a crest on Scenic Drive and the intersection is not a right angle create a blind comer. He continued to say that the City seems to be looking at this in a two dimensional way, as Logan Drive comes in to the intersection at this , blind comer. He feels the original intersection is much better because drivers can see two directions. Because of snow and icy conditions in the winter, cars can end up in his home. This, he said, is a safety concern, and if the City approves it as recommended by Public Works, it would be creating a monumental disaster. When questioned about the steep driveways of the homes already located off Scenic Drive, Joann Houghton, 185 Scenic Drive, declared each home has a turn-around at the top of the driveway so no one has to back onto Scenic Drive. She added that they were following City requirements when they started the excavation of Logan Drive. Steve Barnett interjected that he and his wife made the City aware of what was going on at 8:30 on a Monday morning. and work was not halted until 12:30 on Friday afternoon. The Commission agreed there is a visual impact on the Historic District because of the excavation of Logan Drive. Bradshaw added that the intersection can be seen from 5 Ashland Historic Commission August 8, 1990 Downtown, and Whitten strongly advised the Traffic Safety Commission review the location because of safety hazards. Chambers moved to have the Historic Commission decline an approval or denial recommendation, but strongly recommends the Planning Commission consider the two potential impacts of Logan Drive: 1) the visual impact on the Historic District and 2) the location of the intersection with regard to livability (safety and quality of life). Whitten amended the motion to advise the Planning Commission that the Traffic Safety Commission should thoroughly review the location of the intersection before making a final decision. MacKenzie seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of July follow: Bill Patten Lucja/Michael Kelsay June C. Anderson Craig/Marie Chestnut Eva Cooley G.K. Schrock Gourmet Coffee Shop Kelso Realty The Nail Salon Theresa's Cantina Rogue Books The White Swan Cafe Kelso Realty OLD BUSINESS 110 Terrace S1. 84 Pine S1. 186 Harrison S1. 346 Iowa S1. 348 Iowa St. 34 Union St. 66 N. Pioneer St. 33 N. First St. 72 N. Pioneer St. 76 N. Pioneer St. 107 E. Main St. 568 E. Main St. 33 N. First S1. Historic Sip Code Ordinance Remodel Addition Addition Remodel/ Addition Addition Porch Demolition Sign Sign Sign Sign Sign Sign Sign McLaughlin informed the Commission that according to City Administrator Brian Almquist, the Council will not consider the proposed changes until some sort of inventory has been completed, which would be at least August 21st. He added there is not time to document any sign that would be placed on the list, but there are a few options which could be taken. One avenue would be to have staff do an inventory to satisfy Council requirements, but the Historic Commission could still set criteria and put the burden of proof on the owner. There, of course, would still be no guarantee the Council would approve the revisions. 6 Ashland Historic Commission August 8, 1990 It was decided the Commission would request Council to not act on the revisions until after the September meeting, so everyone would have a chance to review the list. SOSC 2000 Plan sasc has agreed to comply with City rules regarding the Boyden House, McLaughlin said. It has pulled off the plans for removing the house and is aware that Council approval would be needed should the college change its mind. sasc also acknowledged the importance of Churchill Hall and agreed it should be placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Review BOQrd Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: August 9 August 16 August 23 August 30 Reynolds, Reitinger and Skibby Skibby, Bradshaw, Chambers and Hunt Skibby, MacKenzie, Hunt and Chambers Reitinger, Hunt, Whitten and Skibby NEW BUSINESS Buildine Permits Skibby brought up the fact that there have been several contractors starting work on projects before building permits are obtained (sometimes prior to turning plans into the Building Department). The structures located at 147 North Pioneer Street and 14 Beach , Avenue are examples. ADJOURNMENT With a motion by Chambers and second by Whitten, it was the unanimous decision of the Historic Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. 7 --,---.-----. .._.._,.._,..~---_._. I ! ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 14, 1990 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pro Temp Brent Thom'pson at 7:10 p.m. Other members present were Carr, Bingham, Powell, Bernard and J~rvis. Harris joined the meeting at Planning Action 90-131. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar and . I Yates. I i I APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS i I The Minutes and Findings of the July 10, 1990 Regular Meeting wer~ approved. , I I TYPE II PUBIC HEARINGS : I PLANNING ACTION 90-168 i REQUEST FOR A FINAL PLAN MODIFICATION TO MODIFY THE STREET LOCATION AND LOT LAYOUT FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED I 18-LOT I SUBDIVISION. MODIFICATION INVOLVES THE RELOCATION OF THE I INTERSECTION OF THE PROPOSED LOGAN DRIVE AND SCENIC DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET TOWARDS THE SCENIC/GRANDVIE~ INTERSECTION AND THE ASSOCIATED MODIFICATIONS OF LOT LINES. NO MODIFICATION IN THE NUMBER OF LOTS IS PROPOSED i APPLICANT: ED HOUGHTON I Site visits were made by all. Powell and Carr had exparte contacts with the Barnetts. Thompson had an exparte contact with Steve Morjig who liked the sfreet left as it is. Bihgham had an exparte contact with Falicoff who discussed the slippery state of Grandview and Scenic and confusion over the stop sign. : STAFF REPORT i McLaughlin gave the background of this application as outlined in th~ Staff Report. Olson's memo of January 28, 1990 and Hall's memo of August 8, 1990 are included as part of the record. Tonight the applicant is requesting modification of the intersection location as approved on the originally approved final plah. The construction that has occurred has been what was originally approv~d at outline plan. Since there has been a change in that location from what the original outline plan map described, the City Attorney has said it would be an amendment to fihal plan and subject to a Type I procedure. Staff is hearing this as a a Type II, having anticipated , concern over this issue. i ~.....o-...~~...:;. . _..'..;,-~",,"', There is some dispute over how far the street location has been moved. It depends on where it is measured from. The measurements vary from 20 feet 'to 110 feet. It can be determined, however, that there is movement of the intersection. According to Public Works Director, Steve Hall, the location that is constructed and excavated to this point is the safest intersection design and most appropriate for the development. The modification must be in conformance with final plan. McLaughli~ read the criteria for final plan approval. Staff recommended approval as presently excavated. McLaughlin reminded the Commission and public that the only thing being presented is the modification of the intersection location. Ron Salter, City Attorney, explained that any planning action requires renotification if there is a substantial change to the plan. Salter believes there was a substantial , cnange in this case. City law states that any amendment is cause fo'r a public hearing; state law states a substantial amendment is cause for a public hearing. Steve Hall explained that the positioning of the stop sign applies to cars traveling down Grandview since the major volume of traffic is on Scenic and also because of the angle of the intersection. Logan Drive will have a stop sign. The current location of the stop sign at Grandview was placed prior to construction of the intersection. When the intersection is completed, it will be moved back up Grandview further so it would be a proper intersection with Logan Drive. McLaughlin explained that on the cut slope side at this intersection, plans show a Keystone Block will be put along near the vertical face and behind that will be plantings and irrigation. The portion behind the plantings will be stacked with rock to reduce erosion. Powell explained her original position with regard to this subdivision. ! At the time Carlton Ward and she appealed the subdivision to the City Council, she was not a Planning Commissioner. She signed the appeal but Powell did not believe she spoke atia public hearing. Her feelings, at that time, were that 18 houses were too dense eVen though the zoning allowed it, and the road was going to be the' existing driveway. McLaughlin stated that the road can be moved, however, a definite location has to be adopted. PUBLIC HEARING DAVID H. COUCH, Kellington, Krack, Richmond and Blackhurst, 15 Newtown Street, Medford, attorney, representing the Houghtons, stated that the issue is the minor amendment regarding realignment for traffic safety purposes. The only modifications toithe lot lines is how they relate to the street. Couch referred to their letter of August 7, 1990 to Staff regarding realignment of the street. The question is: is the location as ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING . MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 2 currently proposed, a safer location than originally proposed. In the 'opinion of the city traffic safety engineer, the proposed location is the safest location and Couch and his clients recommend approval by the Commission as recommended by Staff. Mclaughlin explained the reason there was a filing by the applicant for an amendment was because, previously, Staff did not feel the movement of the street was significant enough to notice, however, the City Attorney felt it should be noticed as it was significant, therefore, the City requested the applicants request an amendment. McLaughlin read the letter of August 7, 1990 into the record from Roger Kauble. TOM HOWSER, attorney, 363 Grandview, summarized the packet of iinformation to be made a part of the record. He also referred to Bob Reinholdt's letter'. He said that from Grandview Drive, it is impossible to see the opening of logan Drive. He referred , to' photographs taken of the intersection. Howser believes this is a very substantial change in the road. Howser referred to the letter from the grade checker of August 12, 1990. He urged the Commission not to be swayed since the roaa has progressed this far and though it might be an unfortunate mistake, it is not too late to do something about it. STEVE BARNElT, 182 Scenic Drive, sees daily how dangerous that Intersection is. Because Scenic Drive crests and Logan Drive will intersect directly at this point, an extremely dangerous intersection is created. Barnett stated that his wife and he saw the final plan in February, 1988 and raised no objection to the subdivision or logan Drive as proposed in that plan. With regard to the memo from Steve Hall, Barnett believes that the street does not need to be brought into a blind intersection that already exists. He objects to the lack of a landing pad at the original site of the drive. Barnett believes the new site is not a better location and can be dem'onstrated in the photographs the Barnetts provided. He is concerned that when cars slide, it will be directly into his home. The following people spoke or submitted written comments during the public hearing in opposition to the application. Their objections were primarily based on the proposed road being unsafe. BRYAN SOHl, 283 Scenic Drive ANDRE ALLEN, 96 Scenic Drive JULIA TUCKER, 361 Scenic Drive CRISSY BARNETT, 182 Scenic Drive JIM DOERTER, 80 Scenic Drive lENN HANNON, 240 Scenic Drive GERALD HIRSCHFELD, 361 Scenic Drive DANA JOHNSON, 70 Scenic Drive CARL OATES, 351 Granite Street ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 3 I JOHN SULLY, 365 Grahite Street MYRA ERWIN, 300 Grandview Drive I SKYE AND DAVID SUGAR, 177 Westwood MARGARET HOXIE, 174 Church Street MARK BROWN, 171 Church Street JOHN MAYBEN, 160 Scenic Drive SARAH BERMAN, 67 Scenic Drive PAULA SOHL, 283 Scenic Drive CUTTY KITCHELL, 139 Wimer Street EARL SHOWERMAN, 365 Scenic Drive PAUL NICHOLSON, 270 Scenic Drive JOHN THOMPSON, 220 Scenic Drive DOUG MORRISON, 320 Scenic Drive PAUL FERNSTEIN, 215 Scenic Drive DAVE DELLER, 200 Grandview Drive DENNIS DEBEY, 2475 Siskiyou Boulevard scon ROGERS, 210 Scenic Drive MIKE AND KIRA MIRSKY, 290 Skycrest I I JOHN BARTON, 300 Kent Street, is not opposed to the amendment bnd believes the problem is to resolve whether the City Engineer's opinion that the modification is safer than moving the road is valid since there has been no evidence to the contrary the road should be moved. JON LANGE, 349 Alta, stated that with regard to the different options for Logan Drive, he sees no difference in safety. TOM MILLER, grade checker, has been checking on grade because'his boss has had cdncerns about the steepness of the grade. DOUG MORRISON, 320 Scenic Drive, is concerned with erosion problems. He wondered what provisions had been made for run-off and ground water. Steve Hall explained that 28 percent frontage have signed in favor of' paving of Grandview. Thompson wondered about partial paving. Hall responded that it is possible to build a landing to try and contain gravel, however, there is a great deal of granite that ravels off the street because of the length and grade. i STEVE BARNETT, stated again that Steve Hall never explained why a landing pad could not be located where it was proposed. Barnett explained that a lower road ! would be safe because of better visibility. I I i COUCH, rebuttal on behalf of Houghtons, clarified the issue to the Commission by asking which position of the alignment is the safest? Couch would acknowledge the I I ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING . MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 4 - -~-,---~ 1 ; ------,~--,-_.,.,._--_.._.__._..~--_.__..._._-- ! advice of the professional engineers. ROGER KAUBLE, 173 E. Hersey Street, explained why the proposed modification is safer. He said that the ideal formation of an intersection is to pull all the streets into the same location so that there would be only one area of hazard. By isolating the point of intersection, it makes a safe intersection. I Bihgham questioned whether all factors were taken into consideratioh when the modification was designed, such as the odd way the streets come together in varying angles with Scenic cresting and Grandview leaving Scenic at a sharp angle. Kauble responded that judgment application was used also, for example, the cut bank on : Logan is not completely cut back yet. At that grade crest on Logan,. there is greater , visibility on Scenic in both directions. Kauble also stated that there would be a similar . cUt bank if the lower road of Logan is used as there is on the upper road. Bernard wondered what the cost of putting the road back the way it was would be and Couch stated that in working closely with the City, that using the safest alignment was also the most expensive. If the road is moved it would be very expensive to change and the applicant feels there is a certain obligation on the part of the City to assist in some manner. The applicant would attempt to recover the cost in some fashion. Jarvis asked Steve Hall why the intersection, as proposed, is safer. Hall explained that intersections, if at all possible, be as far apart as possible. The further apart, the less chance for conflict. To make this intersection far enough away and function reasonably well under these conditions would have pushed it further than the original plan showed. This would mean steeper grades on the street and trying to have steeper grades at the intersection. In Hall's opinion, that was unacceptable. Jim Olson and Steve Hall agreed that it would be best to bring these intersections as close together as possible. This is a difficult intersection. Right at that intersection, in Hall's opinion, from observing it, it is the best sight distance in all directions. Hall reiterated that based on overall sight distance, overall function of that intersection and making the best of a tough intersection, in his professional judgment as an engineer, the plan , proposed is the best of the group and the safest. I J~rvis speculated at a solution that by cutting out the curve at the beginning of Logan Drive, would it diminish the problems. Hall said it could be done, but would make little difference in safety. Minor changes would have little affect. By moving it 20 feet, it could work, however, 50, 60 to 100, it could not work. STEVE BARNETT, had no problem with original map. He just would 'like to get the street out of the intersection. ED HOUGHTON, 185 Scenic Drive, stated that the slope on the old driveway is greater and the angle of the old driveway was headed at the Barnetts. The proposed drive is I ! i ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION , REGULAR MEETING . MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 I 5 I ' i , i b'~tter with 53 foot across from the curb at Grandview and where Logan Drive will be to the curb across Scenic Drive. At the old driveway site the measure curb to curb, it 34 1/2 feet. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Bingham reported that 'on his site visit, he backed up Logan and came down Grandview and Scenic Drives and noted that it was not safe, with poor visibility. He believes the overriding consideration is the health and safety of the family. Bingham moved to deny Planning Action 90-168. Carr seconded the motion. i i Salter stated that the question will be coming back to the Commissioh as to where the street will be located. i Jarvis did not believe that the Commission was in a position to make! a modification ahd yet if the action is denied, she felt they would end up with the original placement of the road. If the applicant did not like the original placement, then he could request a modification. THompson pointed out that there was testimony from the engineer that the first plan would have worked. i Powell was concerned about liability and felt the Commission could not engineer a road but she did not like the proposed modification. After considerable Commissioner discussion, even though there were several ideas presented with regard to where the street should be located, there was a general consensus to move the road as close to town as possible. Bernard disagreed, however, stating there was professional testimony from Staff who believed the proposed amendment is the safest. i I I The motion was carried to deny with Bernard casting the dissenting ~ote. i Harris joined the meeting at this time. PLANNING ACTION 90-129 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A MOTEL IN THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AT 637 AND 649 EAST MAIN STREET APPLICANT: BERNIE ZIEMINSKI STAFF REPORT ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 6 ---,--~-_.._.___ . '_n' I I i I ! I The applicant wishes to convert the buildings into a 2-unit and 3-unit I motel. There will no manager on-site. Seven parking spaces will be off the alley, with the alley being paved. The structures are residential in nature with a number of commercial uses that have appeared over time. The applicant is not proposing any modifications to the building, just upgrading and landscape improvements. Neighborhood concerns revolve around the current on-street parking situation and the increase in traffic they have noticed over time. Molnar explained that East Main is an arterial and that as Ashland grows, traffic will increase. Staff has recommended approval with six attached I conditions. Molnar explained that Staff has recommended paving of the alley, however, testimony will undoubtedly be heard regarding this issue. McLaughlin noted that when there is an increase in an alley's usage, that the alley should be paved. There has been a group of citizens working on studying whether or not alleys in the Railroad District should be paved. The Commission needs to look at the impact and the dust related to not paving the alley and realizing that the abutting' uses are commercial. i PUBLIC HEARING BERNIE ZIEMINSKI, referred to the Historic Commission meeting and they recommended the alley not be paved in order save the unpaved alleys in Ashland. Either way is agreeable to Zieminski. He believes most visitors will park their cars and walk. He also felt the three college students who are currently renting create more havoc than guests would. Any changes he would make to the buildings would be minimal. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 7 need to turn again or how to access the parking area. The rear then becomes his main entrance for his business. Phillips was concerned about the speed at which cars will be traveling on the alley. Phillips had a problem with the use of buildings as a motel, not a bed and breakfast. He has reservations because there will be no one living there and taking care of the property. The neighbors now, eveh if they are college students, know his children are playing in the alley and familiar with the neighborhood situation. He felt a precedent being set if the alley is paved. I Jarvis' wondered if a fence would help and Phillips answered that it vJould provide more privacy but would do nothing for safety. I , Phillips stated that someone has been living in the storage area, and: that this area would make a good location for a motel office. : , DICK MCKINNEY, 117 Eight Street, is interested in maintaining the residential character of the Railroad District. He is part of the alley committee and would like to se'e something like gravel surfacing and a delay in paving. ZELPHA HUTTON, Sixth Street, thought this could possibly could bel an improvement. Hutton wondered how a motel is run when no one lives there. She wondered about the logistics of getting the key, etc. IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 11:30 P.M. I ZIEMINSKI, assured the Commission that this facility will be much like a traveler's accommodation and that visitors would be personally escorted to their rooms. He believes this is the lowest impact for commercial use. When asked whether someone I was living in the storage room, Zieminski stated that to his knowledge no one was living there, but someone stores their loom there. Bingham questioned Zieminski : aoout using the storage area for a manager's unit but Zieminski did not know about a sewage line. He also said in the winter he could book reservations or rent the houses to: college students. He said his daughter and he will run the operation and they will hire a' gardener. 1 COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION There are a few other homes that are being operated similar to this request (Spiridon, Cedar House, Enders House). I McLaughlin explained that there is no requirement for having an on-site manager for a motel use. Unless there is a definite and clear problem or potential for abuse, it would be difficult to deny. However, it could be called up for review if there~ was a problem or not operated as the conditions state. There are enforcement procedures. ! ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING . MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 8 I I I i Bingham was concerned that Criteria B (compatibility) would not necessarily be adhered to if this application was approved. McLaughlin explained that the interpretation of compatibility has been based historically on permitted uses in the zone. Carr moved to approve P A90-129, substituting for Condition 2, the three conditions from the Historic Commission: 1) the alley remain unpaved until CPAC recommendations are submitted; 2) the applicant sign in favor of future improvements to'the alley; and 3) the parking be designed with an unpaved character of alley in mind (Le. paver bricks) in line with a pedestrian corridor. Add Condition 7'that there be clear signage for parking. Add Condition 8 that the storage building be used for storage only and not for permanent living quarters. Add Condition 9! that the Conditional Use Permit be valid for one year with renewal and permanent approval after a year. Add Condition 10 that any exterior modification be reviewed and i approved by the Historic Commission. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. , PLANNING ACTION 90-160 , REQUEST FOR A THREE UNIT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 320 WIMER STREET APPLICANT: ERNA AND FLORIAN SVZVMANIAK Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT IT' WAS MOVED AND SECONDED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL MIDNIGHT. i I This request involves 2.25 acres. The density is minimal but Staff has concerns with the street grade. There was a letter submitted from Harold Center, the applicant's surveyor, requesting a continuance with options relating to the streetl design. PUBLIC HEARING MJ\RY MANN, represents the estate of Susan Mann, who owns property across the street stated that visually, she sees no problem with the variance. She has some concerns because Staff has concerns. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION H~rris moved to continue Planning Action 90-160 until the regular meeting to be held September 11, 1990. Carr seconded the motion. The grade is 28 percent. Harris wanted to listen to any engineering solutions, but if , , ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 9 ~~~"-~ there are none, he is opposed to the development. Twenty percent could be acceptable with good erosion control. Thompson would like to see the grade as close to 18 percent as possible. The motion was carried unanimously. OTHER The Oregon Planning Institute is September 5th. I Powell asked that all public notices be sent to the Commissioners before the packet is delivered. If there is anyone besides Powell that would like a packet lof notices, notify the Planning office. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at midnight. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING : . MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 10 i ! ,..-r:.....:.a:.i. ........~ .., ..,..'. _' - .~......_:.....,., ... .. _i.. ;..~....:.~..:..,.Lo ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD AUGUST 14, 1990 MINUTES I I I I The meeting was called to order by Barbara Jarvis at 1 :30 p.m. Thompson and Powell , were also present. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar and Yate~. I CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS I I The Minutes of the July 10, and July 31, 1990 Hearings Board meetings were approved. I TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 90-122 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE 'EXPANSION OF ANON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE (THE OWNER'S UNIT) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 164 1/2 B STREET. APPLICANT: FRANK SPIERINGS Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Last month, the Hearings Board denied the request to have building 'along the 3 1/2 foot setback line and required it comply with all setback requirement$. That same evening, after reconvening and reconsidering, the Hearings Board decided to reconsider at this meeting, allowing time for renoticing. I i , Staff's position is that is appropriate for this building to be constructed in the way that it is proposed. Any other forms would not be appropriate such as putting a jog in the roof. I PUBLIC HEARING FRANK SPIERINGS, 164 1/2 B, explained that the setback is 4 1/2 feet. The building is 'skewed to the property line, the second story is further from the property line. Expansion in the back is where the second story is located. There is no problem with solar access. j McLaughlin explained that the applicant has been working with the Historic Commission for several months. : COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION AND MOTION . Thompson wondered how Spierings knew where the property line w~s located. I ! Spierings said it was verified with Vezie and Associates and that a survey corner stake was placed when the survey for the Lithia Way parking lot was done and they were able to use that point of reference. Powell moved to approve 90-122 with the attached conditions as recommended by staff. Thompson seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 90-131 REQUEST FOR A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A LOT INTO THREE PARCELS LOCATED AT 497 LYNN STREET. APPLICANT: DAVID SAMMONS Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT This application was originally processed as a Type I and administratively approved arid then called up for a public hearing. The Phelps subdivision was. approved in 1947 so some lots were created without clear access. The applicant wishes to modifiy the lot line for the house and create a double flag. The applicant has met the minimums for lot size criteria. The two flag lots will have areas of 7500 and 8900 square feet. Parking and access are the areas of concern. The flag drive access'will parallel what is an existing easement along the four lots fronting on Hersey. These could be consolidated through property owners requesting such a consolidation. Staff does not believe the partition would aggravate any further problems as far as parking. Staff reCommended approval of this application. Molnar showed slides. Thompson stated that if the property owners worked out an agreement with the easement, it would be a way to get paved access to seven lots and Would be to everyone's benefit. PUBLIC HEARING i i DAVID SAMMONS, 497 Lynn Street, stated the lots were originally divided as proposed in the original subdivison. He felt this would open up lots for affordable housing. I Sammons expressed an interest in exploring the consolidation of thel easement and flag drive. RICHARD HARTLEY, 508 Lynn Street, was concerned with the impa6t of the parking o'n Lynn Street. He had no objection to the width of the flag drive, however, McLaughlin clarified that this would be a road parallel to the easement. I JILL MURPHEY, 492 Lynn Street, had no problem with the partition, however had ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD . MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 2 concerns with parking and urged common access. DENISE MillER, 2262 Ashland Street, said that Patterson Street stops short, but if the property is ever developed, that the street will come through. If the applicant complies now and does what they can in the future, this application should be approved. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION T~ompson would like to see Patterson Street continued to Lynn Street. He felt the application met the criteria and moved to approve. Powell seconded the motion. Thompson amended the motion to add a condition that the applicant will attempt to obtain an agreement with the owners of lots 1902, 1903, 1901, 1910-N, 1911-N, for a shared drive. Powell seconded the amended motion and it was carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 90-135 I REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A LOT INTO TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT 1120 BELLVIEW AVENUE. APPLICANT: STACY WAYMIRE AND ANN ELIZABETH VANCE Site visits were made by Powell and Jarvis. STAFF REPORT i . . I THis application was administratively approved in July and called up for a public hearing. Several letters were received objecting to the density. Staff believes the criteria was met and recommended approval. The surrounding tax lots are larger, and the City would be willing to consider a rezone of this area during the' Comprehensive Plan review in October. Mclaughlin read letters from Richard and Susan Chambers, Paul and Kathleen Mattson, Herb Andrews, LeRoy M. and Joan Keeney, Don and Tina Ahrens, Donald and Vivian Jones, and a letter signed by 14 property owners. PUBLIC HEARING STACY WAYMIRE, 1120 Bellview, discussed his plans for preservation of the trees with the Planning Department. He stated that more than one-half the lots' in his area are under 10,000 square feet. C. E. GlAZIER, 1759 Homes Avenue, opposed the partition. I P AU l MA TISON, 1080 Greenmeadows Way, has seen the density gbing up in the n'sighborhood. He does not want the neighborhood to change and would like the zoning to remain stable. Mattson also pointed out his concerns that iproperty values ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 3 , I! would go down as density goes up. ETHELMAE KANCLlER, 1075 Bellview Avenue, submitted written comments opposing the application. MARTHA ANDREWS, 1075 Greenmeadows Way, submitted written c'omments opposing the application. SIDNEY AINSWORTH, 1090 Greenmeadows Way, liked the idea of lower density and snared Mattson's concerns. Thompson wondered how many lots had areas 15,000 square feet. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Powell believed all criteria had been met. She suggested the zoning' be examined during update of Comp Plan in October. Thompson said that since a variance was not required, he supported this partition and sd moved to approve with the attached conditions. Powell seconded the motion. Jarvis felt this area is mis-zoned and a partition will mar this neighborhood. She recommended to the neighborhood to get the zoning changed in this area. This action was carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 90-136 I REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCiEL INTO TWO LOTS LOCATED AT 407 NORMAL AVENUE APPLICANT: ROBERT MARTINDALE Site visits were made my all. I STAFF REPORT There is an existing house on the property and the applicant is proposing to split it off. This is an unorthodox split as is stated in the Staff Report. Staff believes it meets every minimum of the code. PUBLIC HEARING DONNA NELSON, Martindale's representative, explained that the portion of the house that is to be moved, will be removed regardless. They have had 25 people calling to ask about renting the existing house. They would like to develop for affordable housing. : ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD . MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 4 I I NANCY MEYER, 425 Normal, felt both structures are ready to demolish. She is concerned about a possible duplex. She likes the fact that she lives in a neighborhood with rectangular shaped lots and no flags. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION AND MOTION I McLaughlin said the previous property owner built the house as if on one parcel and that is how the City recognizes it -- as one lot. Powell and Jarvis did not believe the existing house was worth saving. Thompson moved to approve with the attached conditions. Jarvis seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. i , I PLANNING ACTION 90-153 I REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A PRIVATE SCHOOL AND A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE PARKING STANDARDS FOR SIX SPACES RATHER THAN THE EIGHT REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 90 FOURTH STREET APPLICANT: LIGHT VALLEY WALDORF SCHOOL - ASHLAND Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT The applicant is proposing to move the Waldorf School to this site and is requesting conditional use for a private school in an R-2 zone and a variance for parking to prbvide six rather than eight spaces. There will be a staff of six and there are opportunities to carpool. They do not believe even six will be used. IThe playground is proposed to be across: the street. Staff believes the variance is appropriate. The Historic Commission reviewed the proposal and they were concerned about paving the , entire backyard and recommended that the parking area be gravel since the school will be using the facility for approximately two years. Staff has recommended approval with the attached conditions. I I I PUBLIC HEARING i ! ! TOM GIORDANO, representing Waldorf School, said there has been ia need for schools in Ashland. There is a shortage of school space and this cduld help relieve that problem. This site is temporary as the school hopes to build a school in the near future. The six parking spaces are not planned for full use. Giordano stated there is not usually parent involvement. Giordano said paving the parking would be acceptable. I ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 5 ..1 " _ I Thompson thought he could be agreeable to one-half paved, one-ha~f gravel. 1 Powell preferred gravel for the parking lot. I McLaughlin wondered what will happen if this becomes a permanent' location. Is a gravel parking lot adequate? DONALD MARK, 2080 Siskiyou Boulevard #24, submitted written comments favoring the proposal. The Commissioners felt four of six spaces could be paved before the beginning of school and two spaces graveled. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Powell moved to approve P A 90-153 with the attached conditions. Amend Condition 2 that four of the parking spaces to be paved and two graveled at the aiscretion of the applicant. Thompson seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION SO-159 I REQUEST FOR A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A LOT INTO THREE PARCELS LOCATED AT 1050 PARADISE LANE. APPLICANT: DAVID BARRETT i This application was approved. PLANNING ACTION 90-161 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FORA STRUCTURAL MODIFICATION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE LOCATED A 996 OAK STREET. APPLICANT: MARIAN G. WATT This application was approved. i I PLANNING ACTION 90-162 I REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A LOT INTO TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT 639 NORTH MAIN STREET. APPLICANT: JEANNIE GUTHRIE-MURRELL This application was approved. 6 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD . MINUTES AUGUST 14. 1990 PLANNING ACTION 90-163 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR 'THE STRUCTURAL ALTERATION AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING EXISTING STRUCTURE AT THE TRAVELLER'S ACCOMMODATION LOCATED AT 159 N. MAIN STREET. NO CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF TRAVELLER'S ACCOMMODATION UNITS IS PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION. APPLICANT: COWSLIPS BELLE This application was approved. i ptANNING ACTION 90-164 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE 'EXISTING SEVEN APARTMENTS TO BE CONVERTED TO CONDOMINIUMS, LOCATED AT 132 AND 140 VAN NESS APPLICANT: DAVIDSON/TUCEK This application was approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. , I 7 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES i AUGUST 14, 1990 JWlemorandum september 28, 1990 ~o: Honorable Mayor & City council ~ rom: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator ~.ubjett; Resignation of Chief King Attached is a letter of resignation from Fire Chief Lee Roy King which is to become effective on January 1, 1991. Lee Roy had mentioned this possibility to me several months ago, but was unsure of when the actual date might be, pending several meetings he had scheduled with state Retirement system counselors. At your October 16 meeting I will prepare, for your approval, a schedule of recruitment activities and a process, which will include a broad-based interview panel to assist in interviewing the top candidates. As you know, the Charter and city ordinances require that the City Administrator recommend a candidate or candidates to the Mayor, who will then make the appointment, subject to city council ratification. In the meanwhile, due to publication deadlines, I have instructed Tom Weldon to place the necessary position opening announcements in West Coast periodicals and professional magazines, including the League Newsletter. The tentative deadline for application is set for December 3, 1990. Obviously it will not be possible to have an individual on board by the time Chief King retires, and I will later recommend that one of the Battalion Chiefs be appointed as interim chief after January 1. That decision will be made sometime in December. Attachment (1) 455 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 &hland Fire Department (503) 482-2770 Lee Roy King Fire Chief DATE: October 1, 1990 TO: Mayor/Council/City Administrator FROM: Lee Roy King, Fire Chief RE: RETIREMENT It is with a great deal of ambivalence that I give notice of my impending retirement as Fire Chief of the city of Ashland, effective January 1, 1991. This has not been an easy decision to make, working for the citizens of this community has been extremely rewarding, and I will miss that aspect of the job the most. The management team of City Administrator and Department Heads is a very professional and dedicated group. Ashland is very fortunate to have people of such excellence. The fire department personnel are also very dedicated and do a good job in providing emergency medical service and fire protection for our community. Jo Anne and I have many plans for the future, including building a new home in this beautiful city, doing some travel and pursuing various hobbies. At this point, I feel very fortunate to have had the opportunity to serve. Thank you very much! Respectfully submitted, ~fl-17 L. R. Ki , Fire Chi f ~emorandum september 28, 1990 Jlfrom: ~uhjett: Jill Turner, Director of Finance ijt 0: Mayor and City council Assessment Write Offs RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Recorder to write off two assessments in the amount of $1,342.62 detailed on the attached list. DISCUSSION: The first account involves Mr. and Mrs. Jeff Jones, who's vehicle was damaged in the process of construction. This claim has never been settled. We are agreeing to write off the lien in exchange for the Jones claim per the attached copy of the Mutual Release. The principal balance of the lien is $205.84. The second assessment involves the Alley in District 62 which was a part of the public hearing held on September 11. Unfortunately, Mr. Bills notice was addressed incorrectly and he did not receive the notice until the 12th. This was one of two parcels in which the assessment was increased from when the original assessment billing was mailed out in August. Staff is recommending that this assessment be reduced from $2,273.57 to $1,136.79. ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT September 11, 1990 PLANNING ACfION: 90-172 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.68.020 18.72.100 18.92.070 D. General Regulations Site Design and Use Standards Off-Street Parking Standards REQUEST: Modification of the Vision Clearance requirements not allowing variances to these requirements. I. Relevant Facts 1) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: This ordinance change request involves not allowing variance applications to the standards established for vision clearance under various sections of the land use ordinance. The revisions are as follows: 18.68.020 D. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the Variance section of this title. 18.72.100 D. 3. c. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the Variance section of this title. 18.92.070 D. (addition to the end of this paragraph) The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the Variance section of this title. II. Project Impact Essentially, almost all requirements under the land use ordinance are subject to the variance procedure. However, certain requirements are in place for public safety, and the granting of variances to these requirements could place the City in an undesirable position regarding liability. It also places the Commission in a position of attempting to balance public safety and aesthetics. In all cases, public safety should prevail. Staff does not believe that it is appropriate for the Commission to be attempting to weigh the importance to vegetation to a particular property, and the ultimate effect on public safety relating to adequate vision clearance. Staff believes that these portions of the land use ordinance are similar in nature to "speed limits", in that they have a specific safety purpose, and should be enforced and not subject to the standard land use variance procedures. III. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the ordinance changes as submitted. PA90-172 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 2 / Jarvis questioned Weaver regarding public need. Do we need more public land for diversified housing within the city? McLaughlin said the city was short on multi-family zoned land. Jarvis also noted that the criteria for a Type III amendment is the need to adjust to new conditions. McLaughlin responded that the R-3 zone is not really developable to the maximum densities. since the adoption of the site design guidelines, the flood plain corridors, retention of natural features of the land, there is not the opportunity to develop to maximum density. The ordinances in the city have changed over time, making R-3 zoning very difficult to develop R-3 standards. Weaver felt their findings were based on criteria 4, adjusting to the circumstances of the general public welfare in the area of Siskiyou and Bellview. They are trying to develop a use that is compatible with the neighborhood. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Jarvis believes this application meets the burden of proof under criteria C and recommended approval of this application. Carr seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. rlLANNING ACTION 'REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE CHANGE TO 18.68.020 ~ VISION CLEARANCE - NOT ALLOWING ANY VARIANCES.TO THIS SECTION. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT It should not be a land use issue as to whether or not to grant a variance for vision clearance. This falls under public safety and the city could be placed in a position regarding liability. CPAC reviewed and recommended approval. Morgan wondered how this would affect applications and vision clearance on streets, alleys, and flag drives. McLaughlin said, at this time, the ordinance applies to street and alley intersections. Morgan thought flag drives sh~uld be considered. PUBLIC HEARING No one came forth to speak. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION commissioners were in agreement that flag drives should be included. McLaughlin reminded the Commissioners that parking was not allowed within 10 feet on either side of a flag drive entrance. / Morgan moved to approve PA90-172 and add a revision - 18.76.060(C) that the vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the Variance section of this title. Carr seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. .~ PLANNING ACTION 90-175 REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE CHANGE TO 18.72 RESTRICTING FLAG DRIVE GRADES NO GREATER THAN THOSE ALLOWED UNDER THE PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS AS OUTLINED IN 18.88 RESTRICTING DRIVEWAY GRADES FOR NEW SUBDIVISION LOTS NO GREATER THAN 20 PERCENT. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT At present, there are limitations on driveway grades and steepness other than placed by the commission under subdivision approval. Staff is proposing limitations under general requirements _ 18.68.150 (driveway grades). A revision could also be added to the vision clearance requirements stating that no variances be allowed to driveways. staff has recommended revisions to partitions on flag drIves and performance standards as worded in the Staff Report. Carr wanted to include under partitions, at the end of the sentence, "Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways or ad;oinina nronerties." Harris suggested wording to 18.88.050 by combining 1 and 2, "street shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%, unless the topography requires a greater grade than 15% in which case, a grade of no greater than 18% may be permitted for no more than 200 feet." Morgan could not find a definition for driveway. He is concerned about a grade of 20% for a very long driveway. Fregonese said if a driveway is over 150 feet long, it has to meet certain standards set by the fire department. He thought it might be a good idea to include that any driveway over 150 feet in length needs to meet the standards of a private road. There was a consensus to include a definition of a driveway. A driveway is a road serving a single unit of less than 150 feet in length except when it is a flag drive. PUBLIC HEARING MARIE MOREHEAD, CPAC, wondered if 20% grade was too steep for a north side driveway. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Fregonese responded to Morehead by stating that if a driveway is ,----~---_._._., ..--- -- -----.------------------.----- -~-- ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT September 11, 1990 PLANNING ACTION: 90-175 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.68 18.76 18.88 General Regulations Partitions Performance Standards Option REQUEST: Ordinance modifications limiting flag drive and private drive grades to those allowed for public streets under the Performance Standards; and limiting all new driveways to a maximum of 20% grade. I. Relevant Facts 1) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: At present, the City has no prescribed limits on flag drive, private drive, or driveway grades. During several recent public hearings regarding subdivision approvals, the Commission has attached conditions to the approvals restricting such access grades. The Fire Department has also requested that such limitations be implemented. The following ordinances are suggested as modifications: (new section) 18.68.150 Driveway Grades Grades for new driveways in all zones shall not exceed a grade of 20% for any portion of the driveway. All driveways shall be designed in accord with the criteria of the Ashland Public Wor/a Department and approved prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new construction. (Partitions) 18.76.060 C. The flag drive for one flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved surface. For drives serving two lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet, with 15 feet of pavement to the back of the first lot, and 12 feet, respectively, for the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 paved surface. Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. There shall be no parking of 10 feet on either side of the flag drive entrance. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 150/0. Where topography requires a grade greater than 150/0, a grade of no greater than 18% may be pennitted for no more than 200 feet. No grades on the flag drive shall exceed 180/0. (Performance Standards) 18.88.050 B. Street Grade Street grades for dedicated streets and flag drives shall be as follows: 1) Street shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15% 2) Where topography requires a grade greater than 15%, a grade of no greater than 18% may be permitted for no more than 200 feet. 3) No street grade shall exceed 18%. Streets requiring grades exceeding 18% shall be considered unacceptable. No variances may be granted which permit a road grade greater than 18%. II. Project Impact Given the recent actions of the Commission, we believe that these modifications will provide the ordinance guidance necessary, and will assist applicants in understanding the design criteria for these accesses at the initial development stages. III. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the ordinance modifications as submitted. PA90-175 City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report September 11, 1990 Page 2 :'/ :.I' ,/ // Morgan moved to approve PA90-172 and add a revision - 18.76.060(C) that the vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the Variance section of this title. Carr seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. ~ PLANNING ACTION 90-175 REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE CHANGE TO 18.72 RESTRICTING FLAG DRIVE GRADES NO GREATER THAN THOSE ALLOWED UNDER THE PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS AS OUTLINED IN 18.88 RESTRICTING DRIVEWAY GRADES FOR NEW SUBDIVISION LOTS NO GREATER THAN 20 PERCENT. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT . At present, there are limitations on driveway grades and steepness other than placed by the commission under subdivision approval. Staff is proposing limitations under general requirements - 18.68.150 (driveway grades). A revision could also be added to the vision clearance requirements stating that no variances be allowed to driveways. Staff has recommended revisions to partitions on flag drives and performance standards as worded in the Staff Report. . Carr wanted to include under Partitions, at the end of the sentence, "Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways or ad;oinina nronerties." Harris suggested wording to 18.88.050 by combining 1 and 2, "Street shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%, unless the topography requires a greater grade than 15% in which case, a grade of no greater than 18% may be permitted for no more than 200 feet." Morgan could not find a definition for driveway. He is concerned about a grade of 20% for a very long driveway. Fregonese said if a driveway is over 150 feet long, it has to meet certain standards set by the fire department. He thought it might be a good idea to include that any driveway over 150 feet in length needs to meet the standards of a private road. There was a consensus to include a definition of a driveway. A driveway is a road serving a single unit of less than 150 feet in length except when it is a flag drive. PUBLIC HEARING MARIE MOREHEAD, CPAC, wondered if 20% grade was too steep for a north side driveway. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION \ \ Fregonese responded to Morehead by stating that if a driveway is v /., snowy and icy, that the homeowner does not drive he but waits until the snow melts: it is different than a public road. Morgan is not convinced that a grade of lS% for 200 feet is reasonable as it adds to the difficulty of the road. It is not so much of a problem if it is privately owned rather than publiclY owned. He would be more comfortable with 125 to 150 feet. staff could only recall one instance where a street has had 200 feet at 18% grade. (Seitz) Harris reminded the commission that the grade is controlled by the topography in every case. Two hundred feet gives enough flexibility to make it work in most cases. Jarvis moved to approve the ordinance changes PA90-175 and include under 18.08 (Definitions) Driveway - a driveway serves only one house or parcel of land and is no greater than 150 feet (or similar language). Add to lS.6S.150: The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the Variance section of this title. Add to lS.76.060(C) "to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways or ad;oining urouerties." Adopt the language by Harris under lS.SS.050(B) by combining 1 and 2, as stated above. powell seconded the motion. Morgan will vote no because of the 200 feet. He would like 150 feet. Jarvis was more concerned about cuts if the road was only 150 feet and this would give more flexibility and would allow the commission to rely on engineering reports if a road could be made less than 150 feet. ~ The motion carried with Bingham and Morgan voting "no". PLANNING ACTION 90-165 REQUEST FOR CHANGES TO THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARDS TO IMPLEMENTING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN. SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE TO BE MODIFIED INCLUDE: CONDITIONAL USE CHAPTER (lS.104), ANNEXATIONS (lS.10S), PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS (lS.SS), E-1 ZONE (lS.40), SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (18.20, AND C-1) (18.32.) Fregonese said this was a legislative hearing so exparte contacts are not necessary to report. STAFF REPORT Fregonese explained that the reason for the modification of certain ordinances has been prompted by implementation of the Affordable Housing document which involves making provisions and incentives for affordable housing in Ashland. The Affordable Housing document is viewed as part of the periodic review system. The ordinances need to come into compliance with state laws that -----------.--- .-. --.------.-"--..--------- HOWSER & MUNSELL PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 607 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD POST OFFICE BOX 640 THOMAS C. HOWSER GLENN H. MUNSELL JUDITH H. UHERBELAU. ASHLAND. OREGON 97520 OF COUNSEL RICHARD C. COTTLE (5031 482-1511 (5031 482-2621 FAX (5031 773-5325 .ALSO ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA September 26, 1990 City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Gentlemen: My clients, the Barnetts, are becoming increasingly concerned by the failure of Mr. Houghton or his contractor to take any steps to safeguard the intersection of Logan Drive from any sort of disastrous consequences as a result of this Fall's rain. As you know, the Barnetts are directly across the street from this very substantial cut, with steep walls and no protection to avoid erosion. In the event of very heavy rain, it appears that they may end up getting a landslide into their property. I recognize that the City is not the person who is in charge of the work there, but in light of the present unstable and potentially dangerous situation, it would seem to me that the City should require some sort of a means of providing protection to the motoring public and the neighbors. We certainly do not want to see any problems develop there, but the purpose of this letter is to advise of the potential for the problem and to put everyone on notice that in the event of some sort of serious erosion or landslide problem this Winter, we will be looking to all parties in the event the Barnetts suffer any damages as a result of that. It is apparent that reasonable precautions could be taken to avoid that, but it is our under- standing that Mr. Houghton has indicated he is not going to do anything with that situation until the entire matter is resolved. Sincerely yours, HOWSER & MUNSELL Professional Corporation DICTATED, BUT NOT READ Thomas C. Howser TCH:t/23:88 cc: Dr. and Mrs. Barnett ~ - c..rrzr--...;7f7-_. . 9./9- 90 LAW OFFICES AINSWOKfH, DAVIS, GILSTRAP, HARRIS, BALOCCA & FITCH, P.C. 515 EAST MAIN STREET SAM B. DAVIS. Retired DONALD M. PINNOCK. Retired SIDNEY E. AINSWORTH JACK DAVIS DAVID V. GILSTRAP DANIEL L HARRIS MICHAEL G. BALOCCA KENNETH C. FITCH ASHLAND, OREGON 97:S20 (503) 482-3111 FAX (503) 488-4455 September 18, 1990 BRIAN ALMQUIST ASHLAND CITY HALL ASHLAND OR 97520 HAND DELIVERED SEPTEMBER 18, 1990~) Re: Planning Action 90-168 Ed Houghton File No. 90-571 Dear Brian: Please consider this letter to be the notice of appeal of the above Request for a Final Plan Modification to the City Council. Please schedule this appeal for the October meeting. I enclose a check in the sum of $100 representing the appeal fee. Mr. and Mrs. Ed Houghton will be represented in this appeal by attorney Duane Schultz of Grants Pass. As for the grounds of the appeal, the following background needs to be understood by the Council. The original subdivision plan, approved by the city, was quite satisfactory to the Houghtons. It was the City which applied for the subject modification of the plan expressing safety concerns. When the modification was approved by the City, the excavation took place at considerable expense. Thereafter, a hearing was set before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission retracted the earlier approval. The subject appeal is an appeal of that retraction. Yours ~UlY, \ AINSWOR~, DAVIS, GILSTRAP, HARRIS, ALOCCA & FITCH, P.C. TABLE OF CONTENTS RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 90-168 Notice Map 1 Findings for Denial, August 14 Planning Commission Meeting 2 Minutes, August 14, Planning Commission Meeting 6 Minutes, August 8, Historic Commission Meeting 12 Letter from Roger Kauble to John McLaughlin 14 Staff Report, PA90-168, August 14, 1990 15 Memo from Steve Hall to John Fregonese, 8/8/90 20 Letter from Roger Kauble to James Olson, 8/7/90 23 Letter from Tom Howser to Steve Hall, etc... 7/27/90 24 Letter from Ron Salter to John McLaughlin 7/31/90 25 Information presented by Barnetts to Planning Commission 26 including letter from Tom Miller, and petition Letters of opposition from surrounding property owners 32 Letter from Darlyn Adams to John McLaughlin 8/8/90 61 Letter from Darlyn Adams to John Fregonese 8/8/90 62 Letter from Mark and Cici Brown to Planning Department 8/9/90 63 Letter from Will Hershman to John McLaughlin, 8/8/90 64 Letter from Robert and Margaret Reinholdt to John Fregonese 8/10/90 66 Note of Call from Christopher Larke 67 Notice Map of PA89-192 (January, 1990) 68 Notice Map of PA89-192 (December, 1989) 69 Notice Map of PA89-192 (November, 1989) 70 Notice Map of PA89-152 (August, 1989) 71 Plat map of revised proposal as part of PA89-192 72 Topographic Map of site 73 Notice Map of P A88-070, Final Plan Approval, June 1988 74 Findings of Final Plan Approval, June 1988 75 Memo from Steve Hall to John Fregonese, Traffic Report 78 Findings of Outline Plan Approval, March 1988 82 Staff Report for Outline Plan (P A88-013), February 1988 88 Memo from Jim Olson to John Fregonese, John McLaughlin on 94 connection of Logan Drive to Scenic Drive Notice Map for Outline Plan, PA88-013 95 ~:~ ......."'" Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the folrowing request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on the 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1990 AT 7:00 P.M. atthe ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. ~r ,. ordinance criteria the Obj~~it is based on also precludes your right of appeal. 111e ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that Cailure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Doard oC Appeals (LUDA). Failure to specify which A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the staff report will be available for inspection Seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland }'lanning Department, City I-Iall, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520. During the I)ublic lIearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicanl and those in attendance concerning this request. TIle Chairshall have the right to Iimillhe length oC lestimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. If you have any questions or comments concerning this request, please Ceel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City I Iall, at 488- 5305. /Yew INTt;R.:5f5c.nolJ PLANNING ACTION 90-168 is a request for a Final Plan Modification to modify the street location and lot layout for a previously approved 18-lot subdivision. Modification involves the relocation of the intersection of the proposed Logan Drive and Scenic Drive approximately 60' towards the Scenic/Grandview intersection and the associated modifications of lot lines. No modification in the number of lots is proposed. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-1 Q-P; Assessor's Map #: 8AA; Tax Lot: 6900. APPLICANT: Ed Houghton , ( ~:':, , ; C I T Y HAL L C I T Y o F ASHLAND ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 telephone (code 503) 482-3211 September 17, 1990 RE: Planning Action # 90-168 Dear Ed Houghton At its meeting of August 14. 1990 , the Ashland Planning Commission denied your request for a Final Plan Modification for the property located ~ near Scenic/Grandview intersection A copy of the Findings and Orders is enclosed. Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you Enclosure ~ ." , (.) (1) ... ~ . ..." .., .' BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 1990 !IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #90-168, REQUEST FOR A ) , I iFINAL PLAN MODIFICATION TO MODIFY THE STREET LOCATIOr ) FINDINGS, :AND LOT LAYOUT FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 18-LOT SUB- ) CONCLUSIONS ~DIVISION. MODIFICATION INVOLVES THE RELOCATION OF TH~ ) AND ORDERS ;INTERSECTION OF THE PROPOSED LOGAN DRIVE AND SCENIC DR. ) lAPPROXIMATELY 60' TOWARDS THE SCENIC/GRANDVIEW INTERL ) :SECTION AND THE ASSOCIATED MODIFICATION OF LOT LINESI. ) NO MODIFICATION IN THE NUMBER OF LOTS IS PROPOSED. I ) .APPLICANT: ED HOUGHTON ) I ~ ) :RECITALS : I i 1) Tax lot 6900 of 391E 8AA is located near the in~ersection of Scenic and Grandview and is zoned R-l-10-Pi single Family Residential. 2) The applicant is requesting a Final Plan mOdifidation to modify the street location and layout for a previously approved:18-lot subdivision. Modification involves the relocation of the intersection of the proposed Logan Drive and Scenic Drive approximately I 60' towards the scenic/Grandview intersection and the associated modification of lot lines. No modification in the number of lots is proposed. The new street location is outlined on the site plan on file at'\ the Department of community Development. . 3) The criteria for Final Plan approval are outlin~d in Chapter 18.88 and are as follows: I I I Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall , limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or fncreased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the!number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, ~or the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan.: This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that:. I. I a) The number of dwelling units vary no more thanl 10% of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. I b) The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more ! than 10% of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum 1\ established within this Title. I c) The open spaces vary no more than 10% of that provided on the I i I i I ! :3 ~~ :.'{) outline plan. d) The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than 10%. i e) The building elevations and exterior material I are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f) That the additional standards which resultedlin the awarding of I bonus points in the outline plan approval have been inoluded in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that t~e performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. I g) Any amendment to an approved final plan shall follow a Type I procedure. i I 4) The Planning commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on August 14, 1990, at which time testimony was rece~ved ! and exhibits were presented. The Planning commission!denied application, noting that the applicant had failed to meet the burden of proof. , I Now, therefore, The Planning commission of the city of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings) the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used.; Staff Exhibits lettered with an "s" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous "Mil I I I I i I . .\ Exh1b1ts lettered with an Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS I i I i i I 2.1 The Planning commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhib1ts received. I I 2.2 The Planning commission finds that the proposal to modify the street location and layout for a previously approved lS-lot subdivision does not meet the criteria for approval for Final Plan as outlined in Chapter 18.88.030 B. \ . The Commission does not believe that the proposed modification is in substantial conformance with the approved' outline Plan. The substantial conformance provision is intended ~olely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning st~p to another. The I Lj (':. ~.:~'~ '~0)\::\. .'i'.".. .... .. ....".:. commission does not believe that the relocatio of the street, in this circumstance, constitutes a minor mOdification. Evidence derived from public testimony indicates that the original street location is the safest location and will provide better vision for motorists exiting the development, as well as for through traffic along Scenic and Grandview Drives. I I I I i ! SECTION 3. DECISION \ I 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing oln this matter, the Planning commission concludes that the request for Final Plan Modification to modify the street location and I lot layout for a previously approved 18-lot subdivision is not supported by the evidence contained within the whole record. I Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions~ we d~ny Planning Action #90-168. ! Approval 9/J1/.90 , Date r::;- o ( .> ~--- .; I ..). 't':\.'. I \bi \ I \ I I I I i ~; ; \. :. , : ; ~ {' , ';' Ii' ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 14, 1990 MINUTES . t; ; .. . . '. " . I I CALL TO ORDER ;: i TI1e meeting was called to order by Chairman Pro Temp Brent Tho~pson at 7:10 p.m. Other members present were Carr, Bingham, Powell, Bernard and Jarvis. Harris joined the meeting at Planning Action 90-131. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar and" Yates.' .~: ! . : I i ! i I The Minutes and Findings of the July 10, 1990 Regular Meeting were approved. . ' I : I I I I I PLANNING ACTION 90-168 ; REQUEST FOR A FINAL PLAN MODIFICATION TO MODIFY THE STREET LOCATION AND LOT LAYOUT FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED;18-LOT SUBDIVISION. MODIFICATION INVOLVES THE RELOCATION dF THE INTERSECTION OF THE PROPOSED LOGAN DRIVE AND SCENIC DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET TOWARDS THE SCENIC/GRANDVIE~ INTERSECTION AND THE ASSOCIATED MODIFICATIONS OF LOT LINES. NO ," MODIFICATION IN THE NUMBER OF LOTS IS PROPOSED \ APPLICANT: ED HOUGHTON I I I I I i ; ! APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS TYPE II PUBIC HEARINGS ". ' i I , ; Si~e visits were made by all. Powell and Carr had exparte contacts ~ith the Barnetts. . ' Thompson had an exparte contact with Steve Morjig who liked the street left as it is. . Bingham had an exparte contact with Falicoff who discussed the slippery state of Grandview and Scenic and confusion over the stop sign. ; , ., . ~ , STAFF REPORT McLaughlin gave the background of this application as outlined in th~ Staff Report. Olson's memo of January 28, 1990 and Hall's memo of August 8, 1990 are included as part of the record. Tonight the applicant is requesting modification of the, intersection location as approved on the originally approved final plan. The: : construction that has occurred has been what was originally approv~d at outline plan. Since there has been a change in that location from what the original outline plan map described, the City Attorney has said it w6uld be an amendment to fi"nal plan and ::. subject to a Type I procedure. Staff is hearing this as a.a Type II, having anticipated concern over this issue. ! ' !: . , ~ ~ I . ; ~: ! . ;" . : . . F\: ~ '. '1 ,.: . , I ' I ~ . - " " ~ ,,'.; I .... ~: ~. , . j ... . ....---.-...-.;.... - I ~. ~ b. j t .1 _ _..,..~ '--,.7- ..,~ ......ft'(.r~....\-t.......""..."...',..-"T. ..__ ...,....~....... --~.- ..-.....'.........,..-"..'.. ....,~............""'--- ---.....----,. r. .. -II "'t--' ".....~..," r~ ...-" ~,..., .., I" "C 4 . . ...,-.:~, .....,.) " ~',..' There is some dispute over how far the street location has been moved. It depends on where it is measured from. The measurements vary from 20 feet 'to 110 feet. If can be determined, however, that there is movement of the intersection. !According to Public Works Director, Steve Hall, the location that is constructed and excavated to this point is the safest intersection design and most appropriate for thed~velopment. I The modification must be in conformance with final plan. McLaughlin read the criteria for final plan approval. Staff recommended approval as presently excavated. . . McLaughlin reminded the Commission and public that the only thing 'being presented is the modification of the intersection location. ; ii, Ron Salter, City Attorney, explained that any planning action require~ renotification if ~ there is a s~bstantial change to the plan. Salter believes there was a substantial : .:. cHange in this case. City law states that any' amendment is cause fo'r a public hearing; st~te law states a substantial amendment is cause for a public heari~g. . Steve Hall explained that the positioning of the stop sign applies to c~rs traveling down GrandvieW since the major volume of traffic. is on Scenic and also because of the angle of the intersection. Logan Drive will have a stop sign. The current location of the stop' sign at Grandview was placed prior to construction of the intersection. When the intersection is completed, it will be moved back up Grandview further so it would be a proper intersection with Logan Drive. . McLaughlin explained that on the cut slope side at this intersection, plans show a Keystone Block will be put along near the vertical face and behind that will be plantings and irrigation. The portion behind the plantings will be stacked with rock to reduce -. erosion. i : ; I Powell explained her original position with regard to this subdivision. I At the time Carlton Ward and she appealed the subdivision to the City Council, ~he was not a . Planning Commissioner. She signed the appeal but Powell did not believe she spok~ alIa public hearing. Her feelings, at that time, were that 18 houses ~ere too dense : r eY,en though the zoning allowed it, and the road was going to be the: existing ~r~veway. it; . McLaughlin stated that the road can be moved, however, a definite 16cation has to be adopted. . . PUBLIC HEARING. . t !, DAVID H. COUCH, Kellington, Krack, Richmond and Blackhurst, 15 Newtown Street, \ '. Medford, attorney, representing the Houghtons, stated that the issue. is the mirior. . amendment regarding realignment for traffic safety purposes. The only modifications to. the lot lines is how they relate to the street.. Couch referred to their letter of August , 7, 1990 to Staff regarding realignment of the street. The question is:: is the location as :. I; . i ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 : ' , I ; , I , ; :' , " , ). , ~, ! of' . ~,: ; I : " , ~ I 4' ' ~ ~ ! .$. : : 'i : in' ~' : ! C' :.: ' l' : :: \ , 2 :' i : i , : 7 i, .:~~;n /~). ,,'.~' ',to:, ::1.0..: I . j cUrrently proposed, a safer location than originally proposed. In the :opinion of the citY , traffic safety engineer, the proposed location is the safest location arid Couch and his clients recommend approval by the Commission as recommended by Staff. ..: ... . . ,. McLaughlin explained the reason there was a filing by the applicant for an arllendment was because~ previously, Staff did not feel the movement of the street was significant. enough to notice, however, the City Attorney felt it should be noticed as it was: '. ..~: significant, therefore, the City requested the applicants request an amendment. . " I I . . McLaughlin read the letter of August 7, 1990 ir,lto the record from Roger Kauble. . . TOM HOWSER, attorney, 363 Grandview, summarized the packet ofiinformation to be made a part of the record. He also referred to Bqb Reinholdt's letter. He said that : from Grandview Drive, it is impossible to see the opening of Logan Drive. He referred t9: photographs taken of the intersection. Howser believes this is a v'ery 5ub~tantial :, cnange in the road. Howser referred to the letter from the grade checker of August : . 12, 1990. He urged the Commission not to be swayed since the roaCi has progressed this far and though it might be an unfortunate mistake, it is not too late to do", . . something about it. . . j i STEVE BARNETT, 182 Scenic Drive, sees daily how dangerous that intersection is. Because Scenic Drive crests and Logan Drive will intersect directly at this point, an extremely dangerous intersection is created.' Barnett stated that his wife and he saw the final plan in February, 1988 and raised no objection to the subdivision or Logan Drive as proposed in that plan. With regard to the memo from Steve. Hall, Barnett . believes that the street does not need to be brought into a blind intersection that already exists. He objects to the lack of a landing pad at the original site of the drive. Barnett believes the new site is not a better location and can be demonstrated in the photographs the Barnetts provided. He is c~ncerned that when car~ slide, it will be : directly into his home. ., The following people spoke or submitted written comments during, th!e public' hearing in \ opposition to the application. Their objections were primarily based on the propose~ road being unsafe. \. i I I I I I ! BRYAN SOHL, 283 Scenic Drive ANDRE ALLEN, 96 Scenic Drive :. JULIA TUCKER, 361 Scenic Drive ; CRISSY BARN Err, 182 Scenic Drive JIM DOERTER, 80 Scenic Drive L~NN HANNON, 240 Scenic Drive GERALD HIRSCHFELD, 361 Scenic Drive ' DANA JOHNSON, 70 Scenic Drive CARL OATES, 351 Granite Street i ! ASHlAND PlANNING COMMISSION REGU~ MEETING . . MINUTES I AUGUST 14. 1990 j : . . ! :. . : ,. ~ I : !: ~ ' . :.:..., . i:< i' :. \' t . .' - ':' I :.4 . ! ~ i . .. :, , , l....- ' ~: . ; "11. . .,' ,~ . 1'. 1 ' l' \ ... . ' ~ :'1 . . , ,:'1 " I ! ' i:-:: j'l i ; , ~ l 1 : : I . : ~ .1: ~. ' . : ! j ~ " ~ , ~ : 3 , : . ;: ','8 .'. ' JOHN SUll V, 365 Granite Street \ . MYRA ERWIN, 300 Grandview Drive I SKYE AND DAVID SUGAR, 177 Westwood MARGARET HOXIE, 174 Church Street MARK BROWN, 171 Church Street JOHN MAYBEN, 160 Scenic Drive SARAH BERMAN, 67 Scenic Drive PAULA SOHL., 283 Scenic Drive CUTTY KITCHEll, 139 Wimer Street EARL SHOWERMAN, 365 Scenic Drive PAUL NICHOLSON, 270 Scenic Drive JOHN THOMPSON, 220 Scenic Drive DOUG MORRISON, 320 Scenic Drive PAUL FERNSTEIN, 215 Scenic Drive DAVE DEllER, 200 Grandview Drive DENNIS DEBEY, 2475 Siskiyou Boulevard' SCOTT ROGERS, 210 Scenic Drive ~IKE AND KIRA MIRSKY, 290 Skycrest \ .. . . JOHN BARTON, 300 Kent Street, is not opposed to th~ amendment bnd believes the problem is to resolve whether the City Engineer's: opinion that the modification is safer .. ;'; .. th?n moving the road is valid since there has been. no evidence to th'e contrary the . :: road should be moved. . I. ! . . ' . I !. . I'. JON LANGE, 349 Alta, stated that with regard to the different options for logan Drive, he sees no difference in safety. . .. I . t' :. . !' I" : ;. . .. I ; TOM MillER, grade checker, has been checking on grade because'his boss has had c~ncerns about the steepness of the grad~. . I' . . I OOUG MORRISON, 320 Scenic Drive, is concerned with erosion problems. He wondered what provisions had been made for run-off and ground water. .. c. :^ '...:- ~ :,.~...~.~ . '.?lJJ . i Steve Hall explained that 28 percent frontage have signed in.favor of'paving of Grandview. Thompson wondered about partial paving. Hall responded that it is possible to build a landing to try and contain gravel, however, there is a great deal of granite that ravels off the street because of the length and grade. STEVE BARNElT, stated again that Steve Hall never explained why a landing pad could;not be located where it was proposed. Barnett explained that a lower road. would be safe because of better visibility. I : : ~ I dOUGH, rebuttal on behalf .of Houghtons, clarified the issue to the Commission by a'sking which position of the alignment is the safest? Couch would acknowledge the , I ' j ~ . i ASHlAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETING . MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 ;. i '. . . ' ;, ;: : : i , l. ; ~' , ) ; } ~ I ::! . , ; ~- ~ ; ,. i , '~:'~ -' _: F\:,. .. i :'i ~: ;~ l: i ;: .:::: ,: ~ ,: .' r; .. i:: ,.\ ,; t ; " . i ; ~ : 4 ;.'j ~ I ~ ~ . . i. i ..q -of- ! . o'.~ 'J '; .{'/'1 '.:,i:j advice of the professional engineers. ROGER KAUBLE, 173 E. Hersey Street, explained why the proposed modification i~ safer. He said that the ideal formation of an intersection is to pull all the streets into . the same location so that there would be only one area of hazard. By isolating the point of intersection, it makes a safe intersection. . . \ Bihgham questioned whether all factors were taken into consideratioh when the modification was designed, such as the odd way the streets come together in varying angles with Scenic cresting and Grandview leaving Scenic at a sharp angle. Kauble responded that judgment application was used also, for example, the cut bank on Logan is not completely cut back yet. At that grade crest on Logan, 'there is grea~er; visibility on Scenic in both directions. Kauble also stated that there would be a similar c~t bank if the lower road of Logan is used as there is on the upper road. . t i j ! . Bernard wondered what the cost of putting the road back the way it was would be and Couch stated that in working closely with the City, that using the safest alignment was also the mos~ expensive. If the road is moved it would be very expensive to change' . and the applicant feels there is a certain obligation on the part of the; City to assist in: some manner. The applicant would attempt to recover the cost in some fashion. Jarvis asked Steve Hall why the intersection, as proposed, is safer. Hall explained that intersections~ if at all possible, be as far apart as possible. The further apart, the less cHance for conflict. To make this intersection far enough away and function' reasonably well under these conditions 'would have pushed it further "than the original , plan showed. This would mean steeper grades on the street and trying to have steeper grades at the intersection. In Hall's opinion, that was unacceptable. Jim Olson and Steve Hall agreed that it would be best to bring these intersections as close together as possible. This is a difficult intersection. Right at that intersection, in Hall's opinion, from observing it, it is the best sight distance in all directions. Hall reiterated that based on overall sight distance, overall function of that intersection and making : . the best of a tough intersection, in his professional judgment as an engineer, the plan proposed is the best of the group and the safest. i . l I '.;. Jarvis speculated at a solution that by cutting out the curve at the be'ginning of Logan Drive, would it diminish the problems. Hall said it could be done, but would make 1i~le difference in' safety. Minor changes would have little affect. By moving it 20. feet, it . : , could work, however, 50,60 to 100, it could not Work. . :. ; . I ' '.: .' I . STEVE BARNETT, had no problem with original map. He just would : like to gel the "\": street out of the intersection. , '. . !. . . . . . '! . ED HOUGHTON, 185 Scenic Drive, stated that the slope on the old driveway:,is greater arid the angle of the old driveway was headed at the Barnetts. The proposed drive ~s . . I'; ~ I I ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ' . . MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 . I . . t \ ' ; ~ , . ~ . " I !. i . ~: ~ I. i. I. , I,. 1 " ; . ; . . " . ~. 1 . .~.: I ~ : . ' , '; ~ ; ". ~: ; . ~ (. . ~ . i.' .' I' : "I.:;' ,; " ..~:: ': '. ; \ t; ; : " : '. .i;";', .: ~. ~ ( J' : 5 i:'. ' " ~ j; I , I' .. : jO . . .~, , ' '~:', ......... '/~0.~ i : I . I , .i b'etter with 53 foot across from the curb at Grandview and where Logan Drive. will be. to the curb across Scenic Drive. At the old drJveway site the measure curb to curb, it 34 1/2 feet. : COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND M'OTION . : i Bingham reported that on his site visit, he backed up Logan and carile down: ': ' : i:. Grandview and Scenic Drives and noted th~t it was not safe, with poor visibility~; He' . believes the 'overriding consideration is the! health and safety of the family. Bingham'.. . moved to deny Planning Action 90-168. Carr seconded the motion. ; . . I Salter stated that the question will be coming back to the Commissioh as to where the street. will be located. I . : ; I . , ., J~rvis did not believe that the Commission was in; a position to makel a modification : add yet if the action is denied, she felt they' would end up with the original placement. of the road. If the applicant did not like the original placement, then he could request a' modification. . I ! I : . Thompson pointed out that there was testimony from the engineer t~at the first plan would have worked. . I, : Powell was concerned about liability and felt the Commission could riot engineer a' road but she did not like the proposed modification. . After considerable Commissioner discussion, even though there were several ideas presented with regard to where the street should be located, there Was a general consensus to move the road as close to town as possible. ; ! Bernard disagreed; however, stating there was professional testimon~ from Staff wh~ believed the proposed amendment is the s~fest. \ I , I The motion was carried to deny with Bernard casting the dissenting vote. I Harris joined the meeting at this time. '. PLAN'NING ACTION 90-129 . REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A MOTEL IN THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AT 637 AND 649 EAST MA.lN STREET: APPLICANT: BERNIE ZIEMINSKI ! : . i i : STAFF REPORT t i ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETING . MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1990 . , . I .~ . ~i ., : . ~. ! ; , . . ~ ; I _ r~ I .. i :: . . ). ~; ::~ 'I :; . ~'1 :', ! : .; ~ ~ I . ~ i ~ ~ : 1 , : . . :. . , 6 :.. i . I I ,'.:" - \ l,~:., (:.Jt. ~J Ashland Historic Commission August 8, 1990 90-168 Final Plan Modification Logan Drive (ofT Scenic Drive) Ed Houghton McLaughlin said that Logan Drive is being built 100 feet from what was originally laid out because Public Works recommended it be moved closer to the intersection of Grandview and Scenic Drives. l-Iowever, the map which was submitted for Final Plan Approval depicted Logan Drive as initially proposed, therefore, property owners were noticed as such. Work has stopped because the City Attorney has ruled this is a land use matter. According to Public Works Director Steve Hall, this is the safest configuration. Logan Drive, as it is being constructed, will have a 15% grade and the landing at the bottom will be 6%. Whitten questioned if any history was available for winter repair work at the intersection of Scenic and Grandview. McLaughlin stated the cuts excavated for the road will be terraced and trees and shrubs planted (actually drilled in the granite, irrigated, etc.) for full erosion control. Logan Drive will be paved with curbs and gutters. McLaughlin agreed that Grandview Drive is a problem because it is not paved and because of the slope as it intersects with Scenic Drive. When questioned about the paving of Grandview Drive, McLaughlin stated the City is trying to get alternative funding other than Bancrofting because an unfair burden would be placed on owners of large lots with frontage on Grandview. The City's position from the beginning, McLaughlin reiterated, has been to locate Logan Drive where it is because of traffic safety issues. Paul Fischer, 135 Scenic Drive, stated that work has stopped on Logan Drive and worries about erosion in case it rains. He is also very concerned about speeders along Grandview Drive and Scenic Drive. Steve Barnett, 182 Scenic Drive, said he has lived at that address for four years and sees the intersection of Grandview and Scenic Drives (directly across from his house) every day. The facts that this is not a level area, there is a crest on Scenic Drive and the intersection is not a right angle create a blind corner. I-Ie continued to say that the City seems to be looking at this in a two dinlensional way, as Logan Drive comes in to the intersection at this blind corner. I-Ie feels the original intersection is much better because drivers can see two directions. Because of snow and icy conditions in the winter, cars can end up in his home. This, he said, is a safety concern, and if the City approves it as recommended by Public Works, it would be creating a monumental disaster. When questioned about the steep driveways of the homes already located off Scenic Drive, Joann Houghton, 185 Scenic Drive, declared each home has a turn-around at the top of the 5 \) (}~~) (;~~::.: Ashland Historic Commission August 8, 1990 driveway so no one has to back onto Scenic Drive. She added that they were following City requirements when they started the excavation of Logan Drive. Steve Barnett interjected that he and his wife made the City aware of what was going on at 8:30 on a Monday morning and work was not halted until 12:30 on Friday afternoon. The Commission agreed there is a visual impact on the Historic District because of the excavation of Logan Drive. Bradshaw added that the intersection can be seen from Downtown, and Whitten strongly advised the Traffic Safety Commission review the location because of safety hazards. Chambers moved to have the Historic Commission decline an approval or denial recommendation, but strongly recommends the Planning Commission consider the two " potential impacts of Logan Drive: 1) the visual impact on the Historic District and 2) the location of the intersection with regard to livability (safety and quality of life). Whitten amended the motion to advise the Planning Commission that the Traffic Safety Commission should thoroughly review the location of the intersection before making a final decision. MacKenzie seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 6 )3 . .' i' .i..::i~~1 j.., .1:;:::....1 !~; ," . ("' ;-:::~J' ~..~ ~ ;.~~'.\;.r, '::e'_.:;1 . :." :: . : -~. I; t' :.: p ! ).I;:~ ". ;: 1:' : ;. ~.: ( , . .' . t ; , ..; ~ \". " i.: ~ , . . '. :. i.; ~ ; . ~ I t . .' I ;: : 1. S . " o! i . ; f. .' I" Enclosed are two copies of a Plan depicting the proposed new intersection for Logan Drive,: Phase II. The location as shown is \ as far. to the southeast (down Scenic 90.00 feet fro'm: the Street Survey. Monument for Scenic and Grandview) as possible and still maintain the grades (6% for 30' for landing and then 15% maximum) a's di rected by the Publi c Works : Departnlent (Steve Ha 11). Also, please note the street width of 20' curb to curb at the intersection then 28'. for. parking above the first curve as .d1sc~ssed w1th you and Steve Hall at our meeting on August 15, 1990.' " : R~ge~'~auble & Associates .p~ 0"'. Box 1252 Ashland, OR 97520 (503);482-0563 A1.19ust'31, 1990 I , : .; .John McLoughlin City Planner City Hall Ash~and, OR 97520 RE: N~w Intersection Logan Drive~ Phase II Dear John ~ .~ " ',~ . 1." . . ~ ,:1 : '", ~- : "J,I' ~"f-- ~.~~,~ .~ '~~"'~~!'~~~:~<?~ , ; . . ~ ., . ~. . t. " . .1 ~l: '.~.:.':.'..'.'... : " l ~ ; .." : ..' qQ) ~~" .~ . , We ar~ currently working on the revised utility plan and have retained Steve Potter, Landscape Ar-chitect, to help prepare a lands~ape plan for the to be abandoned excavation at the prevIous intersection location. This plan will be submitted f6~ approval upon completion. Joh~, I am very concerned about the weather and believe it will be 1n everyone's best interest .to resume the work on this project as soon as possible. The earthwork design on the enclosed plan l'g . complet.e and it will require the excavation of. 3750 cubic yards of. material (@ a cost of $5.50 per cubic yard for your information) and I am prepared to stake this work and ask the Contractor (LTM) to return to work upon the City's approval. There are a considerable ~mount underground utilities to be 1nstalled after the excavation 1s complete and the 'oood weather yet available this season is rap~dly declining. i o! . ~ .; . , , . ~'~ 1 t. , . ) . . ~ . ; Please'keep me informed of any. new developments and when we can resume construction. Thank you for your help. ely ; I : ~.~. auble, P.E. . Y Houghton ; 'j . I. i'" . c.: i.; '.' . . !; ~ f ~. i ! ) Lf . ..' ~t'.&. ( '~~" ..'_';.4 ;).. . ~ .~, " ;(..Il> '" ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT August 14, 1990 PLANNING ACTION: 90-168 APPLICANT: Ed Houghton LOCATION: Scenic/Grandview /Logan Drives ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-10-P COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.88 -- Performance Standards REQUEST: Final Plan Modification to modify the street location and lot layout for previously approved 18-10t subdivision. Modification involves the relocation of the intersection of the proposed Logan Drive and Scenic Drive approximately 100' towards the Scenic/Grandview intersection and the associated modification of lot lines. No modification in the number of lots is proposed. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: In February, 1988, the Planning Commission approved an Outline Plan for an 18-10t subdivision at this location (P A88-013). A concurrent request for a variance to allow for street grade in excess of 15% but no greater than 18% was denied. An appeal of that approval was filed by Susan Powell and Carlton Ward. The City Council also granted approval of the Outline Plan in March, 1988. Final Plan approval was granted in June, 1988 (P A88-070). A modification of the Final Plan, involving a change in the driveway locations for Phase I was approved in August, 1989 (P A89-152). Another modification of the Final Plan involving a change to the phasing and lot configurations was approved administratively in October, 1989 (P A89-192), but was called up for a public hearing by the Planning Commission. At the December Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested a continuation of the hearing. Between the December and January hearings, the applicant withdrew the application for the modification. Therefore, the original final plan, with the driveway modification in Phase I, stands as approved. During the construction of the street, the residents directly across from the intersection believed that the street location was different than had been )6 ..' ~t~ :'. ';7.1.J ~~1; ~i) presented on the Final Plan. Review of the street construction drawings indicated that the intersection location was different than that presented at final plan, and the City Attorney concluded that the modification was a land use decision that would require notice. An~icipating an appeal from that notice, this hearing has been scheduled regarding the change. All street construction work regarding the intersection location has been stopped pending a decision on this modification. The notice maps for the previous applications, Staff report from the Outline Plan application, and the findings of Outline and Final Plan approvals have been included as part of this application. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: The proposal calls for the relocation of the Logan Drive intersection with Scenic Drive approximately 100' towards the ScenicjGrandview intersection. This is the only issue being addressed as part of the application. II. Proiect Impact During the Outline Plan approval, a memo' was received from Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer, outlining the Public Works Departments recommendations for the connection of Logan Drive to Scenic Drive. In this memo, it is stated: 'The location of the entrance to the Scenic-Grandview Drive intersection could be I1toved slightly to the west. This allows a better view of all legs of the intersection. The bank to the west should be laid back and cleared of sluubbelY to provide an un-obstructed view of Grandview and Scenic Drives to the west." In the Staff Report, dated February 10, 1988 for P A88-013, it is reiterated that the Engineering Departments suggested modifications to the street design be incorporated. This memo was included as Exhibit "E" of the findings for approval. During Final Plan approval, a map, with essentially the same street location as proposed during Outline Plan was submitted by the applicant. This map was also sent out as part of the notice to surrounding property owners. Therefore, no indicated change in the intersection location, as recommended by Engineering, had been distributed to the surrounding neighbors. PA90-168 Ed Houghton Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report August 14, 1990 Page 2 fro ,,' .~)o.. . ::.fi.l \:2" ~.t~f~~ '"' }". ~:I 'l..s.-. During the request for a modification of the Final Plan regarding the change in phasing, a revised map was submitted which indicated the modification in the street location. However, the notice text did not indicate a change in the intersection, and the request was subsequently withdrawn, making the point moot. The applicant's engineer then submitted the street design materials to the Public Works Department, with the design incorporating the changes as suggested during the Outline Plan. These plans were approved by Public Works and the construction was allowed to begin. As stated in the original memo and the recent memo f~om Public Works Director Steve Hall, the modifications in the intersection location are for increased traffic safety. This will become a City-owned street, and the City has the responsibility to control the design such that the safest design is accomplished. It is the opinion of the Staff, including the Public Works Department, that this design is superior in terms of traffic safety, to that originally presented at Outline Plan. It was always the intention of the City to modify the location of the street as indicated. The City staff did not consider the modification to be a substantial change in the subdivision. We understand the concerns of the Barnetts, who own the home directly across from the intersection, but we believe that the modification p~esents an overall safer intersection for both the Barnetts and the general public than the design presented at the original hearing. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof In 18.88.030 B. 5. g) it states that: 'j4ny anlendnlent to an approved final plan shall follow a Type I procedure." The Planning Commission must determine that the amendment is still in accord with the previous Final Plan approval and with the criteria for that approval, which are as follows: . Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial confonnance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shalllinlit reduction in the nunlber of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the nU111ber of dwelling units shall not be transfelTed to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that pennitted in the outline plan. This substantial confol7nance provision is intended solely to facilitate the 111inor Inodifications fronl one planning step to another. Substantial . confonnance shall exist when C0l11parison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: PA90-168 Ed Houghton Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report August 14, 1990 Page 3 /1 co?> '""----::' :"~~ -.:J a) The nU111ber of dwelling units vary no 1110re than 10% of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the nU111ber of units exceed those pennitted in the outline plan. b) The yard depths and distances between l11ain buildings vary no nlore than 10% of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the 111ini111ul11 established within this Title. c) The open spaces vary no 1110re than 10% of that provided on the outline plan. d) The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by nlore than 10%. e) The building elevations and exterior 111aterial are in confonnance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f) That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the perforJnance level cOln111itted to in the outline plan will be achieved. g) Any antendntent to an approved final plan shall follow a Type I procedure. Staff believes that this modification meets all the above criteri~ and is in accord with the previously approved final plan and the criteria of approval of that decision, especially given the fact that the Public Works Department recommended ~his modification during the Outline Plan stage. Upon reflection, the large cut at the intersection of Logan Drive and Grandview should have trees, rather than the indicated shrubs, planted in the bench at the top of the rock wall. These must be irrigated if their survival is to be guaranteed. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the modification of the intersection location as recommended by Public Works. 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That all relevant conditions of P A88-013 and P A88-070 shall remain in effect. 3) That the erosion control plan for the cut slope indicate trees, of approximately 10' in height to be planted in drilled planters on the terraced areas PA90-168 Ed Houghton Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report August 14, 1990 Page 4 (8 I.r~t ~".q ''"<--:; ~g~) instead of the shrubs proposed, but that some form of ground cover still be incorporated in the landscaping plan. Such plan to indicate irrigation for the planted areas. Tree selection to be done in concurrence with recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission. PA90-168 Ed Houghton Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report August 14, 1990 Page 5 (1 i..1J ....'7.~ 28Remnrandu~~: August 8, 1990 ijf 0; John Fregonese, Planning Director steven Hall, Public Works Director ....j).IVl.~ JIf rom: ~ubjett: Logan Drive Subdivision street Intersection During the original hearing for the proposed sUbdivision, Jim Olson and I made a recommendation to move the proposed intersection about 100 feet so that the intersections of the proposed Logan Drive, Grandview Drive and Scenic Drive coincided with each other as much as possible. This was approved by the Planning commission. I still strongly recommend that the intersection of Logan Drive be left in place as approved by the Planning Commission, and as now being constructed. There are several reasons for this recommendation. First, national standards* recommend intersections be separated by a minimum of 200 feet, but 300 feet is desirable. Second, those same standards recommend that the grade of the street approach to the intersection not exceed 5 percent where practical. Third, the sight distance from the original location was practically non-existent for traffic approaching from the west on Scenic Drive. This proposal gives the best potential for sight distance on all legs of the intersection, although not optimum. This compromise is a reality that has to be accepted in cities such as Ashland which has steep terrain. The reason for the recommended change in the location was based on these three factors, and my judgement as a professional engineer that the intersection would function better on an overall basis for the entire community. By placing the access at the point originally proposed, an intersection distance of less than 100 feet would be created and there would not be a possibility of placing a relatively flat "landing" at the intersection with Scenic Drive. In the case of snow or ice, the approved intersection will function better because of several issues. The intersection grades are relatively flat and sight distances will be at their optimum for that intersection. Also, there is more opportunity to escape the intersection because of the location of the intersections. In the original proposal, a right angle intersection was proposed which would have a relatively steep grade at the intersection with scenic Drive. ?o , _.." ," :"'\, <) ( . ~\ John Fregonese August 8, 1990 Page Two I believe we would no doubt see some vehicles over the bank on the north side of Scenic in extreme snow and ice conditions. The design of Logan Drive also includes stabilization and protection for the steep slopes. The cut banks will not remain the raw rock cut that is currently visible. I have attached a copy of the cross section in the cut area. The lower terrace will be a block wall similar to that constructed on upper Terrace street recently, and the upper terrace will be a rock wall similar to that used on Phase I of this project along Scenic Drive. Trees and shrubs will be placed in the bench between the upper and lower terrace areas. The slope from Logan Drive to Scenic Drive will be protected by lanscapefabric such as a jute net. The high cut bank on Logan Drive at Grandview Drive is a continuation of the cut bank which exists on Grandview Drive. The cut bank on Grandview is less stark in appearance because of natural vegetation existing on the old cut slope. As with many intersections in Ashland, a "best compromise" has to be made knowing that the ideal conditions cannot be met. I strongly recommend that the Planning Commission approve the road as currently designed. cc: Jim Olson Assistant City Engineer encl: Typical Cross-section * "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" produced by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. t9\ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .., ~ 4llI . ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ C;) ~ It).., C3 ~~ ~ ~i t.:> ~ca ~ ~~ ~ I ~ j~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ V) ~ ~ ~ e G it ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ':" ....~. .j ~ ~ ~ ~ .. '. . !", .. Cl U ~tJ ~i IQ~ e~ ~ ~e ..., ~!u ~~ .~tj~ tJ~~ :.'t ~ ~~~ ~~~ ef5~ ~E~ ~~I.. .. Ie) itf j~e ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii: ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ tJ ~ .~ ? ~ Ctj .. '" 6:r .LI}.:J ~ ....: ;; ~ f... Ct) ~ ~ ~~ e ~ ~ Ct) ~ ~ I( ~ ~ ~ :s:~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ it ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tJ~ tj i ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ :................:.... \\ \ , \ : , : ~ ',.';j , \" '''''''' :~i"" ,"" "'" '[" """"''''': """" . . . . . . . . ........... . . ". ... ..........;... 10' '0... ~................r.... . :........... . . . .. . . . . . .~. . . . . . . . . . . . .....:...... ........ .....:.... ...: .. ..... IO" j..........:....t.... o 0 o . . . o . . 0 . . . . . . C/) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~C;) . ~ ~~~~ ~ e~.. ~ ~ :-.:~ ..... ~ ~~ ~ i~~~ ~kJ~ ~ ~U~ e e ~ ~ l3~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ Ctj ~~i~ ~~lt ~ l<<.: ~~ ~ ........~....... . ;. 0 . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . .~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . ......... .'~: ......0.....0.. or:...... ~. . . . . . . . .; . . . . .. 0 .. . . .. 0.: .. .. .. 0 . . . . . ....... . . . ~ . . " .. .. ... .. .. .} . ...... I ..... ....... ....:... . . . . . .. . . ... .~ .. ..... ..10. ...... II...~.. ......:... . ......~....... . ........ ....!... .. ... ... ...;.. .. ... .... ~ " . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .1.. II) . ~ ~ "-..J I" 1:\ !:l {~ ~ Ili !:l ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ \t -.J " ~ ~ ~ !:l ~"{ "{~~. h~~II)~ "~ I..!t ~ \J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !iJ ~ II: ~ ~ .~ " :'t \:l :>. \J .. " ~ . 9: [lj "{ ~ H:i;t: I.. ~ -.J ti III ~ II: ... :..~~ ~fa~~~~" \t~ tl~ III \J ~ h l:l ~ Ii: ~ . ~ '-i ti~ !:l I l:l "~\J \:l ~ 't ~ ...;;! ~ ~ \J t ~ I ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ [lj iij !t ~ ~ .. Ii] \II . 1Ij. !l: II:~, ~~s -.J!iJ~~~~~ ~~ II)I/)~ :.. H ~" ~ h ~ "{ ~ \t "{ '-i ~ N:S C:l ~ I:J :'t ~ ~ ;l: ~ !:i :so" (j [~" ...... ~~~ ~ I/) ~ ;j...:.. ~ ~ \II ... I/) \J ""i~ ~ '-i ~ ~ ~ III (j ;:\ r::\ ~ '-i ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fa~~ \J~a ~~~..,,~~ 18 -..J~:.. . ~ ~ ~ fa ~ -..J ~ ~ h ~ ~ ill r::\ ~ !.. ... ~ !:II.. . ~~ t-..J~ ~;:\I..~\J[" ~~ ~'-!:l!t r::\ ~ .. III :!l ~ -.J ~ Iii ~!..~ !ii. ~ h ~ " p ~ "'i: ~\tl:l ~ ~ ~ IIj ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ h I 9:!l: !l:'" ~ tl!l: l:l R 'l I:l ~:s~ II: ~!t !Ii ~ -..J !( (j I.. ::j !.i. !ii~"{ ~ ~ ~ ~:s ~ ~ . ~ "{ ~ ~ iri ~~ll} l:lllj ~ ~ \t ~ ~ ~ It ~ ~ ~ ~ i~"{ ~ ~ ~ G ~ "{ "{ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II: IIjI.. ... ~ "i ~ ";l: $: ~ "{ ~ i;; ~ il:i \Ii I.: \oj ~ ~ R l:l t !:1 ~ ~~~ ~ tI) ~ ~ ~. t-t " 4 ~ .. ~ ~lU~J l.1 t.i . fJ~ (".>, ~- ":.~" :::fb Roger Rauble & Associates P. o. Box 1252 Ashland, OR 97520 (503) 482-0563 August 7, 1990 James H. Olson Asst. City Engineer City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 RE: stop Work Order on Logan Drive, Phase II Dear Jim Thank you for your letter of July 27, 1990, explaining the stop Work Order on Logan Drive, Phase II, and further your letter of August 8, 1990, allowing progress on the Underground Work. I am very concerned about the implication of this stop Work Order. Please review the enclosed plans (the Approved Final Plan and the Approved Development Plan) and nbte that the actual change in the functional opening of the intersection, the center of the mouth of the intersection, is approximately 20 feet, not 60 feet as indicated on the Notice of Public Hearing (copy enclosed). This seems like a relatively minor real change from a conceptual plan when considering the intent displayed in the on the Approved Final Plan (identical to the Outline'plan which was subject to two public hearings). Does this mean that every minor change encountered during construction is subject to appeal by anyone? who makes the decision that the change is great enough to stop the work and go to a public hearing? The City Attorney? I wonder, in this case, if he was somewhat misinformed by the error in the magnitude of the numbers? Is it possible to get a written interpretation from the City Attorney specific to this case and prior to the scheduled public hearing, August 14, 1990? I would like to better understand the basis of the stop Work! for your help. ~3 ! ~: ~~~ :0'''';, '~.. ~~:J HOWSER & MUNSELL PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 807 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD POST OFFICE BOX 840 THOMAS C. HOWSER GLENN H. MUNSELL JUDITH H. UHERBELAU. ASHLAND. OREGON 97520 .5031 482-1511 C5031 482-2821 FAX C5031 773-5325 OF COUNSEL RICHARD C. COTTLE "ALSO ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA July 27, 1990 HAND DELIVERED City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Attention: steve Hall, Public Works Director ~'ohn McLaughl in, Planning Department Phil Arnold, City Council Brian Almquist, City Manager Re: Our File No. 8849 Gentlemen: We are representing Dr. and Mrs. Steve Barnett at 182 Scenic Drive. We have been dealing with Mr. Salter and Mr. McLaughlin regarding a substantial but offically unapproved change in the location of Logan Drive near the intersection of Scenic and Grandview. The Barnetts found out about the change in the publicly published plans on Monday. They started protesting that morning. They spoke to everyone they thought would have some influence as they were concerned about the substantial danger presented by the change. I was authorized to file a lawsuit and obtain a re- straining order if work continued: however, I now find that Mr. Salter has recommended there be a hearing on the matter and that a stop work order be issued immediately. We are, accordingly, withholding filing of our lawsuit on the basis that work will not progress any further. However, if a stop work is not issued by 5:00 p.m. today, we intend to seek injunctive relief and damages on Monday. Sincerely yours, HOWSER & MUNSELL Professional Corporation ~C-.~ -r-:- Thomas C. Howser TCH:t/20:64 cc: Dr. and Mrs. Barnett 8vf " I (..}~ ,?.?) .;........,'" '-::;;;; RONALD L. SALTER ATTORNEY AT LAW 94 THIRD STREET ASHLAND. OREGON 97520 (503) 482.4215 July 31, 1990 Mr. John McLaughlin Associate Planner City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Ed Houghton - Changes in Tentative Sub-Division Plan Dear Mac: On July 31, 1990, Ed Houghton was in concerning the City's stopping of his sub-division. The question is raised as to why he cannot be allowed to continue wi th work on portions of the sub-division which could not conceivably be affected by the subject of the public hearing scheduled for August 14, 1990. Particularly in light of the fact that the changes in the sub-division were after the tentative plan was approved1:u~ caused by the City, I believe that the Ci ty should carefully consider allowing him to proceed on the unaffected areas. This is by letter as you were not in on this Tuesday. I am leaving on noon on Wednesday for City business and thus, if you wish to discuss this, lets do so Wednesday morning. Ve truly yours, R~ALD L. ~ City Attorney RLS/kr cc: Mr. Steve Hall Mr. Brian Almquist P.S. Jim Olson tells me that water and perhaps part of the sewer lines could go ahead. RLS ~5 r-:p~..,~\~:t~' j (p- I) /1\( ADHlll!STRATlVE HEARING ~ ~. ~~~',:: ~9/ -to P / -:,::' + It C...., C or-' \...?, .-J __ I. \ Y.-.J REQUEST O,\TE: 1- 12- 88 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE..-X_ 3 9 1 [3.. 8 A ~ ---n,.::H- ~ 91:) ,.) PROJECT LOCATION ~E.~ \c.. ~ C~~:it:::>VI~0 ~G, '"-'-~"--) PHONE: 48?-OS-b~ C~"-~-1 t::c.c:; Q::.. ~ l<J...u~-LlE" )....1 APPLICANT:~~~ 1 ~D TYPE OF PROJECT: p_.u...~, ****************************************************************************************** (For staff use only) ~C .. I... y.; ~ _.~";f1" ....')' ., rr~~:~~cr:.? . 3: ~ .-, . /.) . CONFERENCE...DA T E ;,'~::'r,' #...:..;;;.!t;~;.;..(.....,...;,..., T Ir-1E . t~ PLAC E . -U t:'....Y'-yl..L. 'r"', ~.............. '....... "~ ..~.,~~'"~._~l:.~..,...~.nw.r:tT . . I ,.1 ."OEPARTttENT ,.'::.4'.'1'.:~ J;i'~':p.... 1:':..;...,.,....;-:....':';. -....(.. -- . ,. :7:":..O;,!":.T "YLA~~..'-)1.:L~j: .' *******~********************************************.k************************************* DEPARTMENT COM~ENTS / - 'z. - 88 __.____________._.________ p,. o~ j .(' du pe.-k.:' d?__-.l..L:L t, - f.:::; t"<;- ::~""~';'''-' ..- 0/ V"~ & "e J/~ ,r l.u~ --aC.. ;Srt"/J;,r J),,;, Je . _ ..~~~S.S.lbLz-~!'~~~~;]~tLj ~.~:sfr~.J.,.~...shau./c:i'"",~f1.:..o.e~~'N-r.sh,l'l;~ _~~ea. t;,;k1::J.",,,,,t; rn--. .......ik, "':.""pu~~-h4"""'iy)k,. ~"cJ /~ '" si'--~'5~.~",...h ."",--=< 1..t!i<Q..~~U~H.;""""d ~~.J._.~ ,...{;...,..... _JA~'~~!.~6 "..~.;ijhj.D.-lt!',...),_:...<.:D,: ~'.~~~u~,.-Dy; :.~..r:.~;;.:i.tL~ p~"J.,~ f'" . u //. rJ". /'..'. -"_ .:-. ,'.:~ , -.....f ~,::, ~".- _'.J'J .":_ " ..::..:.. /. ! ..- ~ .. '-. r .. . .-/' -5),-:.,... &..-C/Y :1).; ['/:,., ~~;~'';/~ 6/U/};', / J.,. '-../ __.1...~~_ Lltt:J::::t- - .L.LC.!~ J-r- J __ .-<;~/. -c:.:!.L --.-_---- - -r-.-C . /} . - ~/ '1 j - / ,". ~ . ! _-'=:!:!.:__._:5LCLLL..r-}..6' L(.Ls_.-O..!:L___...:..t:.':;,..__~~~__ ..L~ I = .-.-~ I ~:/ .../ ---bl t") ~ .-:::- ,-.I ___t1L{.J_~-J-y (Jf) I: ...)._ l.!:. ~ CL.Lc.:J...1t14-.~4 ~2.l_...:iJ.}x :~ -._.L...L4-i-:f.:'~- G. .' fA )~ ,/ -.' tA) ; rJ (,? ~j.'l O~i-tl -h, '._ Ldf..{~.___SI vI r' ~ ) ~, /ic. ~ -' '-"" BI') ();~J~ ho /~~ s /,..;J-..:' {"'~- .J... / ' I ,. t> ; :/. ~rm.JWfg~~'J ..~jJY.:!L;q;;;..,!,'ff!" ;)0 (~~~} ..:. :)' '. . ... . ~ . I . ~.. ,~ @, August 12, 1990 TO; Ashland Planning Commission RE: Planning Action 90-168 My name is Tom Miller. My address is 207 Sleepy Hollow Drive, Ashland. I work for the contractor who was excavating Logan Driv~ I have been a grade checker for the past eight years. According to the surveyor stakes on this project, the~e is an approximate 32% grade in 25 feet, 50 feet away from the intersection of Scenic Drive. This starts at station 1086 to 11 + 11. The reason I was checking this particular station was because there was a question in my bosses mind about t~ess of the fL c:: Miller f? 1ft r . .Ii ~7 . \. f~~. ...~ .....~.., 0) August 14, 1990 To: Planning Commission From: Crissy Barnett Re: PA 90-168 Below is briefly the process my husband and I went through in order to obtain a stop work order for Logan Drive. Friday - 4:30 pm July 20, 1990 Heavy machinary was clearing across the street from our home. We assumed it was clearing for a home site. Out of curiosity, my husband went to talk with the construction workers. To his surprise, the workers told hime it was not for ~ home site, but they were excavating for a city street. To the best of our memory the plan we approved two years ago had the street further south on Scenic. Monday - 8:30 am July 23, 1990 PLANNING DEPARTMENT: I ask to see the approved map for Logan Drive. Planning did not have a copy said to go to Engineering. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: Ask for the same map and was given one marked Final Plan. At that point, I wen.t home to see if there was a discrepancy in the Final Plan location of Logan Drive and what was actually being excavated. And there was. PUBLIC WORKS: Made an appointment to see Steve Hall that afternoon. In our meeting I explained the discrepancy and that Lininger was now in the process of excavating Logan Drive He said the street location had been changed upon Public Works and Engineering recommen- dations. I asked if it had been approved and he said yes. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: I went directly back to Engineering to see if Jim Olson was in. I explained the same situation and discrepancy to Mr. Olson who at that time pulled a different map showing the change in location of Logan Drive. He also said it had been approved. I said "guess I'm out of luck,thenll and he agreed. /5 ",.- '" '.'-- :" f!) '..j petition to Oppose Modification of Logan Drive We, the undersigned, oppose Logan Drive as it is now being constructed. If Logan Drive cannot be intersected into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner we oppose the entire proposed subdivision. Name Address Signature '2. 0 ,;:l.. 7 CJ I ,-' " <; .LJz) \ \ ~c.. _ . - ~'-C-<' \ ,- \J J/ ( ~-) \ l,-l~\... \. '- .; l \.. \. '"- - C.-:... /' ,.. 7 ~ f 1('7f ;~ T., 'SH.t/1MJ) . , ""' ;.7 " ,. ":":.} ~~;) Petition to Oppose Modification of Logan Drive We, the undersigned, oppose Logan Drive as it is now being constructed. If Logan Drive cannot be intersected into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner we oppose the entire proposed subdivision. Name Address Signature . /</ j- t' "11- ~Z-:r flII s . Cfla,k ~M)G / ;" . . ') ( . ( ..;7,' /, ( V / .- - . 1. ./71 /1 1 (J L61 Lhv .'0 ~ f. /b t. 1&4,., CJ .550 j/Jf C- /1{ (' ,1 t" ( y. 1-- "~(~.,f/ /-l .J. //, .-... . :;. 567 ~c e vt l fc.. ~- , c:::> L'O/71~ , J/a/~ . J -, .-- ,'\ /.... ...1, ,,',,7; ') .~ 02 30 .( ut' \ztctl ~)'1&LY70 (.~.~ ......,,1' E...lP:". :. ~ '....., . \.. .' Petition to Oppose Modification of Logan Drive We, the undersigned, oppose Logan Drive as it is now being constructed. If Logan Drive cannot be intersected into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner we oppose the entire proposed subdivision. Name Address Signature 'Il$-~ '~--f\ ~1; f__ ) ,. ".t' -; /. ~ L., I -- - ~ . . I f:. /! -: ! :./:; - -:-/--- ) '---I, L ;: / ' ------ L---:'':''~ , '1 .,' ,,,/ .., ,-:- , '- r-,'.; ~ .(;./.:. -~ '. /: / :-"., //~ :,/t, , /'.( '. - 1 ,... / j"~"'~' - - - ---- ".' /' /' . ,: :.' " ..r .,- " / .. .~.. ..~ .... ; .. . ! I \ .'.. '. 't '\ { r .. : \ ,.' ;1,. .. ./ ' " '. J <'J 1 , ~, . ~I ~- -- I I / ~'/l ~.." L. r~ '1. i--..//' ( , .. , . '/~ ~\.. i '. I - " . I '. "..ct .,-1, \.l'...1/-- f':'-: /.. ~ '. . I, I \ 1'.\ _" ' "\ 'I =-.J / i\. ; 'I-- L rr-\ ._.r:r-1 \ j ,L .' -:' '. I ~" ".- 'X'/ ' , .... i' . ~ ," . I . . .I /.. I :- ~ ......'- t".' 'w'!,!, \c.'_ ;.8 //1 '- ~r ,. . ::"'~v,'; . '1- 1-,"' Ashland Planning' Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe iLtersection even more dangerous and conjested. It crpates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. ..-: Signed: ~:..~ Date: 'g - 7 -70 ~(~ ~ Address: <::;0 s ~chJ ~ A- skie-o{ ( o~. 7r .r-\::J 3~ (....il} (g Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reev~luated. Signed: {~ !/t1-~7FJ( (/o~ F~/<" Date: Address: ~?J10 /c2r d/o,6 ;frU ~ n~ ...? 4~.. ~:. t. ,- "tt '''~:Y I"~,'!\ f~U Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It ma~es an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It c~eat~s a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire :L- ~UbdWn =- to~ed. I. ~~ " 0 - 2- VIAl"'. 01A. ~ J, /~t: ~;-.' t j) ~ .__ . jl~'" l...s )2j~ lV~ ~. VCJ ~ Signed: g -) - ?U t~rrS UJ~J-wOd c! {k~ O}L Q7S-W Date: '3 Lf ... 'Ig, (J '~9?~; .:..;;.i. .... . Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signed: 4.,.d('2){l{~~f''L/ Date: &1; Ito Address: /77 LL'b~)O~/G J du,;e, 6zu/1d(/~t'~~ ~uj ,;. jt1'1;{ *t~, lO{(<'U (,~ t(I7,...ft~ J il j)'o /~d IJ al'~ )/761.&t:.bl.u ~:f5{~' ~t~i ~/u'; /r()~~[. ti~~~.L /ldiK hL7J jI,U2--- /Jhz.<--- t'a~b~<j. ~ ./[~/'j..h.65 /' 35 f.'t ., ',' ..' . -'i"\ ...;. .::...~ " .':'y Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. We would also like to know why something hasn't been done about the intersection of Church and Scenic which was a condition for the approval of this subdivision. ~\c <:'1. ( , .'.) . ,.__J> ,-,... ". \:::~~) Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Sce~ic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. 71/. Signed: Date: Address: a. " :Z~6 SCOA,C ^ A l-Jr. · sf.. ()~ ~ ?>S-~C) t/ .. ", f-9 ~fc) ~s . f.~._~) (.~') o Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signed: )'J)~~~~~?7 Z-J~0to-h ~ J / J) ". /-:", J (1 J? '-.J u' ~,-,--c.-) t:. L ().-t?L-l.. <,-'-C; Da te: t"C{JL..:t <7 -r::l.. /91 0 Address: ~B .' ':, ":~ t. '\-, )D~:' ".'; ;J . '.. Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signed: c;s -Ct ~cr D Address: / I ~ Scent- c 1)~ A?~~t~& [Or<. Ci-Z5W Date: J( \>'-:1- ;;,~0 !J;" ,.... ~ ", [{~',A: ) '.!..;;,~; Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signet1~.A~/ U(;~-vJ e ~~~~~ ' -------~ . Date: '1 ~vt<Y-t / ILJ1() Address: ~ 7D ':V~~c/ &. &L:;yf-vec~~ 0 ~ I have been dismayed to observe what has happened at the proposed Logan Drive intersection with Scenic Drive. This has always been a difficult intersection to negotiate safely, and bringing another road into the intersection adds significantly to the hazard. There is also another issue involved which is related to development guidelines in this community. At a time when land use and Open Space plans are at the forefront of much discussion I am alreafY troubled to see so much housing development taking place on some~our open, lovely, and once unblemished land. And insult is added to injury when access to these developments could so scar the land, and pro(~ed without proper city authorization. c;7\~/~ L(6 /~:~~~\ I .\"'0 ~~~ ('""'.': "'-:", Ashland Planp.ing Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signed: j\ ~q ,v-,,-"l 1\1l.(J-.-'-~ 'so"" '.' '."," \ Da te : 1\ '- '. \' ( \ I (Ct, c\l--> Address: :-:-> r :", , \' _," ..' \.:.J -"">(:: L.' ,--, ('< '- .-..'- - '..' -,' ,. '. , . --" Cf( t-n~ , I7.~:' ,-' .... 1'0""'" ;,..,' .. . , Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the followin~ reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conj ested. It crea tes. a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and liffiited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signed Date: Address: /b Co>/D ~ ~ luWJ~ q1J .. ~O-4S ~h 1M- s;,~G ~'L~( -s1op <;~l4f) aJ- ~ ~~ "1- ~\J-A.:.w.;~. g~~~ ~lMCUV\~~ (, '- · r ~ ~0 ~ { ~t~. /j{J ~r- ~ J ~., r ~ ~8--- 0 lu.--r- v'l q ~. L 3~ J" L1J ~~l" ... ,':'~:I ~. ,~~/ ,'~?~" . \:~~_:-; Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersec~ion even more dangerous and conjested. It create3 a blind intersection with no visibility .of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signed:~ 73~ c ~ CQo~-"- -'- Address:h1 S~~ !-tC;~Jl OR- 'f7?2-0 Date: [.,1 :3 !~i~~ ' ~t.,~ I.,......... tU) Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signed: .lJ( .l;. Urs ~it 1l/d..{A4 ~ Date: 18/q 0 Afr~ss "-tolo ~~ ~~J Lf~ i~\~ :~j:i1:5i 'j' . . ~ .~.. . - . -', Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It ~re~tes a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Date: 11ft) %~'?I{~&~ v'-~ ~ ZblJ ~;tt;. ~ Address: Signed: f15 ~, :jjr ~:~~: ) Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, . I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Address: /,- . -1- 1) I fyjv ,,5r- !151~/ [)~XJ j~uu o?; ~ cL ~ cJIm~J2- a~ d:i ~-1J liJ b. 7 07) <- /1ILa-73;; ~ t)L fl iJr-J luX ~ /0 /LlLA?L(~ Z). T2J i) ,mNfft ~3 Da te : Jjo )to LfCo ,1~1a ~ 1't~:- f'.'.' ,. ..,tl, o.!'":: ". \~r; Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. jJJL7:C.-UL---- . Signed: · h~ ~~~ Date: ID ~<1l--;tj9~ Address: 3bl SL,~C)JA/~utJ ~W ((j(( 9f~ L(J .rrs) l~. ~~:\1 -' ......... (~:.::. : .L:) Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signed: ~ I w-t~ Date: 8 -( 3,-90 Address: 2... <s,o 14-'~1--~, s4,~, fl-:r ~r ~,e-f I -(l..,~ +l. tV i- 'u t.... c> e \N2./T' i -.I: i-<-.2 f 0 IV S t"b ~ 6-o~r ~l~p.. po {e,,--,- t-[:~ ~~ ~ Q... > f-L_ ~ ~ ~ JL,~ ~ - <1L it, r<L c.-~ ~' l/' ~ f-c, "'--c-e S Lv c.~ ~ V'--<-us--6 ~ <<-~ ~~ ~~ -to- ~ t:L le i--l~", ~~~ v~ 3. + 0-......J.. CI.-(;l ~~dLVf?..; LJ~.A. ~ ~s H-l J:r<of. -6, k~. ~ ~ a:t- (~-~ ~p-.~ 'J QNI'V"'<-~' Q~ l'-<J>~6 4- ~i- ^ ,. ~t~ :,'t.'I~ :.....~J~~ 1,.1,:, 'J" ." ... --...: Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. jt/~ =tl,.#lit uez,L I' Date: 75/r{l fit) Address: l1te- ll9<' 11 uil 't y"t( {(( 'c + 0 t W-Ql,lt/ (t 12; l;+~-"l1 a (((}1)h.J (C() Cl g~~t{) c ;> / -:5 7. ')- S/cevl; L D y,:"(" }W(~,~,~f 01 Lo~ Dv ~/-vL91..J411 (9,{l ~' 1nctc ~~ IV (..- , ~~) S, (7 ~"11 I: (<tvt-( Sc e"V'l. -t <- Dy~ f( 5ct..+e- i~lf'V- St2J ,<c-.1 'Me(?, 4 blJ,Jl#oJ s,,--H il1 (5) ('\ ~- i{)j;} 1/1I~-- v i1 ,; :\';"'t.~ .. .....,:1 .. ~ '..,\;.' ,~ . ~(~:~::_:; ,.~~ ~> Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conOested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility 'of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signed: '-'\I\..~ 'D. ~ \t- Date: Address: ~ \D,191() t~)-.. .. VVo~~ ~~d" ~~r7 AI ~t~ 1 ~ ~ ?'7 1/.i"-<-4' rr;:>-l~ 1 P'S-/6U ?nP ~" / ,-r1~:t4t ~~,- "/14 ~/ c<acn r.?~~'- /'-r7 /M r~ ~/h,A ~H1 ~I/P n-<~U-pf ~N'7 n---f ~ I~d yr1'rn ~. AI~ /Vh?d ~ -f)/'7 ~~f ~~711 f)-- 4?-r// ' 56 :"~J, I. ,~:;r IoR,j" t"",'>. ( :" '. ., .~ Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signed: Address: II 01. ~ ~ P:- a~ ~ Date: 9- /0 - 96' d) fAMuo ~);~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;;L ~~. 51 l~~; '.:tN/ I' '. . " . . Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose,the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drlve for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existinq unsafe intersection even ~ore dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind lntersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Date: 0~~ Address: ~&CJ cd~>/ 1k /tJ ~J ~~/ ~~ A'- ~ ~- d tI0?d- /~~j~~tf;'/r~~d'~C/ ~ ~ ~ ;:~7:/ ~r!~~~~~~~~~~ ~~/f~P~/tJ~/~~~ ~//~r/ r {iM ~<e.d AWd/ ~ ~~:r ~~ #-ar- ~ _#~t9-~1 ~~~~.t1 / ~J/~ 5g (,~~ I', "','11 '~.cli.l :/~~~) Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signed~~Z-- ~ Address: Date: J - I 0 -10 ;)(P~ ~ C0.~ 5'3 /n"~ ' "I': ~', ,~:::.~~'.~. .: '. J .~ Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan.Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets ln a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. . U:~/~ ~ SIgned: ~ A tJ' ( ~ro-JI ~ (2tJ1A.'J//~ Date: $~/~ Address: S6S'"' f)~CJ7/9/G!) g T ;20 ~' ~e~y S y - J) c;A.1rv.;) V;[/1/ IJ1I3"' /.:j ,,11\/ U.vL// vIflS4/'e' f( o4b tV HI c. #- ) s 654R- IN J /I- /f;hrJtJIE~~Yln'C- It. t) /f [) () ~ 4// /;:J I S. ~- ~ /f 4 e..- 7:e l/ Gt-C S 4) I tie. UIt/ SJ911TLj tIIl!:eJ t:tJ#7 ;fCtI.L#wf)S . /J19VtJIl/ T f%1j,J 1)/11Cc- / T Vv~{)1( ii/At /}tJ rt:J ~r #}I ':E 01( /I (!.ttlJ~C u; LtJltl( 6jJf-~'r( r9 rJ ' j) !T / S jc// T/L'/~5T; ~A/rl13{L V- .v e/ tG I m t,;t,,/ /-fL- IJ '.J V9 pI{/' IJf} C- we; u L.)) /+ SO 0.IC- /cJO yJ:t9~ <;!/tJ0Y7'2 .. .... tA'/ffl'l;- ,CLtJ s/ t1~ OC("vlC/ VU~/# 5(,( I' (~iJl ,; t-'1' .{'-.... ;': < .~; ":.-./ Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even mere dangerous an~ conjested. It cr€~tes a hlind intersection with no visibility of traffic on SceQic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signed: =-~~1- ~~1 Date: ~~llj lit) Address: ~ 1 s ~ CbJ0 / Jr~J~~~~ ~y ~e6~r:- (JAJ ~ -~ ~ -:- ~LdZ ~ /f/U .~ ~/~ ~~~~/ r;:?u~ dV~ 11 , r /-+ I d~ ~ dl ~r~? ~j;J~1 5S "'i~~. l "t.,,} . ::r:~ ?1,:D~~ 4~ ':..;/ Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe inters~ction,even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signed: ~"u.R ~ Date: 8/(1/90 Address: it3 It, 6r~,:~ Lflt. ~ ~ W~ ~ -fo o-J.J ~ iM. tV~ ~ ~ NA'~cfl..lur-~ c.o ~ ~ 6o-~;~ ~ tJlfY'll..-L'GI.l lUJ-j . ~ ~ Gr~;W / S c.eM.-IC ;~ uvJ-J. bz.. t>'- ~ JL ~ ; (\ tJ ~ ' S~~J.u, > ~ ~ 'iH- ~TD? ~'DV' dY1 S~"L ~ 11 ,v~ l)W~ClL II L_ ..r ~'c. (i:r N-OllA hj ~ Jot.u.. j d;Y\ tM TV v , _ &Ji~ +4 ~ s<:hr'1"~ 7v"..,J) ~ 6Y~~ sdvp &'8"" ~ t"L ~'t\J ~ tv.) ~ ~ -10 --f-.wr. ~ to ~ --/k -}r~'c. 5b \~:h. ( '!P!~ \. ~ f:J:l ")' ~"" ; , Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashl~nd, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signed: P?o,.nt:J~/J'a.,. ~~..../~ -<31~~~ Da te: 8' -/3 - 9 u Address: .s ( d'c...c."'- ~ <- D'L, "3 f^ -e.. j.,.. 1\ ~: 0 J2- W ~ \ \ W 1\ \ ~ \ Y'--\-u · TIu ~n~~'i-;~p---\ YU-~k 4~~ A~ti-o ~ , 51 it':r~ "!;r.;~.' Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, 0, \ {?,'~ ~:':':JI I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signed: (!cYlunc~ tlC&~f lIr:-t,ot) Date: g--/~". (}c"";) I .... Address: ':J~ :hJ'( (i I !(l \ (- , ,~. ....'1 .'-, . c.t c:!' { C.t. U ' " / ",if f (. , " I ; (0 c?6C? ct&la~. (..) I ,{ /\ ( Ire.; ( I....~ /. \, 1 ; ~~'" \~; ) ~,/') ~ ti .,.:~ -' 58' .~t~~ I-~~ " 'II'. ~\j\' ':;:1:;) (:;,{,;';~ "~Y Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even mor~ dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind intersection with no visibility of traffic on Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandview. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to be reevaluated. Signed: ~~ J( -nt8# -- Date: ~/~ i9 () Address: 7/ 5e.bJIL- jJ,-- /}-~/t1N" olZ ?7J~ 51 .~:,'" (.,~9 " , .~.. --'" 1 ~- Lv L/ '1/ Ashland Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 To Whom It May Concern, I oppose the Final Plan Modification for the proposed Logan Drive for the following reasons: 1. It makes an existing unsafe intersection even more dangerous and conjested. It creates a blind in t e r s e c t ion '\0[ i t h no vis i b i 1 i t Y 0 f t r ,,1 f f i con. Scenic Drive and limited visibility of Grandvi~w. 2. If Logan Drive cannot be brought into existing city streets in a safe and legal manner the entire subdivision needs to b~ reevalua~e'::J tJr...L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~?b tY2fr'cL UJn4.; ~ , Signed: 1 Date: P-(;;V!fv Address: 41 J>~ 24t/c [) r: /)~( f?~~ ~.() .' ~ c:,~~f:\ I' J.... , AU'}.U/.Ji 8, 1990 '\1 (] J 'HcL ! J._ .:: I'l.. flO.1.Il..;, I a.I.L}'l.-U.Jl. A4~0 eLate 7> lmute'l. . ~ C. ,~irt 5t. &,Iz.imuL, O~ 97520 Dealt .."h. ,'nc1aup~Li.n.: rt iA i.n.C/ted.i.bl.eto bel.Leve .tftat no one knw uha1. waA ':j,0i.Jtf. on. lte"auLi..rt-; tJ.,.e p'topo~ed. LoJ,aIl. l)ltLve. !law could. i'UA ltave ,;.appened??? ':Iou WcJuld. no:/:. be :loo /tapp,! .if- you li..ved. .in. ,t~e a'l.ea. [i I.tXl4 bad enou')it uA~ tAe bou.levaAd. ~top ~LfA t.tXl4 fTtJved ,?wm 5 cen1..c .to '~ltandv1..eJU ail o.~ a ~t..dd.en. One da,'f lAe \ /.Ji.:fn ~ on'j.'U1.flfi.vi...ew,tJ",e ne'<.t da,'1 Lt' /.J 1.ocat,ed pMt ultelte Lol).an. l)uve iA :f-Oi..n..} 1:.0 be. TltiA iA aD~uui. ~ eg,attdl.ed/.J 0 t tlz. e "Ile.laii..vel.!f nw nrxii...f..i...ca twn :1:.0 /.Jtate' /.J .!.and ~ e 1.aw", 1..1 vau we''l.e on tlte bal.l., fIOU LWulrl. have /tea.li..1ed ultat a :J",a'J~ tAiA iA! '3eilt1- :/.00 btM!J O.'l. W1Jll.tt1:1e iA unacceptaDle ,lolt ex.CU/.Je4. 'fau a'te fJ.4lD 40 t}l..<Lt t./'l.e4e t~i.n.}/.J can 6 e avoLd.ed. Vo~ 1t~1and.ll!/.M lmat happeM, tAe' excavation hG/J C/teated a rTVMielt. BLf deal. - tlz.e'te' /.J a /.J top OMeJt, but 1..t I/.J lJAe the c.a;z.;t belolte tlz.e ho.'l4e - uhat dJJ 'JOU p1.an. .to do to Il.ectit.'f tiiA me4/.J..... So iAe 'j,-wde wil.l. be .tAe 15 pe'l.cen.t, !1r1X.L7UlTl a.l1.oUJed. and 6 pe'l.cent uAe'te it meeiA 5ceni..c and. :f/1O.!1d.vieuJ - lJ>>u&.lfOu ",leMe expl.ai.n. to me uAat wLl1. happen uAen .u. /.JftOlJJ4? l),?~n':/:. aI1.!fone i.n.. ,!jOU'l. depa'l.tment coMi.de,'l. at ,leG/Jt :tAu G/Jpect, O/t.i.A A4~i.al1d 40 rrtJne'f hUJ'lJ}VfiAe'l- don'.t ca"l.e uAat deve1.opeA/.J dJJ??? I'd 4U'l.e lJAe to hea'l. {'l.om !fJU l'l.e,.a'lIiUt1- t.}UA. T~iA Iteail.'f up4ef4 me and. I jJMt can.'t beli.eve U. . ~ ()~ Oa/l.'/"jIl. rcz:::: /89 We4:bwod, "A41..!.and 97520 (;( ~.. ':l:;f~;""~"." l... .; ~ . ';-:~'-'I '.--.~~~~r.~.. ":':':.;:~.:.' , iP~~;-::; .,;.~;:,'::'.:';r:;\~,n~~~ ";,~.;~~': ,,'~{V' '/;;.}'t\ ,;' ~3,;"'.;~" :':-f~\,~~f:'\'~~~7:.::::;(:("/::';'.:T~;.,::tD:, < ,.....-...', t.(',,"\ '\ ~;01 Il"~ t;.:1.",l \1V Au"tMt 8, /990 .'. i1}t. :JoAn r ll.et}PrteAe rp l.o.nni.N; 0 iAecwll. ;;n c. .'?hin. 5 t. ~h1.anJ, OR 97520 Dealt i1k. F Il.e/}Ofl~ e: ~. : I (Q!tell.e aile fPJU uAen. .im{JoJd.ant deciA1..oM rrwt be rmde. [Vlt,'f welten.' 1:. fIOU i..n.voJ.ved uAen. Lo'}an. DlZi..ve l.lXUJ fYWP04ed.? tVt"a;t welte you dtJ.Ln.'}????? lJ OU CVte p<Wito make 4U1l.e /.J,iupi..d. e/Z/tO/t~ allen.' t rra1.e .l.1A.e 1:h.iA. BeLrt} urtOJIXlIte, too bUA'f Oil. havi.n.J 4orneone elAe 4ee :lo Lt alte UIU1.cceptahte. and 1..ame exCUAeA. It'4 dwr6 miAtakeA l.i.ke ih.iA ih.at C/teate miA'fLv.i.Jtj4 ahoutth.~ competen.ae ottlte fJ.I.an.tWu;. DepaA-hne"Lf.. , ' The pub1.Lc Iteruti.ntf nex.f. T uehi.a!f wi.!.l. aCCJJmp1..iA,t" uAat...... The hill haA aiA.eai.!f b em ~aC/ted, i..t' -d a nreM - ufw.t {lP-d-di.bl.e -d')l.ut.i.nn. can. MW be naie. lJou Cf1.MJ)t blame .llte devetJpe't - Lt iA up .to lJO) in nuke 4U1te tAeAe ~ do no:t happen. ,Vo one 4e~ .to UXUlt 1:0 trJhe i:h.e 61.ame on.!:Ai.A. WL1..l. fPJu??? ItbjOIt dewwM .i..n. flew undeve.W ped aIleM 4ltould. be a pttwnLty. wLtlt y.ou. ~ rp J.an.nin:;, 0 iAeci:oll. we ci.ti..leJM (JI Mt1.and denrJJl1i ,'IOU do !pUll. job and. not :1.avetltin]4 Li..ketiM happen.. '-. Can. fIOU .iJna:Ji.n.e uh.a:t a poterdLa1 diAaAte/l. iw .in.te/14ection. iA? Thi.rr#A at :t1U..~ /.Jcen.e: Lt i.4 LClJ and ~ alte apfJIWacUJu;, f..;wm 5cen.Lc and (jll.W1!ivLew and tAMe Q/te ca'l4 comiA} ~'tOm Loq,an. - (j?loH, 5:'Yli.tl...... A lleApoMe wLl.1. be a,op'leci.ated. ~~~ Daltl.:pt.- L , /81 tV eAhwod. A4l,,1.anJ, OR 975:lJ -- G:J (1?7~1 \ ,f.,~t" . .....'.4 I~ t, ,',1 ~J August 9, 1990 Ashland Planning Dept. City Hall 20 East Main Ashland, OR. 97520 RE: Planning Action 90-168 We oppose the relocation of Logan Drive under this planning action for the following reasons: 1. Carryinq Capacity. The original approval and layout of Logan Drive was based on an 18-lot carrying capacity. Besides the ongoing Houghton development, pre-application for a separate development above Houghton anticipates access from Logan Drive. (Refer to pre-application filed by John Barton). This is not part of the original planning record or approval regarding Logan Drive. Additional development that relies on Logan Drive for access WILL IMPACT the Logan Drive intersection proposed by this planning action, and will require further Final Plan Modificiations. Before any further consideration of this relocation, the City staff needs to update its traffic analysis in light of a second developer making plans to use Logan Drive to access 3 to 8 homes IN ADDITION to the 18-lot Houghton subdivision. It is also suggested that a reassessment of the traffic analysis compare car counts to historic accounts of seasonal road conditions on this steep hillside. 2. Safety. The proposed location of the Logan Drive intersection with Scenic Drive is potentially dangerous to cars, bikes, pedestrians, and a home in the intersection. The home just below the proposed intersectiun could be damaged if traffic off Logan Drive is unable to stop at the intersection during icy periods. From a view of safety liability, the original location of this intersection is certainly the common sense choice. 3. Aesthetics. A prefab rock wall does not fit into the historic character of the neighborhood. Scenic Drive is in the Historic District, and deserves a better looking, and more functional intersection design than the one proposed in this planning action. , C\C\ 0' ~ fl/l~ DI1A'vVh- Mark and Cici Brown 171 Church street Ashland, Oregon 91520 &3 f~) ~eciaL E-didf;,.,s 683 Washington · Ashland, OR · 97520-3705 · (503) 488-1468 '~~~) Will Hershman Wednesday, AugustS, 1990 To: John Mclaughlin Associate Planner Planning Department City of Ashland Dear Mr. Mclaughlin, I want to thank you for acting in the best interests of the neighborhood regarding the halting of construction of Mr. Ed Houghton's development on Scenic near Grandview. The recent excavation has truly desecrated the hillside by removing all the vegetation including trees and plant life as well as creating a traffic hazard. I am sure that Mr. Houghton did not intend to endanger anyone with his development of his property, but there is a clear and present danger of traction in the winter as well as what seems to be a high risk of accidents occurring from the roads into and out of his development regarding traffic from Grand View and Scenic. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of our community. Sincerely, Wdt ~~ Will Her~man 575 Nyla Lane Ashland bt1 iV~ . "~~I,It. - ~1.:}' (?:~) ,\'" ,t' :..J..i August 10, 1990 Mr. John Fregonese Planning Department City Hall 20 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 Dear John: The purpose of this letter is to comment on the Final Plan Modification at the intersection of Scenic Drive and Grandview Drive, and request this letter be made a part of the record of PA90-168 before the Ashland Planning Commission with respect to the hearing scheduled for August 14, 1990. We have resided at 270 Skycrest Drive since 1956, and have used Grandview Drive for access and egress. We can testify from our own personal knowledge that the portion of Grandview Drive from its intersection with Sunnyview down to the point where it feeds into Scenic Drive, is an extremely dangerous, narrow, unpaved road; one which is bearing an ever increasing traffic volume. During the winter there are times when this road is our only practical route due to the steep pitch of Wimer Street. On a day when it snows or even when there is heavy rain and the road is muddy, it is not at all unusual to see cars in the ditch or stuck. Many times we have slid into the Grandview-Scenic intersection on the snow and now with the new stop sign on Grandview and the removal of the stop sign on Scenic, the intersection, even without the addition of the proposed Logan Drive, has suddenly increased the hazard of using Grandview. We were dismayed when we saw what the developer of the property at the Grandview-Scenic intersection has done with the location of Logan Drive, not only with respect to putting additional traffic into what is essentially a blind intersection, but what he has done to the landscape. In our experience as Ashland residents since 1946, this is the worst treatment of th~ land we have seen. It is hard to imagine what the City was thinking &5 -2- (~fj /.) I:' ." "- when this was allowed to happen. We are familiar with the Open Space Program which is being promoted and yet this treatment of the land is allowed within only a few hundred yards of the very areas you wish to preserve for their visual values. We strongly feel the Ashland Planning Commission should take the necessary action to require that the land be returned to its original state as nearly as possible given the tremendous amount of material which has been removed. Further, we urge that the original access be required and that the number of homesites to be served by Logan Drive be specified and made a part of this planning action so that other developers will not be able to use this street as a means of delivering ad- ditional vehicle traffic into what is already a most dangerous intersection. It is most certainly to be hoped that the Planning Commission will reach a conclusion which will not contribute to the visual blight nor to the added traffic danger at this site. It is our understanding that the granting of this new street without a public hearing was a violation of the law, and,it is also to be hoped that the Commission will not merely "cover its tracks", but will have the courage to take equitable action and consider those of us who live in the area. Yours very truly, ;t~((y~ Robert B. Reinholdt 1n~~3J'~ Mar ret H. Reinholdt 270 Skycrest Drive Ashland, OR 97520 fr/f' .1...,:) ~:.'ilo\l \~y /. ~) "'~./ 7/30/90 Call from Christopher Larke 188 scenic Drive He received notice of a public hearing on PA90-168 and does not object to the modification, but is afraid there will be projects finished before notification and public hearing. ~,1 (' .~I' ""'~, \.. t .., {:',':, ':.::.;" ordinance criteria the objection is based on also precludes your right or appeal. Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect' to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on the 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1990 AT 7:00 P.M. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. l'be ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide surocient specificity to arrord the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUnA). Failure to specify which A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no ,cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the slaf( report will be available for Inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City lIall, 20 PAst Main, Ashland, OR 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chairshall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. If you have any questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Ilall, at 488- 5305. '\ "fA ~'j - l ~::2- Or,~.....1 o-....,e CH.MJ 1$ uJi ~p e;.p 6 '" ,<iii \JI~ ~\J 0< (" -Q , ~..v "t S PLANNING ACTION 89-192 is a request for Outline Plan Modification to modify the . phasing of a previously approved 18 lot subdivision. Phase 2 is proposed to be changed fron lone to two phases. No change in the number of lots approved is proposed. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5P; Assessor's tJ1ap #: 8M; Tax Lot: 6900. APPLICANT: Ed H,oughton he (~;j;~ --~ Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION onthe 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1989 AT 7:00 P.M. atthe ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. ~'.f.'... ~:< ", . . ,~ ordinance criteria the objectj;n is based on also precludes your right of appeal. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available Cor inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the staff report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials arc available at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chairshall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that Cailure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sureicient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUDA). Failure to specify which If you have any questions or comments concerning this request, please feel Cree to contact Susan Yates of the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 488- 5305. flMSO II 0' "..r'4 ~ L..r . t ~ " \;' ~ ", PLANNING ACTION 89-192 is a request for Final Plan Modification to modify the phasing of a previously approved 18 lot subdivision. Phase 2 is proposed to be changed from one to two phases. No change in the number of lots approved is proposed. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5P; Assessor's Map #: 8M; Tax Lot: 6900. APPLICANT: Ed Houghton !ocr ,(~~ t.:.@. The Ashland Planning Department preliminarily approved this request on October 18, 1989. This action will be reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board at 9 am - on November 8, 1989, at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main St., Ashland, OR. No Public Testimonv Is allowed atthls review. t~-}~~ there will be no Dubli;}'~stimOnY Dermitted. If a hearing is requested, It will be scheduled for the following month. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to request, AT NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning Commission on this action. To exercise this right, a WRITTEN request must be received in the Planning Department, 20 East Main St., priorto 3 pm on October 30, 1989. "YOU do not SPECIFlCALl. Y REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING by the time and date stated above. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Failure to specify which ordinance criteria the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the staff report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520.. Iryou have any questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 488-5305. flMSO II ~ "- '"" '-or ,.. ftt) --ii;--~ ~~\ '-or .. (ij .. \ \ \ \ -..10. .'t': '-or ,. :i :'t :~/_. ,-or, , ::.. - :. ._!."-:~!!_!~...._~/ ' ... ,-or, ~ ~ Q ~. S '" PLANNING ACTION 89-192 is a request for Final Plan Modification to modify the phasing of a previously approved 18 lot subdivision. Phase 2 is proposed to be changed from one to two phases. No change in the number of lots approved is proposed. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5P; Assessor's Map #: 8AA; Tax Lot: 6900. APPLICANT: Ed Houghton to /t~~ . 'i~,t~:\, The Ashland Planning Dep~ti1hent preliminarily approved this re~~lst on July 26, 1989. Questions concerning this request should be directed to the Ashland Planning Department located in the City Hall, or by calling 488-5305. This request will be reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board at its AUGUST 9, 1989 MEETING AT 8:00 A.M. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main, Ashland, OR. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to request, AT NO CHARGE, a hearing before the Ashland Planning Commission on this item. To exercise this right, a written request must be received in the Planning Department prior to 3:00 p.m. on August 7, 1989. However, if you do not specifically request a public hearing by the time and date stated above, there will be no public testimony permitted before the Planning Commission. If a public hearing is requested, it will be scheduled for the following month. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, precludes your right of appeal. Failure to specify which ordinance criteria the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal. If you have any questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 488-5305. ,b~.../, \ ~.., ~)'- \ . . ~J\I \ .--.. - "' . . ._ e-... . . '__ _ '. ope'" - _'_ . .", . '. -.. .. "--;;-'.. -.. 5Fc e : -"- .- r--"1 . '. .- = ~::. ~=.'.- _. :_~. f;~.~;~;.. PLANNING ACTION 89-152 is a request for Modification of Final Plan for Phase I of Logan Drive Subdivision, located southwest of the intersection of Scenic and Grandview Drives. Modification involves the change in approved driveway locations, from a common drive for lots 3 and 4 and one single drive for lot 5. to two single drives off of Scenic Drive for lots 3 and 4 and lot 5 will access off of Logan Drive. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5 P; Assessor's Map #: 8AA; Tax Lot: 6900. -t ( APPLICANT: Ed Houghton ( HI , ,(:.)~ '-. . ,:)) , ...; .,~1 "'" ~, ".,~~ ~.I- '<~.. , " .~.,. " ~~ ~ ,~ '. '. ,C~..~"., .ty A PLANNED UN I T I LO ,/ "~;:2::~';.' ~'~.l 8 ",/ ."'~ " ............ . ~"" " ,//' J~/' ,~ ~ ,\1-'~ . ~ LOT'8 : ~, ,. . . NE 11 PRope ////~.~ ....... ,/ ...... ", . LOT 4 ,""'-..... ~~" ,- GO " " "" " r.~ '\ ,; h' ~ //' LOT 6 LOT 6 ... o LOT '7 ,",I. .'_ .,: ...~. .* ~ LOT '6 o ;\----~-;o. LOT '4 CVJ \~ ..~ \ LOT ,S ~ ~, --1\( LOT ,.2 n I, ,'~ ~ ,'If I ,''#....tJ LOT' , ,'~ ... I. '6 . _~~!'.. _8 SMT /~ _________l . .. I . . \., ......... ~.~ ....~ - .----." '" "- '.>. LOT '6 LOT '0 : ~ l~7~~~_:\ _---.- LOT 9 N ell LOT 8 Cll I) 112 123 109 -------- .... ~".._.......~ . I ..~ . I' "'...... '--1"'" ., : '~'~: . :'~1'. "t'. i. 'i " "l 1.' ~,.... . . . LOT 3 LOT , ~ ~ Cl t;' ... >. ~ II: 7) f ~ :;-;:\ <~.~.tl . .. .~ ':- ~ ."'\ ..... ".~ .......,... 15 r -\ The Ashland Planni(",-,,::' Department preliminar ilyCJproved this request on May 25, 1988. . Questions concerning this request should be directed to the Ashland Planning Department located in the City Hall, or by calling 488-5305. This approval will not become effective until the action is reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission at its .June 8, 1988 meeting at 2:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, l175 E. Main street, Ashland, Oregon. Any affected property or resident has a right to request, AT NO CHARGE, a hearing before the Ashland Planning Commission on this item. To exercise.this right, a written request must be received in the Planning Department prior to 3:00 p.m. on June 6, 1988. However, if you do not specifically request a public hearing by the time and date stated above, ther~ will be no public testimony permitted before the Planning Commis~iop. If a public hearing is requested, it will be scheduled for the 'following month. . The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, precludes your right of appeal. Failure to specify which ordinance criteria the 0bjection is based on also precludes your right of appeal. . If you have any questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning riepartment, city Hall,' at 488-5305. .o~ \, ~4~1' \ . . ~N \ \ ~ {'-I C I T Y o F ASHLAND C IT Y HAL L /;,';.'..' I \. . ...... . ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 telephone (code 503) 482-3211 RE: Planning Action # 88-070 Dear Ed and JoAnn' Ho~ghton On May 25 I 1988, , the Ashland Planning Department administratively ~pproved your request for Final Plan Approval . located EX Southwest of intersection of Scenic & Grandview Drives I' I Assessor's Map # 391E08AA I tax lot(s) 6900 I ! It was revie\oJed by I of June 8, 19881 I hearing, therefor4 becoming The ~conditions oJ approval the circled items below: the Ashland Planning Commission at its meeting and was riot called up f or a public effective immediately are enclosed; in addition, please note; 1. A final map p epared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one y ar of the above approval date; otherwise, you must reapply. ! I i :i: ! 2. Approval is v lid for a period of one Y7ar only. G. All condition1s imposed by the PlanninJ' Commission fully met befdre an occupancy permit may be issued. I 'I must be Please feel free o call me. at 488-5305 if ,YO? have any questions. I Enclosure : ! I I I' i ! I ~~, ~' : ! j } J, ., ,(. .. , ~::,~ . . ': 1 ~{~jL/ ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS & ORDERS .June 8, 1988 PLANNING ACTION 88-070 is a request for Final Plan Approval for an 18-unit subdivi~ion under the Performance Standards Option for the property located southwest of the intersection of Scenic and I . Grandview Drive~. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5-P; Assessor's Map #: 8AA; Tax Lot #: 6900.' I , APPLICANT: Ed and JoAnn Houghton. ! , : On Wednesday, M~y 25, 1988, at held in the Pla~ning Office to attendance werelthe applicant, Kauble, John Fregonese serving Planner John McLaughlin. I Fregonese revie~ed the materials submitted with the application, including an erosion control plan, tree management plan, and a draft copy of the CC&R's for the subdivision. He said that the erosion control plan appeared to address most' concerns. However, he said some parts needed to be clarified. concerning the dry masonry rock wall on cut slo~es, Fregonese said that some parameters n~eded to be established. He said that the wall should be required on all cuts with a slope st~eper than 1:2 and over 3' in 'height. Also that the maximum height ?f the wall should be 6', at!which point it should be terraced. After discussion from Houghton, and Kauble, there was agreement on th s point. Further, Fregonese stated that the erosion control plan di1 not address the use of a netting material on fill slopes as required by the condition imposed!during outline plan approval. Kaubie stated that he did not believe that the netting was necessary. Fre~onese said that there have been problems stabilizing fill slopes pri9r to them being revegetated,1 and this would help in the stabilization process. Also, the erosion control plan did not adequately addr+ss the vegetation of fill slopes to ensure that erosion could be controlled. Fregonese said that the netting would still be requir d. ' . i i 11 a.m., an administrative hearing'was review this application. In Ed Houghton, his engineer Roger as Hearings .Officer, and Associate: Houghton stated sidewalks modif approval requir issuance of bui efficient to in Occupancy on ea I ree management plan, Fregonese said that a map of all ld need to be prepared and that the Staff Advisor site and review the map prior to signature on the : I that he would like to see'tJe condition concerning ed. Specifically, the condition from outline plan' d that the sidewalks be installed prior to the ding permits. He believed that it would be more tall sidewalks prior to issuance of a certificate of h house, allowing each lot to determine the curb cut I I concerning the "save" trees wo would go to the Final Plat. 1 I; I I. (0 , 4.. (.. ...x; ._~~~~~~. ''-,: '":' ."~\W.'. ..:....;i .~.~ location, and not have the sidewalk damaged during home construction. Fregonese agreed and stated that the condition would be modified. Fregonese found that the submitted materials, with the discussed modifications, met the criteria for Final Plan Approval. Based on our overall conclusions and on the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action 88-070. Further, if anyone or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 88-070 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That the building envelopes be shown on the final plat. 2) That the building envelopes for lot 7, 9, 12, 13, and 17 be modified such that they have a minimum 15' setback from the private drive. 3) That a map be filed indicating "save" trees as part of the Tree Management. Plan, and that a site inspection be conducted prior to signature of the final plat, and that the developer or property owners shall not remove trees designated as "save" trees on the approved Tree Managemet Plan. 4) That, sidewalks be installed on each lot prior to the issuance of a cfrtificate of Occupancy for each lot. I . 5) Thatithe erosion control plan be. modified such that a dry masonry rock wall, or its functional equivalent, be required on all cuts with siopes steeper than 1:2 and higher than 3', with a maximum height ~f 6'. Also, that netting be required on fill slopes, and that a specific seed mix for revegetating these slopes be provided prior to the commencement of construction. 6) Thatlall applicable conditions f~om Outline Plan Approval shall remain in effect. If no appeal is filed, this request will become final when reviewed by the Ashland lanning Commission on Jun~ 8, 1988. , \ ~ /r jpy . / Date Joh , Ii Ii ,i ili I I II' I 'II . ,~ 2 'I: 71 t ~'. f+~~i ",..-,. ~emorandum April 13, 1988 (7~ ':,2:; mn: Jff rnm: John Fregonese, Planning Director Dire~tor;1.TV1~ . Steven M. Hall, Public Works ~ubjett: Scenic/Grandview P.U.D. - PAl 88-013 Traffic Report Information has been researched as to the traffic counts and accidents in the area of Scenic Drive and Church street. Attached is an exhibit indicating traffic counts taken within the last week. The average daily traffic on Scenic Drive is 480 vehicles north of Church,418 south of Church and 528 on Church Street. There have been eight recorded accidents within the vicinity with no accidents recorded on Church and Scenic. The accidents include one at Scenic and Maple, one at Scenic and Coolidge, five near Wimer and Scenic, and one at Grandview and Scenic. All of the accidents were attributed to driver error with the possible exception of the one at Grandview and Scenic. A map is attached for your reference indicating those accidents. In doing a rough analysis of the streets and the configurations, each street should be able to easily handle 500-700 vehicles per hour which is far more than the present capacity on a daily basis. Finally, the City Engineering Division has been trying to acquire right of way for an improvement on the corner of Scenic and Church to widen the radius on the northeasterly corner. I have attached a copy of the engineering drawing for that project. This project would eliminate the clear vision problem for most people approaching from the south to the current stop sign at Scenic and Church. There has been some difficulty in acquiring the right of way from the property owner which has delayed this project to this point in time. The Traffic Safety Commission considered this intersection in relation to the growth issues and has recommended to the Council that the developer be responsible for the cost of constructing this improvement with the City absorbing the engineering costs. There may be, however, potential legal problems of requiring a developer to place improvements to correct an existing problem. 1e t.~~~ ,~::.~,.~ ....y @j)':6' "..l.IO, :~:~>:'t Scenic/Grandview P.U.D. - P.A.* 88-013 April 13, 1988 Page Two With this improvement, the impact on the adjacent streets would be minimal with the proposed 18 lot subdivision. Based on the City's Comprehensive Plan, the limitation on collectors such as Scenic is 3,000 vehicles per day and on residential streets, 800 vehicles per day. The additional 18 homes would provide an additional 100 vehicles per day which would not exceed those guidelines nor the current capacity of those streets. Of those 100 vehicles per day, based on Comprehensive Plan assumptions, approximately 25% of the traffic would be going to the Medford area via wimer and Manzanita and 75% of the traffic would be internal to various sites within Ashland. In summary, with the one improvement, the intersections have adequate capacity and are relatively safe intersections based on similar situations throughout the City where steep grades are encountered. cc: Brian Almquist Jim Olson encls: Traffic counts Improvement drawing 1L{ mn: JIf rnm: ~ubjett: II 0lJI ~ I [ill , , IOH 10 ~ - ~emornndum April 7, 1988 Steve Hall, John Fregonese Jim RObe:f'~Engineering Tech. II Scenic Drive Traffic Counts Attached are the results of the traffic counts taken the last week of March and the first week of April. They are shown as average daily traffic of both lanes and directions. As a note of interest, compared to 1978 counts, Noh Hill and Grandview Drive have remained the same, Church Street and Scenic Drive, North of Church, have increased and Scenic Drive traffic, North of Grandview, has decreased. Go I · t'" ".' ,....'..1 . . ~- '1:.. -, f'). .. ."', ,,; .-: L VILEY J I ST. -1 w "" ~ MAPLE ::J <r: I- >- -1 < ::) :> ASHLAND Z w COMMUNITY --1 -I HOSPITAL <t Q.. ~ <[ x: ~ ..... ~ a.. - A~~ 1980 ~ 1986 ~ k, (() 5J (() 3' g{ C I T Y o F ASHLAND CI T Y HAL L "' I" ;:\ ,'. )0_.. ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 telephone (code 503) "82-3211 RE: Planning Action # 88-013 MAY 13 1988 Dear Ed and Joann Houghton At its meeting of March 10, 1988 , the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for an outline approval and variance for the property located at S.W. intersection of Scenic.. & Grandview Assessor's_ map # 391E08A~ Tax Lot(s) 6900 of Fact and the Commission's Orders are enclosed. Findings Please note" the following circled items: 1. A final map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid. 10 A final plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date ~,Of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid. 3. There is a 15 day appeal per iod which must elapse before a Building Permit may be issued. G All of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met before an occupancy permit may be issued. 5. Planning Commission approval is valid for a period of one year only, after which time a new application would have to be sub- mitted. Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions. JMc/sa Enclosure(s) 8'- ! :~~: ~r;, /--. l::.:, ,:.:~ L":, ~J tv' ~.-.> ; ...-.,-. .:!.'~.'v, \.....~. ? .:..~>~. BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #88-013, A REQUEST FOR) OUTLINE APPROVAL FOR AN 18 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOP- ) MENT UNDER THE PERFORMACE STANDARDS OPTION ON APPROXI- ) MATELY 6.3 ACRES, AND A VARIANCE FOR A PUBLIC STREET IN ) EXCESS OF 15% GRADE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHWEST ) OF THE INTERSECTION OF SCENIC AND GRANDVIEW DRIVES. ) APPLICANT: ED AND JOANN HOUGHTON ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS -------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Taxlot 6900 of 39 1E 8AA is located southwest of the intersection of Scenic and Grandview Drives and is zoned R-1-7.5P, Single Family Residential Zoning. 2) The applicant is requesting an Outline Plan Approval for an 18 unit single family development under the Performance. Standards option on approximately 6.3 acres and a Variance for a public street in excess of 15% grade. 3) criteria for the approval of an Outline Plan are found in section 18.88.030 of Ashland's Municipal Code. Conditions for approval state that all requirements in this section be met. criteria for approval of a Variance are found in Chapter 18.100 of Ashland's Municipal Code. These criteria establish: 1) that a hardship must be demonstrated by the applicant showing that there are unique cir- cumstances which apply to this property which are not ordinarily found elsewhere in the zone, 2) that the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the applicant's property rights, 3) that the granting of the application will not under the circumstances create a negative impact on the development of the ad- jacent uses, 4) that the circumstances have not been self-imposed. 4) The Planning commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on February 10, 1988, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the Outline Plan subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. The Commission, however, denied the request for a Variance. Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland, finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. FINDINGS 1.1 The Planning Commission hereby incorporates by reference the Staff Report and accompanying slides noted as "Exhibit A and 1 85 cr,'? ..) '"-,,,. ~.: ) \.........-. ~ "04._.1 B", the findings submitted by the applicant noted as "Exhibit C" the site Plan submitted by the applicant noted as "Exhibit D" the memorandum from City Engineer, Jim Olson, noted as "Exhibit E:' and the minutes from the public hearing on this proposal held on ' February 10, 1987, noted as "Exhibit F". SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning commission finds that the proposed request for Outline Plan Approval for an 18 unit single family development under the Performance Standards option on approximately 6.3 acres is in compliance with the Performance Standards options Chapter 18.88. Significant site improvements will be involved as part of general upgarding of the site. Also, water runoff from the development site can be controlled through proper maintenance of the current urban storm drainage system. The development is outside the water moratorium area defined by the city, and should not \ affect normal water supply demand. The Planning Commission believes that the attached conditions will adequately address staff's concerns regarding hillside erosion, and feels that the proposal is in compliance with all other applicable city ordinances. 2.3 The Plannig Commission finds that the proposed request for a Variance for a public street in excess of 15% grade is not in compliance with the Variance Chapter 18.100. The applicant failed to meet the burden of proof by not presenting "unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere." Also, based on the recommendation submitted by city engineers, which recommended a maximum grade.of 15 percent, the applicant's request for a variance is denied. 2.4 The Commission hereby adopts the applicant's. findings as submitted. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Outline Plan Approval of 18 single family homes under the Performance Standards options is an appropriate one. The Planning Commission, however, feels that the applicant has not met the burden of proof regarding the request for a variance, therefore, this request is denied. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #88-013 with regards to the request for Outline Plan Approval. Further, if anyone or more of the 2 3L( (~ i'-../ f{':.' { .. ; \;.,2.; '{.'-~ '--/ conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #88-013 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That a complete erosion control plan be submitted for review prior to Final Plan approval and that the Erosion Control Plan be incorporated as part of the approval. The plan should address the control of erosion along street cuts through the use of dry masonry rock walls or their functional equivalent, and that the fill slopes be treated with erosion control netting/mat with appropriate vegetation. Also, that the plan incorporate terracing the road cuts and fills to further reduce erosion. The plan is to also include erosion control measures to be taken during the construction of the development and the dwelling units by the contractors. 2) That the street grade not exceed 15% for any portion of the improved city street, and that the cul-de-sac portion not exceed 10%. Also, that the grade be limited to 6% for a distance of 35' from Scenic Drive. 3) That a tree management plan be prepared for the existing trees of at least 6" dbh and included as part of the final plan approval. 4) That the final plan show driveway accesses for all lots, and include all on-street parking spaces. 5) That sidewalks be installed prior to the issuance of building permits on the lots, and street trees before the certificate of occupancy for the individual units. 6) That solar envelopes be provided on the final plat for lots 1-4 and 7-8. 7) That the private drive accessing lots 16,17, and 18 be increased in width to 20' of paved surface and that the private drive accessing lots 7 and 8 be increased to 15' of paved surface. . 8) That all necessary easements for sewer, water, electric, and streets be provided as necessary. 9) That hydrants be located as required by the Ashland Fire Department and operational prior to construction on the lots not presently served by the existing hydrants. 10) That all requirements of the Ashland Building Department be met concerning engineered foundations and retaining walls for proposed dwelling units. 11) That all roofing materials be non-combustible and that this be noted in the CC&R's for the development. Also, that a shaded fuel break be provided around all structures as required for Wildfire Lands under the Physical and Environmental Constraints 3 85 @ii:-';' .: ,f, .' . ~.~\ \;.:, '\ ';' ~~~~ (~.' "f~'" .. .~"::~) ,:. '~:;:V \~~) Ordinance. 12) That all drainage from roofs and other impervious surfaces be routed to streets and storm drains and not allowed to flow undirected over the natural land surface. 13) That a 3 foot wide sidewalk be installed along Scenic Drive along with a wall for erosion control as oulined in condition 1. 14) The elbow along Scenic Drive be smoothed out to allow for better vision clearance. 15) Double driveways to be installed along scenic Drive. 3;;0 Ie-Ii Date 4 ........,~. ~ go (~"\ i . ...: \ j .~..:.,.. '-- i!1 I f<.\ '~'-L. ,: \.-..'v;/ AMENDMENT TO FINDINGS FOR PA 88-013 Change the wording to Condition 1 to read as follows: n...street cuts through the use of dry masonry rock walls or their functional equivilant that would ensure that a permanent and attractive surface will prevent sloughing, and that the fill slopes be treated..." . ,:.. . . I~ 's':. .:. . '.:' ',,:>"<:i;'~i~1,6/}t,;f~:';:~~f,f~:~i:~!'t~~;~:~~;~1J:r~~]'~{l~~IffK . . . ;. ~ ..... . . . . . . . ',: :~':/':'/;;?X;~'~:~;}g;W~>~~'~:/- .~.",. ,i~\~ f;::V . . J .....~-'" STAFF REPORT February 10, 1988 PLANNING ACTION: 88-013 APPLICANT: Ed and Joann Houghton LOCATION: 6.3 acres southwest of the intersection of scenic and Grandview streets. ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-10-P COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: single Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20, 18.88, 18.100 REQUEST: outline Plan Approval for an 18 unit single family development under the Performance Standards option and a Variance for a public street with grade in excess of 15%, but not exceeding 18%. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: A 40-unit condominium-style planned Unit Development on this and an adjacent parcel was approved by the Planning commission in 1972. It was appealed to the city council, referred back to the Planning commission, and the application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant. In October, 1978, the Planning commission approved a 33- unit condominium-style Planned Unit Development on this an an adjacent parcel. After a length appeal process to the city council, dealing primarily with adequate access, the council upheld the approval in April, 1979. Final plan approval for phase I, 10 units, was granted in January, 1980. A six-month extension of this approval was granted in August, 1980. Another extension, until July 1982, was granted by the Commission in September, 1981. However, the applicants were required to re-design the development to comply with the recently adopted Performance standards. In October, 1982, the planning Commission granted another extension until July, 1983. In september 1983, the commission denied a request for an extension until July, 1984. There have been no other planning actions of record on this parcel. 1 86 .', i'~;'\ \;'lli:, ...:ly (~.~ ~. r,"..'J ...:.;;../ 2) Detailed Description of the site and Proposal: The parcel is approximately 6.3 acres in area and located southwest of the intersection of scenic and Grandview Drives. Frontage along scenic Drive is approximately 690'. The lot slopes steeply from west to east, having a fall from the east property line to the west of approximately 150'. Slopes on the lots range from near 50% on some portions of the lots in the eastern portion of the development to 20% for the lots along scenic Drive near the Nob Hill intersection. North slopes, relating to solar access, average near 0% for most lots. vegetation is primarily low growing natural brush and grasses, with a some mature trees on the upper portion of the lot. As with other hillside developments, the soils here are primarilY composed of granite parent material and subject to sever erosion if exposed. There is an existing dwelling on the site which will be incorporated into the development. The proposed road will be located generally along the existing driveway. The proposal calls for the development of 18 lots for detached single-family residences. The base density, without bonus points, for this parcel would allow for 18.9 lots. Therefore, no density bonuses are being requested. A public street will be developed to access the lots not fronting on scenic Drive. 13 units will be accessed by this street, which will have a 28' paved surface allowing for parking on one side. Lots 16, 17, and 18 will be accessed by a private drive as will Lots 7 and 8. A sidewalk will be provided along one side of the street, along with street trees every 30'. Landscaped open space will be provided on each side of the street entrance onto scenic. The applicant is proposing the phase the project, with Phase I including lots 1-5 and lot 12. These are the lot presentlY abutting Scenic Drive, with the exception of 12, which is the existing dwelling served by the driveway. ~~. project ~mpact As with other previously approved developments on Ashland's steep hillsides, staff has concerns about the erosion potential of this development. Presently, the site is . covered with vegetation, stabilizing the soil. Removal of this vegetation for development of the street and drives must be carefully and with the knowledge that these actions 2 tcr .-:" (. ,.~;\ . j.f~ ....:.:l' "-:,,,", ,.~'.. ) """ can cause sever erosion that is difficult to control. Specifically there seems to be no vegetation that will be established on cut slopes, and fill slopes need careful design to be permanently stabilized. staff would recommend that a complete erosion control plan be submitted as part of final plan approval. This plan should include elements addressing the stabilization of cut slopes, which will occur-as part of the road development. Previous developments have shown that vegetative plantings are not adequate erosion control measures on these steep slopes. Staff would recommend a minimum of some form of rock wall to stabilize the slope and control the rabble of granite onto the sidewalk surface. At a minimum, erosion control netting/mat should be required to maintain the soil on the fill slopes as well. Terraced cuts should also be required every 10 vertical feet, to allow for plantings on the terraced portions to reduce down slope erosion. Lot 18 is also in the Erosive and Slope Failure Lands overlay of the Physical and Environmental Constraint Ordinance. Any development on this lot will be subject to all the requirements of the ordinance, and will be processed as a Type I planning action. Concerning the variance for the street, Staff has consulted with the city Engineering Department. A copy of their comments are included as part of this report. staff believes that their recommendations should be added as conditions of approval and that the street be maintained at a grade no greater than 15%, that the cul-de-sac have a grade no greater than 10%, and that the street have a maximum grade of 6% for a distance of 35' from scenic Drive. Also that the street entrance onto. scenic be modified as suggested. The common drive accessing lots 16, 17, and 18 is required to be 20 in width. Only 15' is shown on the plan. similarly, the drive accessing lots 7 and 8 is required to be 15' wide and only 12' of width is shown on the plans. Staff recommends that these widths be increased to the standards established by the ordinance. Overall, Staff believes that the proposal meets the requirements of the Performance standards option/ordinance. III. procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for outline plan approval for a development under the Performance standards Option are found in section 18.88.030 and are as follows: a) That the development is consistent with city plans 3 ro ~ ~2l . .':. ~ and with the stated purpose of this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinange. b) That the existing and natural features of the land have been considered in the plan of the development and important features utilized for open space and common areas. c) That the development design minimizes any adverse effect on the areas beyond the project site and that the character of the neighborhood be considered in the design of the development. d) That adequate public facilities can be provided including, but not limited to, water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, and urban storm drainage. e) That the development of the land and provision of services will not cause shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area, nor will the potential development of adjacent lands be impeded. f) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities.as proposed in the entire. g) That the total energy needs of the development have been considered and are as efficient as is economically feasible, and the maximum use is made of renewable energy sources, including solar, where practical. h) That all other applicable city Ordinances will be met by the proposal. Further, the criteria for the approval of a Variance are found in 18.100.020 and are as follows: (1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. (2) That approval of the application is necessary for the preservation of property rights. (3) That the approval of the application will not create a negative impact on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the comprehensive Plan of the city. (4) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. The applicant has presented findings addressing these criteria. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations staff recommends approval of the outline plan for scenic Grandview PUD. However, we do not recommend approval of the variance of street grade in excess of 15%, based on the 4 q( ,.....:i~ '; .'j'~\ .,~' 1t\) ,,~. recommendation of the city Engineer that the variance is not necessary. The additional cuts that are required can be effectively controlled by the combination of dry rock masonry on the cut slopes, and jute netting on the fill slopes. We recommend the following conditions be attached to the approval: 1) That a complete erosion control plan be submitted for review prior to Final Plan approval and that the Erosion control Plan be incorporated as part of the approval. The plan should address the control of erosion along street cuts through the use of dry masonry rock walls or their functional equivalent, and that the fill slopes be treated with erosion control netting/mat with appropriate vegetation. Also, that the plan incorporate terracing the road cuts and fills to further reduce erosion. The plan is to also include erosion control measures to be taken during the construction of the development and the dwelling units by the contractors. 2) That the street grade not exceed 15% for any portion of the improved city street, and that the cul-de-sac portion not exceed 10%. Also, that the grade be limited to 6% for a distance of 35' from Scenic Drive. 3) That a tree management plan be prepared for the existing trees of at least 6" dbh and included as part of the final plan approval. 4) That the final plan show driveway accesses for all lots, and include all on-street parking spaces. 5) That sidewalks be installed prior to the issuance of building permits on the lots, and street trees before the certificate of occupancy for the individual units. 6) That solar envelopes be provided on the final plat for lots 1-4 and 7-8. 7) That the private drive accessing lots 16,17, and 18 be increased in width to 20' and that the private drive accessing lots 7 and 8 be increased to 15'. 8) That all neces~ary easements for sewer, water, electric, and streets be provided as necessary. 9) That hydrants be located as required by the Ashland Fire Department and operational prior to construction on the lots not presently. served by the existing hydrants. 10) That all requirements of the Ashland Building Department be met concerning engineered foundations and retaining walls for proposed dwelling units. 5 C(2 .--.~ \11 11) That all roofing materials that this be noted in the CC&R's for that a shaded fuel break be provided as required for wildfire Lands under Environmental Constraints Ordinance. r:"''\ ,':J be non-combustible and the development. Also, around all structures the physical and 12) That all drainage from roofs and other impervious surfaces be routed to streets and storm drains and not allowed to flow undirected over the natural land surface. 6 tf3 .. .::.. . '.;: ,:1hi . ..>f..: \ <-'D'~ em or anduni~/. January 28, 1988 mo: /' , John Fregonese, John McLaughlin JIf rom: . Jim Olson, Asst. City Engineer\tJi) . ' ~ubjed; connection of Proposed Street onto Scenic Drive steve Hall and I recently viewed the proposed location of the street intended for Ed Houghton's planned unit development on Scenic Drive. The following recommendations should be considered in the design of. the street: ' 1. The location of the entrance to the Scenic-Grandview Drive intersection could be moved slightly to the west. This allows a better view' of all legs of the intersection. The bank to the west should be laid back and cleared of shrubbery to provide an un-obstructed view of Grandview and Scenic Drives to the west. 2. The street should be limited to a maximum grade of approximately 6% for a distance of 35 feet from Scenic Drive. . . ~ 3. Additional cut should be planned to limit the'street grade to. a maximum of 15%. 4. The CU1-de~shoUld be flattened to provide a maximum grade of 10%. . re( ____.__.~..._ __._.__........_.__ .____..... _..__ __..._....... ......._..... ._._._. _.___.._....__.._r.........._..._--.. ..-..---..... ~. r .";'): ..;}~ 'J.' ~~i0 .~';] Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the' ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on the 10th day of February, 1988 at 7:30 ~ at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. At such Public Hearing, any person is entitled to be heard. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, precludes your right of appeal. Failure to specify which ordinance criteria the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal. If you have any questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 488- 5305. A ~.J~ . '4,-,}' . '9N .{ -- PLANNING ACTION 88-013. is a request for Outline plan Approval for an 18 unit single family development under the perfor~ance Standards Option on approximately 6.3 acres and Variance for a public street in excess of 15% grade for the property located southwest of the intersection of Scenic and Grandview D~ives. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Resident1al~ Zoning: R-l-7.5P~ Assessor's Map i: 8AA Tax Lot: 6900. _--A.E..PT.rrANrr. ~n IV ,Toi=inn Honohton Cf5