Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-05-26 Planning MINNOTE: Anyone wishing Co speak at any P.PannLng Comm44ILon Meeting is en.eoutueged to do 'o. 1 you do w.ioh to speak, p.Pea,se laze and agek you have been iceeogwized by the Cha A, give' you& name. and comp.eete addn.e44 You wLP,2 then be ateowed to zpeah. P.Ceat4 e note that public. te6.,uvony may be tcm-i ed by the Cha-vc and nonma.P1y Ls not (J Pawed a {.etc the. pubV.c hearing hcvs been elo4 ed 1. Physical Constraints 2. Site Design and Use Standards 3. Woodland Residential 4. R -3, Multi- family, high density 5. C -1, Retail Commercial 6. R- 1:3.5, Suburban Residential District 7. M -1 Industrial District 8. E -1, Employment District 9. Solar Access 10. Street and Greenway Dedications 11. Manufactured Housing Developments 12. Off- Street Parking 13. Conditional Use Permits 14. Revisions to Minor Land Partition Ordinance I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St.,, Ashland, OR II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Special hearing of March 24, 1982 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Revised Comprehensive Plan Map B. Revised Zoning Map C. Revisions to the Land Use Ordinance D. Revised Comprehensive Plan Document ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING May 26, 1982 IV. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS: 1. PA #82 -37, Site Review for group home at 223 Fifth St. Applicants: Jackson County Board of Advocates for Severely Handicapped Adults. 2. PA #82 -38, Flag partition at 809 Clay St. Applicants: Pam /Robin Lawson 3. PA #82 -39, Site Review for restaurant conversion at 744 N. Main St. Appli- cants: Wendell Sause /John Dundas V. ADJOURNMENT CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM by Chairman Jeff Barnes in the Civic Center. Members present were Ethel Hansen, Gene Morris, Jackie Reid, Lance Pugh, and Don Greene. Christian Apenes arrived during the review of the Site Design Ordinance, at which time Reid left the meeting. Planning Director John Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch, and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker were also present. Hansen left during the Travelers' Accommodations review. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS AND ORDERS The Minutes and Findings and Orders of the Special Hearing of March 24, 1982, were approved as written. BARNES' ABSTENTION STAFF REPORT: M I N V T E S ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING May 26, 1982 Barnes opened the meeting by stating that this evening's meeting would be the culmination of months of work. He then stated he would be abstaining from voting or commenting as a Planning Commissioner on items A, B and C(1) and (3), since he had been retained as the architect for a developer. To avoid any conflicts of interest, he would be turning the meeting over to Vice Chairman Pugh. PUBLIC HEARING REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP REVISED ZONING MAP 1) Fregonese read the staff report. He noted revisions on the map which should have been included at the drafting stage. These included the finger of land off Strawberry Lane which should be RR -.5. He further noted the Studebaker property which should be included as a part of the Urban Growth Boundary and be designated as Greenway and Single -Famly Residential. He then reviewed additional revisions brought about by months of public hearing. He noted the topographic maps which had been prepared by staff. He pointed out specifically the southwest quadrant area adjacent to Long Way and suggested that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed Comprehensive Plan for this area as an interim zoning until extended studies could be made to determine the proper zoning and Comp Plan designation for the area according to the terrain. APC, 5/26,82, Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING: 1) Vince Oredson, 640 Pracht, stated he owned some property at the south end of town. He stated his 11 acres are high quality residential land and there would be no capital costs required to develop it. He added that the north interchange property proposed to be included in the Urban Growth Boundary adds 55 acres and would subsequently cost a great deal of capital to improve. He requested a special hearing be held to deal with his request. Morris asked Oredson if his property was above the irrigation ditch, and the latter replied that it was. Reid asked Oredson to show his property to the Commission on the map. Oredson did so. 2) Peter Westigard, 610 Long Way, spoke on behalf of the neighborhood affected by the development proposed on the hill above his property. His letter was entered into the record. He then showed a map of the area to the Planning Commission. 3) Gary Prickett, 1012 Pinecrest Terrace, spoke on behalf of the development in this area. He noted that the property, which is south of Long Way, had a previous zoning of 10,000 sq. ft. prior to the existing planning period. He stated his concerns regarding the slopes and the impact they may have on safe development in the area. He stated he was tying to do something positive in the neighborhood, and that the property owners have known for several months, not just two weeks as had been implied in the letter from Westigard. 4) Jeff Barnes, 611 Siskiyou Blvd., spoke on behalf of the Prickett property. He read a letter into the record. He showed the areas affected on the map and stated that the property vegetation is primarily manzanita bush, and development in the area would reduce fire hazard by thinning this brush area. He added that develop- ment for the area would be more benign and in keeping with existing conditions there. He stated that topographically it is less steep than Mark Cooper's proper- ty. He noted service connection possibilities, as well as several access routes available. 5) Morris asked Barnes to describe the proposed access choices. Barnes stated that they were Liberty St., Ashland Loop Road, and through the Ashland St. properties. 6) Fregonese asked Barnes if his proposal involved creating an island of R -1 -10 property surrounded by Woodland Residential. Barnes stated that, in his opinion, this would be proper, since there is presently information available for re- evaluation of the property with the updated topographic maps available through the City. 7) Ruth Levy, Henley Way, spoke on behalf of the affected neighbors. She stated that on January 3rd or 4th, Lewis and Prickett had been up to the property site and had told her that they were thinking of developing the area there. She stated she had been informed that there would be a meeting held on January 14, and they would be formally notified of the meeting. This, in fact, did not happen, and they were not notified. 8) Bob Alston, 831 Liberty, stated he owns 20 acres at the end of Liberty. He stated he had received no notice of change of the zoning proposed for the area. He noted he had seen a surveyor in the area and had wondered what was happening. His APC, 5/26,82, Page 2 primary conerns revolved around the fact that the area has steep ravines, creating a natural drainage system. He stated that back in 1968, the TID ditch had been gunited and no erosion control measures had been taken at this point. He added that since planning for the area had previously been blind and uncaring, there was no reason to revert back to those times, particularly with respect to rezoning the area to R -1 -10. He was concerned about the living vegetation that exists there. 9) Mary Ann Alston, 831 Liberty, supported her husband's remarks. She stated they had purchased their property a number of years ago under the assessed value because of the promise to keep it as a forest area. They have done so and have allowed the public to use the area as a park -like setting. She was afraid the property would become too valuable, and hence their taxes would be raised if the adjacent development is permitted. 10) Genevieve Kuhl, 769 Liberty, stated she was disturbed that no notice had been sent to the affected property owners. She was afraid that this proposed development would destroy the neighborhood and that traffic would be terrible. 11) Pugh asked Fregonese to review the noticing process. Fregonese responded by noting that no notices are required by law to property owners or adjacent property owners for a legislative change as is being proposed. He stated that there had been much press coverage regarding the proposed changes and numerous public hearings had been held up to this date. 12) John Shannon, 571 Henley Way, suggested that the Planning Commissioners walk the area above Long Way at some point, stating that it was very rugged terrain. Greene noted that this had been done on several field trips in the past. 13) Jack Bird, 590 Long Way, offered a rebuttal to Barnes' testimony. He stated that the proposal ignores the fact that when his neighborhood was developed it was not heavily forested as that property above Long Way, but was a dying orchard. 14) Duane Smith, 639 Prim, stated his concerns about those large areas of acreage within the City that are designated as developable land and the need for development on these lands. He noted that adjacent property owners have, and always will, object to proposed development in their private corners of the City. He felt that at this point it was important only to look at the proposal based on its merits and that the Physical Constraints Chapter of the ordinance should ensure careful development of the area. Otherwise, those mandates established by LCDC would be violated. 15) Armand Levy, 582 Henley Way, stated that there were currently 160 houses for sale today in Ashland under the Multiple Listing files alone. Noting this, he stated that there was really no critical need for more housing in the area, particularly here. 16) Louis Kroul, 580 Morton, agreed with Mr. Levy's comments. He felt there was no more housing needed in the area, especially on steep slopes when there are flat areas available for development. He stated there was a shortage of park areas within the City, and this property should be considered as such. APC, 5/26,82, Page 3 17) Barnes spoke again on behalf of Lewis and Prickett. He stated that typically there are always problems that arise for affected property owners when a proposed development comes under discussion. The only real way for those concerned citizens to stop development is to purchase the property under consideration. With respect to the allegations that there has been secrecy in the development, Barnes stated that this was not so. He stated that the boundary survey was the only survey done so far. There has been no outline plan done at the present time, and, when the outline plan is in the developmental stage, the neighbors will be invited for input at that time. He noted that this hearing was not supposed to be a format for the review of the development, but the Planning Commission was only taking public testimony at this time on the approval of the Urban Growth Boundary and the Comp Plan. He further noted that, at the time of development, not all the trees would have to come out for the design of the units anticipated. He stated that at the time of the TID cuts, no efforts had been made for revegetation, but this develop- ment would include revegetation. The public hearing was then closed for items A and B. PUBLIC HEARING REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE ORDINANCE STAFF REPORT: 1) Fregonese gave the staff report, outlining the Chamber of Commerce Committee workshops that had taken place over the past couple of months. He specifically cited the Physical Constraints section of the ordinance, outlining the revised changes proposed, including the proposal to add slope reductions to the Woodland Residential district, and adding under Section 18.62.040(G), Classifications Cumu- lative, that those restrictions applied shall pertain only to those portions of land being developed and not necessarily to the whole tax lot. 2) Under the Site Design Chapter, Fregonese reviewed the changes. He then asked whether the Commission wished to require a 20 -ft. setback along Highway 66, indicating that there was no clear direction given to the planning staff. PUBLIC HEARING: 1) Vince Oredson stated he was in favor of Fregonese's proposals. However, he stated that police power was necessary for safety regulations. Attempts to regulate the aesthetics of a development was treading on dangerous ground, and this should be left up to the applicant. He cited specifically the Landscaping requirements regulating a minimum percentage of landscaping to be provided in each zone. He felt this was going too far, and these conditions should be in the form of recommendations and suggestions. 2) Neil Benson, 363 Laurel, spoke on behalf of CPAC's recommendations to ban drive -up windows within the City. He recapped some studies that had been made, and urged the inclusion of the ban in the ordinance. 3) Duane Smith questioned the requirement that 45% of an R -1 lot be improved with landscaping. Fregonese noted that this would exempt single family residences and APC, 5/26,82, Page 4 would apply only to non residential Conditional Use Permits. He stated that al- though the economics of the times will dictate higher densities, and landscaping eats into these densities, at least in the downtown area certain developments which had utilized a good amount of landscaping, such as the JCF building, were a welcome relief. In light of the fact that there was not much land left in the commercial zone downtown, these islands of landscaping were desirable. 4) Fregonese then discussed the Woodland Residential question, noting that the changes were basically included on the second page of the ordinance. 5) Discussion ceased on the Woodland Residential zone, and Barnes resumed the chair. R -2 and R -3 Sections 1) The changes proposed included height restrictions within the R -3 zone and the other changes relating to travelers' accommodations. It was noted that staff had met with the bed and breakfast operators earlier in the day. A number of other changes were read into the record. 2) Al Wilstatter, 160 Central, congratulated the Planning Commission on its sensitivity to the R -3 areas. He pointed out how important it was that travelers' accommodations consider the residential areas adjacent to their operations. 3) Dick Kirkpatrick spoke on behalf of Mrs. Hernden, who owns property on the corner of Clay and Siskiyou. He requested that her whole tax lot be considered under the R -3 zone, instead of part of it in the R -3 and part in the R -1. Fregonese asked how he would feel about the subject parcel being considered as R -2 property. Kirkpatrick stated he felt okay about this. 4) Jim Beaver, 120 Gresham, took issue with item #5 of the proposed ordinance addition in the multiple family zones relative to travelers' accommodations which referred to Planning Commission approval for transfer of ownership. He noted the great expense which property owners had gone to in order to improve their parcels for the travelers' accommodations. He stated he would like to be able to transfer the property without Planning Commission approval if it were sold. He noted that there were enough protections already built into the ordinance, and the prospective buyers need not be approved. He felt the Planning Commission's province should be relative to the land use and not to personalities. 5) Barnes suggested the 3 -year trial period. 6) Fregonese noted it was important that conditions applied to travelers' accom- modations be consistent. Barnes asked Fregonese if he felt there were enough protections without the inclusion of item #5. Fregonese replied yes. Barnes stated that the new approvals proposed should perhaps go through the same 3 -year trial as the existing B B's had. 7) Anthony Romeo, 295 Idaho, spoke on behalf of bed and breakfast owners. He stated he had just recently gone through the scrutiny of the Planning Commission and had abided by all the restrictions and had made the appropriate changes to the property. He did not feel it would be proper to regulate the individual, since the APC, 5/26,82, Page 5 property already met the requirements. He noted this would hamper the marketability of the bed and breakfasts in Ashland. 8) Morris noted the annual review condition had always been a condition of approval for the B B's. 9) Greene noted that a review after the change of ownership would ensure the way the business is run, and not be an inspection of the owner's personality. 10) Hansen concurred, and stated that this would also be a protection for the travelers' accommodations in Ashland for the Planning Commission to support their high quality. After her comments, Hansen left. 11) Kathryn Nehrbass, 467 Scenic, stated she was the owner of a bed and breakfast. She stated this experience had been an improvement to their way of life by allowing them to stay home with their children. She stated she is currently surrounded by offices and rental units, and asked whether offices come up for annual review as well, since their impact is many -fold greater than the B B's. She felt that it was important to support small, family -owned businesses, and additional restric- tions would discourage these businesses. 12) Jack Evans, 70 Coolidge, stated that condition #5 was ambiguous, and it was important to delineate exactly what the Planning Commission had in mind. 13) Roanne Lyall, 142 N. Main, said she could live with condition 85, but she would like the 3 -year renewal clause. Relative to the sign size imposed by the changes in the ordinance, she stated that hers was 15 sq. ft., and she would prefer that as the size allowable. She stated further that the parking question comes up every year, and she has only three guest rooms. She noted that 2 Bush St., which is across the alley from her units, has 5 rental units with no parking available to them, and the tenants there use her facilities. The children from those units use her yard to play in. She added that Mrs. Laible, who lives down the alley from her, dams the mud puddles created on the unimproved alley and digs holes there as well, apparently in efforts to help drain it. She stated that paving of the alley would solve this problem. 14) Beaver stated he had no complaints with the annual review clause, but he did have problems with the lack of criteria established for condition 85. He felt this was in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. 15) In response to Beaver, Barnes stated that Beaver knew of the annual renewals imposed when he went into business in the first place. He further questioned how Beaver had made the decision to go ahead knowing this. Beaver replied that he had had faith in the reasonableness of the Planning Commission. He then stated he felt the sign size requirement in the new ordinance was a typographical error. Fregonese responded by saying that it wasn't a typo, that sign sizes in the past had been limited to 6 sq. ft. Beaver concluded that B B's are a nice addition to the City and they help maintain a village -like quality and preserve the historic character of a number of older homes in the area. He added that stricter require- ments prevent a single unit from being cost effective, and those requirements imposed by the Planning Commission encouraged the maximum number of units within each development to recoup the expenditures. APC, 5/26,82, Page 6 16) Richard Norland, owner of 70 Water St., requested a clarification of the zoning suggested for his property. It was noted by Fregonese that this was an error on the Comp Plan Map, and the property was intended to be zoned Employment. 17) Relative to the C -1 zone changes, Fregonese noted the changes in this section, requiring a 10 ft. per story setback adjacent to residential zones on side and rear property lines. 18) Relative to the new E -1 zone, the setback requirements adjacent to residential zones would be the same as in the C -1 zone. Fregonese further noted that there had been concerns voiced about the trucking issue with the E -1 zone adjacent to a single family residential zone at night. He referred to the revised Site Review chapter, stating that noise abatement had been taken out of the Performance Standards section of the ordinance and placed in the City's Nuisance Ordinance. 19) Under both C -1 and E -1 zones, residential uses would be permitted under a Conditional Use Permit, subject to the conditions imposed in the R -3 zone. 20) Relative to the Solar Access Ordinance, Fregonese pointed out that the definitions addressed rooftop access requirements more clearly than before. He further stated the new provisions relative to recordation of solar access and explained the recordation process at Barnes' request. He stated this would be enforced through the nuisance code upon a complaint. 21) Oredson stated he would like to have commercial properties in commercial zones exempted from the Solar Access Ordinance. He noted that the Solar Access Ordinance would have a greater impact in the R zones. In commercial zones, a developer can build to theproperty line, and, therefore, the Solar Access Ordinance creates a greater impact on commercial lands since they are more expensive as well. He felt only certain commercial properties should be subject to the Solar Access Ordinance. 22) Barnes noted that daylighting, which is proposed in many commercial projects, could be blocked if there were no setbacks imposed in a commercial zone. Oredson pointed out that this would be placing the burden on the person not daylighting, and the person who wants daylighting should be paying for it. 23) Fregonese stated that most commercial properties have lots of parking requirements placed on them. He stated that the Planning Commission could allow a 16 -ft. high building at the property line in commercial zones. Oredson stated that this should be true for E -1 and M -1 zones as well. 24) Fregonese noted the changes proposed in the Off- Street Parking Ordinance and Minor Land Partition Ordinance. REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOCUMENT There was no public testimony in this regard. APC, 5/26,82, Page 7 TYPE I APPROVALS 1) Planning Action 882 -37, a Site Review for a group home at 223 Fifth St.; applicants: Jackson County Board of Advocates for Severely Handicapped Adults. The group home was approved subject to the conditions established in the staff report. 2) Planning Action 882 -38, a Flag Partition at 809 Clay; applicants: Pam /Robin Lawson. This request has been called up for a public hearing which will be held on June 9, 1982. 3) Planning Action 882 -39, a Site Review for a restaurant coversion at 744 North Main St.; applicants: Wendell Sause /John Dundas. Morris asked if one access is being provided to and from the property. Fregonese noted that the access proposed is the same as the existing one. The Planning Commission agreed with the administrative approval. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 PM. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC, 5/26,82, Page 8 Jeffrey L. Barnes Architect 611 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland,Oregon 97520 (503) 488-1184 26 May 1982 Ashland Planning Commission Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re: The rezoning and changes to the comp plan designations of Tax Lots 39- 1E- 16- BA- 700, 39- 1E -16 -AC -400, 500, 600 and 700. This property is located within the city limits between Liberty Street and Terra above the TID ditch and below the Ashland Loop Road. The city's lateral water main crosses these parcels. Dear Commissioners: I would first like to state that I was retained by Dave Lewis and Gary Prickett on 14 May 1982 to provide professional services for the potential development of the above referenced land. In light of my experience in planning and architecture, I have found the attitudes of Dave and Gary as developers to be reasonable and sensitive, and believe that they are taking the best interest of the city, this land and adjacent neighborhoods to heart, in the pursuit of this development. We would appreciate your consideration of this proposal for the zoning and comprehensive plan designation of the above referenced parcels of land. The planning process for a project of this nature is lengthy and expensive. The present economic climate for construction is advantageous, and we hope to move quickly to benefit from this advantage. For these reasons we are requesting immediate action on this matter so that we may have adequate zoning to proceed with our outline plan. We realize that the present delineation of the designations of woodland residential and rural residential in the southeast Ashland area are basically holding designations pending complete topographic mapping and study of these areas. The city's topographic maps are complete for this property, we have purchased these maps and have studied them extensively as well as many site investigations. I believe that many of the commissioners are familiar with and have walked this site. I have studied the LCDC report on the Ashland Comprehensive Plan dated 14 January 1981. The LCDC position is basically that the Ashland Planning Commission Ashland, Oregon 26 May 1982 Page Two city cannot support less than urban densities (three units per acre) within the urban growth boundary except for productive forest and excessive slope. The LCDC also states that "large lot residential development within the UGB not only conflicts with Goal 14, but also with several city policies which commit the city to preserve land by using the smallest lots possible. Some of the areas designated and zoned for large residential lots have steep slopes and some do not." The LCDC also states that UGB's are "established to identify and separate urbanizable from rural land." In addition, "the ability to serve half acre to 2.5 acre parcels in an orderly and economic manner, as re- quired under Goal 14, is highly unlikely." I would like to state that we are not in disagreement with the designations of rural residential and woodland residential, but in the delineation as pertains to these parcels and others with- in the city. The criteria for these designations must be supportable to the LCDC, and serve the best interest of the City of Ashland. It is in this spirit and based on the included dis- cussions that we submit this proposal at this time. The following is a discussion of criteria that we adhere to generally in this proposal and recommend to the commission for consideration in the delineation of woodland residential and rural residential designations: Woodland residential: Productive or mature forest areas generally on slopes in excess of 50 percent, relying predominantly on natural features for delineation. Rural residential: Natural and aesthetic buffer from urban uses to forest or watershed lands generally on slopes in excess of 35 to 40 percent, with low level of services available or develop- mental problems. Again relying predominantly on natural features for delineation. In addition we believe that the proposed physical constraints ordinance will adequately provide for safe, orderly and bene- ficial development of lands with potentially hazardous physio- graphic conditions. The following narrative and the maps we are presenting will serve as a description of the zoning and comprehensive plan designations that we propose for your consideration: Ashland Planning Commission Ashland, Oregon 25 May 71982 Page Three Tax Lot 39- 1E -16 -BA -700: We would like to recommend that the upper approximate 5 acres remain in woodland residential and the lower approximate 5 acres remain in rural residential. This request is only a change in delineation not in quantities of acres in each zone. This request would result in a maximum of 14 or 15 units, historically (1964 to 1980) 48 units were possible, and presently the Long Way neighborhood below is developed to 27 units on 10 acres. This parcel is generally forested, the upper half being 40 to 75 percent slope, and the lower half generally 20 to 40 percent slope. We recognize the aesthetic value of this area to the Long Way neighborhood and wish to develop accordingly. Tax Lots 39- 1E -16 -AC -400, 500, 600: We recommend that these parcels consisting of approximately 15 acres be changed from rural residential to R -1 -10 Single Family Residential. These parcels are generally in the 20 to 30 percent slope range with isolated areas as little as 15 percent slope- and as great as 40 percent slope. Vegetation is predominantly manzanita and scrub with scattered pines. We consider this area excellent for this level of development and consider the present zoning of RR to be under utilization of its potential. Adequate services and access are available to this property. Tax Lot 39- 1E -16 -AC -700: We are in agreement with the present designations of the lower approximately 1.25 acres at rural residential, and the upper approximate 3.75 acres at woodland residential. The lower portion is generally 30 to 50 percent slope with scattered forest and manzanita. The upper portion is generally 40 to 90 percent slope and heavily forested. In closing, 1 would like to thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this proposal. 1 believe, and hope you agree, that this potential development can be a welcome addition to the City of Ashland. Sincerely, Jeffrey L. Barnes, Architect JLB/jb March 23, 1982 TO: John Fregonese and members of the Ashland Planning Commission I would appreciate your consideration in allowing further testi- mony relating to the proposed zoning of Tax Lot 39- 1E -16 -BA -700, 39- 1E..16 -AC -400, 39- 1E -16 -AC -500, 39-1E-16-AC-600, and 391E -16-AC -700. This property is located between Liberty Street and Terrace Street, above the TID ditch and below the Ashland Loop Road, I would like to base my request and recommendation on the following information: Hi story Tax Lot 39- 1E -16 -BA -700 was previously zoned R1 B -10 on the zoning map dated September 18, 1964 which was in effect until 1980. The comprehensive plan of 1978 redesignated this property at two units per acre. The zoning map of 1980 changed the property designation to two and one -half acre parcels. The remaining listed parcels of property have varied in zoning from RFB -200 to two per acre and also two and one -half acre sites. It is very difficult based on past history to determine what criteria has been applied in the decision making process in determining the proper zone for each parcel. Description of Property During the past month, we have retained the services of Lyle Stewart of Patterson Stewart and Associates to do some preliminary planning work on the property listed and during this process to estimate the level of density that he felt would be proper based on the physical characteristics of the property. Mr. Stewart took slope readings on each of the five parcels and recommended to us that he felt the property was being underutilized based on the projected zoning. An example is illustrated on Tax Lot 39 -1E -AC -400 where it was found that a majority of the property had slopes less than 20 per cent and large parts of the property were basically flat. This parcel has a common boundary with land to the North which is currently zoned with a 7.5 density designation. Tax Lots 39- 1E -16 -AC -600 and 39- 1E -16 -AC -700 are very similar, but have several acres with slopes between 20 and 30 per cent and a small area with slopes between 30 and 35 per cent. Mr. Fregonese has also walked this property and has taken slope readings and, I believe, will confirm my previously stated description of the property. Page 2 Similar` Properties I think it is significant to put the previous description into proper perspective to relate these slopes to areas of town already developed. Listed below are a representative example of some of the streets in the City of Ashland currently servicing areas of a variety of densities, These are not all inclusive, but representative. From the information I could gather, none has proved to be a developmental hazard in the property adjoining and on streets which would be projected, On tax lots indicated there would probably not be any street which would be as steep as those listed below, 1, Woodland Drive 24% 2, Elms Street 23% 3, South Park Street 22% 4, Iowa Street 22% 5, Gresham Street 21% 6.. Leonard Street 21% 7, Wimer Street 21% 8, Guthrie Street 21% 9. Taylor Street 21% 10, Summit Street 20% 11. Nob Hill Street 19% 12. Pinecrest Terrace 17% It should also be noted that much of the property on these streets would also have varying slope reading, There are also numerous areas in the city which have streets on the level but the property being developed on either side has slope readings in excess of 35 per cent, This information is used to indicate that the development of the previously listed tax lots would be appropriate at a density level greater than that currently proposed and would not be detrimental but in truth would be a more proper utilization of the land, Proposal for Consi deration Tax Lot 3981E -16 -BA -700 1. We would like to recommend that two and one.half acres above the water main road remain in woodland preserve. The lower two and one -half acres currently designated W,P, be changed to two units per acre, The area currently proposed at two per acre be changed to 10,000 square foot lots. This would return it to the same zone as shown from 1964 through 1980, 2. The W,P, area shown in 39- 1E -16 -AC --500 be changed to two per acre and the remainder designated at 10,000 square feet per lot. Page 3 3. The remaining three parcels 39�1E,16 -AC -400; 39.-1E.,16...AC-600 and 39- 1E -16 -AC -700 be designated at lot sizes of 10,000 square feet, It is our opinion and that of our planner that this is still at a density level well below that which the land would support but it is also one that we feel will, when developed, become an extremely attractive addition to the city of Ashland, Based on our suggested zone designation, there would still be large amounts of space which would remain undeveloped, Services Avaiaarle In designating any property, it is the responsibility of the developer to provide the type of environment that is compatible with the rest of the area.. It should be noted that we have five different places of in- gress- regress and there are adequate sewer services at the property, and a major water transmission line runs across the breadth of the property. It is our opinion that the proposal we have offered is one that will serve the city well in the future and does not pose the creation of situations that will be detrimental to the livability of Ashland as we look to the next twenty years, Any consideration you ca,n give to this request will be very much appreciated and we would be most happy to respond to any questions. Sinc .Fely yours, TO: City of Ashland Planning Commission FROM: Jack Bird DATE: May 26, 1982 M E M O I would strongly recommend that the property located in 39 1 East 16 above Long Way be zoned and designated for no more than one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres. At present, this undeveloped ten acre parcel is in an original forested state. There are many reasons why a less intensive development should occur there. 1. Topography. This property has a local slope of approxi- mately 30% to 35 According to Bulletin 94 Land Use Geology of Central Jackson County, Oregon, hazards from developing this type of property include moderate slope erosion potential with local to large scale mass movement. However, the slope combined with the soil types in the area create a high erosion potential. Once again, this is based upon a 1977 survey prepared by the Department of Geology Mineral Industries of the state of Oregon. 2. Lack of services. Since this ten acre parcel is totally undeveloped, all services would have to be extended into this area. 3. Access problem. Long Way is a relatively wide street and can handle a substantial amount of traffic. However, it is the only clear access to this property. Due to the nature of this street, it would be unwise to develop to any great degree further up the hill. During a substantial portion of the winter, due to shading, Long Way is extremely icy and difficult to drive up. People often have difficulty driving to the top during the winter. In addition, during the winter months automobile accidents have occurred on this road. 4. Scenic value. This property is currently undeveloped. One dwelling unit per 2.5 acres would have little impact on the scenic value of this property. One unit per .5 acres would have a substantial impact. At one time the residential neighborhoods on the hillside may have been forested. However, much of this natural forest was -1- cut away decades ago to plant orchards. Thus, at the time these neighborhoods were developed 10 or 15 years ago, natural forest land was not cut into. Instead, uneconomical dying orchards were removed. However, to develop this property, a forested area would be removed. Thus, much more is involved here than was involved when the orchards were removed for development purposes. 5. Fire hazard. In a discussion with Jackson county land use planners who have done a substantial amount of work in forest land use planning, it was stated that the placement of ten houses on a five acre parcel which borders so closely to protected forest land would create a much more serious fire hazard than two homes on this five acre parcel. Conclusion. This property was included in the Ashland city limits long ago. State land use laws are writteh in such a fashion to give local communities flexibility. It would be entirely appro- priate for the city of Ashland to designate this property for a very low density development. Due to the topography, lack of services and access problems, such a decision could easily be justified. In addition the scenic value of this property should be considered. Much of the hillside development in Ashland occurred on property that at one time was forested. However, this forest land had been removed to make way for orchards decades ago. At the time of development, natural forest land was not removed as would be the case here. MR. CHAIRMAN, I1EMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ISR-411d AND I LIVE AT AjO IN THE STRATFORD- I TY NAME ON-AVON SUBDIVISION. I HAVE BEFORE ME A PREPARED STATEMENT WIICH I WOULD LIKE TO READ AT THIS TIME. THE SUBJECT CONCERNS THE PROPOSED ZONING OF TAX LOT 700, AN AREA OF 10.10 ACRES DIRECTLY SOUTI -I OF OUR SUBDIVISION. THE LETTER CONTAINED IN YOURAGENDA, TITLED COMMENTS OF LONG WAY NEIGHBORHOOD, IS SIGNED BY 11 HOMEOWNERS IN THE AREA, HOWEVER, THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER HOMEOWNERS THAT HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR DISPLEASURE AT THE PROPOSED RE- ZONING. WE WERE TOTALLY UNAWARE OF ANY POSSIBLE DEVELOPEMENT OF THIS AREA UNTIL APPROXIMATELY WEEK AGO, AND THEN THE INFORMATION HAD TO BE GATHERED THROUGH AN ATTORNEY AND PRIVATE INVESTIGATION. CONSEQUENTLY, DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS IN IN GETTING OUR LETTER ON THE AGENDA, WE WERE UNABLE TO CONTACT MANY OF THE HOMEOWNERS WHO HAVE SINCE VOICED THEIR CONCERN. AL HOUGH `[H1 HIS PR PERTY f 0NDGC TED INVOLVI D IN THE POSSIBLE 1 MEET NGS N THE pGWAY ER AN INF MATT QT TO TH RVEY TI L0 DE-SAC. LIN AND POSSIBLE f VELOP UL -DE -JSAC NOT RESID NTS MENT OF ONCE I\T EVE ACCESS TI- ROUGH ID THEY EVR WHEN T EY STARTED THE PRESENT ZONING OF THIS PARCEL IS WOODED PRESERVE (RR 2.5) WHICH MOULD ALLOW 4 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS TO BE CONSTRUCTED. YOUR PROPOSED ZONING OF THE WEST 5 ACRES TO WOODED RESIDENTIAL AND THE EAST 5 ACRES TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RR .5) WHICH WOULD ALLOW A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPEMENT OF 10 -15 UNITS, WE FEEL IS UNACCEPTABLE DUE TO THE FOLLONING0' 4 1iE Aea tJ,3 Sof7f+�. 1— THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE AREA IS NOT SUITED FOR A PLANNED UNIT MVC DEVELOPI'IENT. ttese OF THE AREA, BOTH EAST AND WEST, IS 40 -50% SLOPES. THE ENTIRE AREA IS SUFFERING FROM EROSION PROBLEI'IS THAT WOULD ONLY BE COMPLICATED BY ANY MAJOR DEVELOPMENT. DURING ANY HEAVY RAIN— FALL THE LOWER STREETS, EXPECIALLY LONG WAY, CARRY; EXTREMELY HEAVY RUN —OFF VIITH FLOODING OCCURING AT THE INTERSECTION OF LONG WAY AND ASHLAND STREET ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. A SITE REVIEWAOF THIS PARCEL WILL REVEAL A CONTINUOUS PROBLEM OF EROSION CUTS THROUGH THE TID MAINTENAI\TCE ROAD. WITH NUMEROUS GULLIES EXPERIENCING THE SAME PROBLEM. UCGcss• 3 DUE TO THE ELEVATION AND STEEPNESS OF LONG WAY IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO TRAVERSE IN WINTER. THE UPPER PORTION OF LONG WAY STAYS ICY FOR LONG PERIODS DUE TO THE CUL —DE —SAC SHADE. THE PRESENT RESIDENTS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CUL —DE —SAC, LOTS 301 AND 800, EXPERIENCE EXTREME DIFFICULTY AFTER A SNOWFALL. ANY ACCESS TO A PLANNED UI\TIT DEVELOPMEI\TT TI- IROUGH THE LONG WAY CUL —DE —SAC WOULD INEVITABLY. RESULT IN THE ENTIRE STREET BEING USED AS A PARKING LOT DURING ANY WINTER STORMS, NOT TO MENTION THE INEVITABLE ACCIDENTS. pisr 1 NIc^k040 4— MOST OF US PURCHASED OUR HOMES IN THIS AREA BECAUSE OF THE CUL —DE —SACS, WHICH= PREVENT THROUGH TRAFFIC WITH A SUBSEQUENT LOW NOISE AND DUST LEVEL NOT TO MENTION THE SAFETY TO CHILDREN AND PETS. THE LOSS OF TIIE PRIME PURPOSE OF THE LONG WAY CUL —DE —SAC VIILL HAVE A SERIOUS FINANCIAL IMPACT ON PROPERTY FRONTING LONG WAY AS WELL AS THE PROPERTIES ALONG THE PARALLEL STREETS OF HENLEY AND TAYLOR DUE TO THE INCREASED TRAFFIC ON ALL COLLECTOR STREETS. SOME OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE FRIEI\TDSHIP SUBDIVISION, DIRECTLY NORTH OF US, HAVE ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERN SINCE THIS WOODED AREA IS THEIR ONLY PRIME SCENIC VIEW. 5- 6- IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CITED PROBLEMS WE ALL FEEL THAT THE ENTIRE a Hd AREA SHOULD BE ZONED WOODED RESIDENTIAL' TIIE DEVELOPI'•1ENT DENSITY BE DETEPLMI,NED IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR PROPOSED NEW CRETER:C.A AS OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 18.62 (PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS) AND CHAPTER 18.14 (WOODLAND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS). THIS WOJLD ALLOW THE AREA TO BE DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THE DEGREE OF SLOPE. ALTI-IOUGH THIS CRITERIA WOULD BE EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE,IT WOULD ALEVIATE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WE CITED EARLIER. T IS NO THE INTE TSION OF TI -IIS NE. GHBORIs, D TO DEN\ AN IND 'ACCESS 0 IIIS PRO ERTY. OWEVER T ERE ARE OTHER AC ESSES AVAI ABLE B SIDES L NG WAY, AI\) IF TI S PROPEA Y ISN'T ZONED AN DE V- EL OPJD IN AC ORDANCE\ WITH GOOD 1 AND U,E PLANI \TIl\G THEN II NUiaboe J NTEND TO ATTEP TO EX UR OPTION T$ PREC UDE ANY CCESS TI ROUGH TH CITY OWNED PROPERT AT TII END OF THE LONG JAY CUL -D -SAC KNOWI \T AS OT #300. THAI \TI: YOU �a