HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-1217 Exhibit 0-1 PA 96-094
-
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
PLANNING ACTION #96-094
(ANNA HASSEL)
The following summary of issues has been prepared for review by the
City of Ashland. These issues are raised below with sufficient
specificity to allow an understanding of the issues by the City of
Ashland and the Applicant. Some of the issues raised below are
included in the "Findings of Fact for Denial" submitted by the
opposition, the Westwood Neighbors.
1. The density calculations for determining the allowable dwelling
units appears to be flawed. Lot 11 is not within the City , see #
2 below.
2. The split jurisdiction of the parcel (tax lot 902) raises
another issue. The Jackson County Land Development Ordinance
(JCLDO), Chapter 60, addresses this issue. Section 60.010(1),
JCLDO, requires that the residual portion of a subdivision
remaining under County jurisdiction conforms to the requirements of
the JCLDO.
The residual portion is zoned Forest Resource and has an 80 acre
minimum parcel size. Tax lot ,902 is presently 12.12 acres. Any
further division will, result in a parcel size which becomes more
non-conforming than the present parcel. This is not allowed by
Chap.te; 60, ~CLDO. Lot 11, the residual portion, is 4.21 acres.
3. The City of Ashland must list all of the applicable criteria
which applies to the land use application. before the City. The
notice of hearing fails to do ,so. . .
The notice of hearing states:
"That. the development meets all applicable ordinance
requirements of the City of Ashland."
See "Findings of Fact for Denial" for further discussion of this
issue.
At a minimum it would appear that the following provisions of the
City of Ashland might apply:
A. Chapter 18.62, Physical Constraints. Not addressed
B. Chapter 18.80, Subdivisions. Not addressed.
C. Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards. Partially
addressed.
D. Chapter 18.14, Woodland Residential District.
Especially Section 10.14.030(H) regarding the minimum
access drive to penetrate this area.
STA.Ff
~
E. Chapter 18.16, Rural Residential. Section l8.l6.040(C)
requires a minimum lot width of 150 feet. Lot three of
the proposed development fails to meet this standard.
These are a few of the sections of the Ashland Ordinance which
contain requirements and standards. Most of these issues have not
been addressed. There are probably many other ordinances within the
City of Ashland which have application to this development
application. It is not the responsibility of the Applicant or
Opponents to guess which ordinances have application and which
portions may apply.
Based on the above summary list of issues, it is recommended that
the decision of the Planning Commission be reversed.
The Richard Stevens Company
Richard Stevens
Agents for the Westwood Neighbors