HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-01-26 Planning MINCALL TO ORDER
MINUTES
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
January 26, 1983
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 by Vice Chairman, Don Greene.
Members in attendance were Ethel Hansen, Tom Owens, Mary Ann Alston,
Barry Warr and Neil Benson. Also present were Planning Director John
Fregonese, Associate Planner Steve Jannusch and Administrative Secre-
tary Ann Baker. Greene explained the procedures to be followed
during the meeting, noting that the findings would be made available
to the public on February 15, 1983 and that the decision would be
made at the Planning Commission meeting of the 23rd of February. He
noted further that written testimony would be taken until February
21, 1983.
STAFF REPORT
1) Fregonese presented the staff report noting that this rezone has
been an ongoing process since July of 1982. He gave a brief history
of the area, explaining that this area of the City was annexed
around the turn of the century as a part of a major annexation
encompassing old township lines. It was only since July upon arrival
of the new topographic maps and the utilization of the new Physical
Constraints Ordinance that the staff was able to take a closer look
at the area relative to the slopes, soils, roads, forestation, avail-
able City services and transportation impact. The initial study
encompassed five areas which were subsequently consolidated into
three areas. He then noted the three specific areas on the maps.
2) Fregonese then focused his attention on the map of area #1, this
including the Granite Street area from Strawberry Lane to Grandview.
He explained the zoning designations and showed the current and
proposed zoning overlays in this area. He then presented the
transportation maps outlining the vehicle trips per day and the
proposed trail in this area.
3) After these introductions, a series of slides were shown taken at
the time of various field trips involving staff, CPAC and Planning
Commission members. After the slide presentation and a recap of the
proposed changes in the area #1, the public hearing was opened.
4) Fregonese explained that the perimeter road in area #1 would be
built when the properties there are developed.
5) Jessie Fitch, 605 Terrace St. asked what the P stood for as a
part of the P overlay explained previously. Fregonese noted that
this meant that the properties were subject to performance standards
APC Minutes, January 26 Pagel
established in the Land Use Ordinance. Ms. Fitch then continued,
stating that she had lived on Terrace for over 30 years and that she
has dealt with granite soil there for a long time, she felt that
nothing can contain deep granitic soils, noting that in the
early 50's a whole orchard had been irrigated above her house and one
day was found to have slid onto Glenview Drive. She expressed con-
cern for Terrace St. feeling that no future development should be
encouraged until Terrace was improved.
6) Ed Houghton, 564 Ashland Street, stated that 600 yards of the
proposed street goes through his property. He continued by noting
that it is possible that he could be responsible for 1200 feet of
road if it were developed according to the plan proposed by staff.
He requested that the density proposals for the property adjacent to
his and including his be reduced by 1/3 to 24. He noted further that
he is faced with a second problem in that the collector road proposed
off of Ivy Lane parallels a chunk of property he owns in this area.
He was hoping that the Planning Commission would consider another
area for this road. He then identified his property on the map.
7) Rodney Badger, 610 Ashland Street, spoke in opposition to
any through street from Ashland Street feeling that the terrain was
too steep particularly with tI hazards that wintertime presents.
8) Benson noted that this collector road was intended to
follow the topography of the area as much as possible and would not
necessarily mean a straight line through the countryside as was
indicated in the map.
9) Lowell Smith, 700 Terrace Street, spoke in opposition to in-
creased density in this area. He noted that he had bought the pro-
perty 15 years ago so he wouldn't have a large neighborhood around
him. He was concerned about the possible tax increases that the
rezoning would mean for his property. He stated further that sewer
would have to be pumped over the hill adjacent to his property.
Fregonese interjected that any improvements would be brought about
either through the developer or through a Local Improvement
District established at the time of the improvements.
10) Bob Frank, 601 Terrace Street, raised his objections
subject to the problems with the connector road. He felt that the
widening of Terrace Street would involve a massive retaining wall
along a large portion of Terrace and the removal of much vegetation.
Fregonese responded by stating that there would be some retaining
wall there but that it would not be to a height of 30 feet. He
continued by stating that the right -of -way would be 40 feet in width,
with the actual road only about 22 feet in width.
11) Jean Ullman, 621 Long Way, requested that the area above
Long Way be retained as Woodland Residential. She noted that in
wintertime particularly, it is extremely shady in this area, she
APC Minutes, January 26 Page 2
praised the staff for the topography and slide show and appreciated
the presentation of the beauty of the hills surrounding her home.
She felt that these hills should not be destroyed. She concluded by
stating that Long Way is extremely dangerous in the wintertime, due
to ice.
12) Dave Lewis spoke on behalf of some property he owns above
Long Way. He stated that during the years 1964 through 1980, the
property had been zoned R -1:10. He continued by stating that the ice
and the dangerous conditions are created by the tall trees at the end
of the cul -de -sac and the shade that they create here. He stated
that he has the right -of -way sewed up for access to this area. He
further noted that he has never asked for anything from these people
and he has tried to work for another access to this property.
13) Ed Hungerford, 535 Terrace Street, stated that he would
like to retain the option to leave this area open for division noting
that he owns 1 1/3 acres in this area.
14) Otto Kannasto, 219 Granite Street, asked whether the property
owners have to pay for paving of Strawberry Lane. Commissioner
Greene noted that the developer would be responsible for improvements
for access to a development.
15) Vicki McElroy, 155 Strawberry Lane, spoke in opposition to the
up zoning around her area. She noted that the roads are narrow and
unimproved as well as extremely steep. She felt that the improve-
ments would mean the elimination of many of the old trees and land-
scaping abutting the proposed right -of -way. she then asked to what
standards the roads would be improved in her area. Fregonese ex-
plained. McElroy concluded that citizens are often not informed of
improvements before they happen. She then presented a letter and
petition from the affected property owners in this area.
16) Mark Cooper, Granite Street then spoke on the proposal. He
stated that when he initially went into his project that he was
relying on the zoning of the area to determine the gains he could
make from the property. He stated with the change in the zoning laws
and the economic pictures, his problems have been compounded. Though
he has been devistatingly affected he must be philosophical about the
whole situation. He further noted that he feels that expansion is
better in this area than preservation. His comment was "Nature
hasn't done too good on its own." He concluded by stating that he
doesn't feel that 10 acre lots are appropriate in the City of Ashland
or anywhere for that matter.
17) Marilyn Marthoski, 514 Granite Street, stated that she and her
neighbors were in total support of the Woodland Residential idea.
18) Ron McElroy, 155 Strawberry Lane, presented some newspaper
clippings from 1980 noting similar public hearings that had been held
APC Minutes, January 26 Page 3
at that point before the Planning Commission. He questioned that if
these hearings had already taken place two years ago, why go through
the same process now, only to use the new topographic maps the City
had received?
19) Sandra Mitchell, 243 Granite Street, asked if the water line
and trail were exact as proposed on the map. This showed they would
go right through her house. She was assured that these were
indicated here only as a graphic representation of a proposal. She
requested that her property be all Low Density rather than split into
three different zoning jurisdictions.
20) Chris Wood, 121 Strawberry Lane, spoke in favor of the petition
noting that Strawberry Lane was practically impassable today.
21) Bill Lawrence, 147 Strawberry Lane, also felt that the Straw-
berry Lane area should be left in Low Density.
22) Arlene Mills, 34 Scenic Drive, felt that the area should be
left as Low Density.
23) Don Rhoades, 51 Scenic Drive, said that he thought this
plan was essentially leap- frogging the zoning areas. He felt that
this proposal would compound police and fire problems and that these
agencies should be consulted before decisions were made for their
input.
24) Lawrence Gastorf, 155 Strawberry Lane, spoke on behalf of the
lower densities.
25) Mr. Mills, 34 Scenic Drive stated that zoning used to be clear,
but recently, it has been changing every three years. He would
hope that the Planning Commission would consider a stability for the
area.
26) Dorothy Stolp, 232 Nutley Street, stated her concern about
using Alnutt as an access road. She raised some objections about
keeping the zoning along Alnutt consistent. She then questioned how
many units would be allowable for her property.
27) Art Grimmesey, 145 Westwood, asked the Commission if they ever
listen to the people in the audience. He stated that the people keep
telling you the same thing and it doesn't seem to matter. He then
complained more about the Kneebone property.
28) The public hearing was then opened to discussion regarding area
#3.
29) Richard Hawkey, 155 Westwood, stated that there was an
overwhelming majority of the people in attendance against the
proposal of increasing the density in these areas. He felt that this
APC Minutes, January 26 Page 4
area had reached saturation point in terms of development noting that
the creek beds were extremely important and that the roads are
dangerous in this area with the existing traffic densities there. He
further stated that he felt the Kneebone property should not be 1/4
are zoning.
30) Lowell Smith spoke again. He asked that the Comp Plan be
changed for his property to read Single- family but that the zoning
map be maintained as Urban Residential.
31) Marilyn Briggs, 590 Glenwood Drive, stated that she wanted the
same treatment of her property as did Mr. Smith.
32) Chris Hald, 255 Wightman, spoke on behalf of some property he
and his father owned as well as some property Red Gentry owned above
the Strawberry Lane area comprising a total of 35 acres. He stated
that though the access problem was the largest problem facing a
development in the area, that the zoning should still be 10,000
sq.ft.
33) Tim Miller, 610 Orchard, asked for a clarification on his
property relative to the maps exhibited. He was assured that his
property would retain the R -1:10 zoning he had requested.
34) David Toney, 252 Strawberry Lane, stated that he had signed
the McElroy petition. He felt that the increase in density would be
a serious mistake for the area.
35) Bert Cunningham, 545 Wrights Creek Drive, stated that he bought
his property in 1980 and that at that time, it was zoned 1/2 acre.
The proposal now is to change it again. He asked how often do these
changes take plae.
36) Carole Steinbrenner, 421 Prim St., asked whether the police and
fire services would be adequate if more houses were permitted to be
constructed in this area. She then asked who would be responsible to
maintain the status quo of the streets.
37) Hansen stated for the public's benefit that the mission as
Planning Commissioners and as Planners was to look into the future
and this is what we are attempting to do at this point.
38) Jere Hudson, 3'95 Strawberry Lane, stated his concern about
Strawberry Lane in turning into a loop road.
39) At this point, the public hearing was closed.
40) Fregonese read Ietters into the record received from the
McEIroys, three documents; Mrs. Dorothy Stolp, two documents; Nan
Siebert; Richard Cottle; Robert B. Hardy and from George Sanders.
Fregonese then expressed the justification for the question of rezon-
AFC Minutes, January 26 Page 5
ing this area noting that up until this time, there was no factual
data available to support existing zoning. The study currently in
question could present findings that would become a record for future
planners and future Planning Commissions. These findings would be
based on the public input as well as the new tools available only
recently ie. the topographic maps.
41) Greene proposed to recap the items of discussion. Area #1 was
first recapped. Questions were then solicited from the Planning
Commission.
42) Owens asked where Ed Houghton's property was located and how the
proposed road would effect his development. Fregonese explained.
Alston then asked Fregonese whether a deadend street would be appro-
priate on Houghton's property. The Planning Director then stated
that under Performance Standards such a deadend street with a cul -de-
sac would be appropriate.
43) Warr then asked why access off of Ashland could not come via
Morton Street. Consensus of the Commission was to propose this
access in Lieu of through Houghton's property. Fregonese then stated
that street improvements through Bancrofting could be presented to
the Council as a proposal which would create more incentive for
street improvements. It was then felt that it was appropriate to
lower the density of the top 1/3 of Houghton's property. The future
road into his property would be deadended by a cul -de -sac.
44) The Smith and Briggs properties were then brought under
discussion. Warr felt that it was appropriate to change the Comp.
Plan but not the zoning for this area. Fregonese concurred and
Greene received a consensus from the Commission.
45) Benson asked about the Hungerford property noting that Mr.
Hungerford wanted it to be zoned Low Density but that it is presently
proposed to be Woodland Residential. Benson preferred to keep it in
Woodland Residential as did Commissioner Greene. Alston then asked
what the possibilities could be of changing the Comp Plan in this
area at a later time. Fregonese stated that it would be difficult.
46) Greene noted that exact Locations of any roads would be covered
by the Engineers study of the best place to put them. Dave Lewis
then asked, what about his property. Fregonese then interjected that
the property he owned had been zoned 2 1/2 acre when he bought it.
47) Greene then moved the discussion to Granite Street. Fregonese
stated that it would be appropriate to move the zoning line on Mrs.
Mitchell's property to meet her property line and retain it all as
Low Density.
48) The Grandview and Orchard Streets areas were then discussed.
Benson felt that it was important to make it conforming and that the
AFC Minutes, January 26 Page 6
wishes of the majority of the property owners should be considered.
Owens then questioned the future expansion of the Kneebone property.
Fregonese noted that in the preparation of the findings, changes to
locations could be numbered so they could be easily identifiable in
the future. Benson concurred that this would provide a good justifi-
cation for future Planning Commissions. Fregonese noted that this
proposal should be good for this planning period in terms of the
Comprehensive Plan.
99) Warr noted that in the present economy that no additional need
for housing was apparent but that plans should be made for the
future, 20 to 30 years hence. Fregonese responded by stating that
this long range planning was precisely the reason that dedications
were necessary and identifying future rights -of -way was critical.
50) Fregonese then recapped the schedule of the preparation of the
findings and the final presentation to the Planning Commission in
February.
51) The letter from the neighbors on upper Granite Street relative
to the Cooper development was discussed. Fregonese showed the slides
taken on the field trips of the area and the topographic and plat
maps for the proposal. He stated that Cooper had stayed within the
guidelines of his approval from the Planning Commission and had not
violated it as the neighbors had contended. The disputes facing the
people in this area were in his estimation civil matters.
52) The meeting was then adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
APC Minutes, January 26 Page 7
Dear Commission Member,
January 21,1983
On January 26, the Planning Commission will be considering
a proposed zoning change which will affect us, the people who
live on roperties adjacent to the proposed change. (Map
enclosed. The proposal is to change the outlined area from
Low Density to Single Family.
We are writing to protest the proposed change, and to strongly
request that the designation Low Density remain for this land.
Our reasons are not new ones. But they are clear and concrete,
and have a history of discussion before the city planners who
have affirmed and reaffirmed their validity as the major factors
in designating the area low density.
Briefly, the facts about maintaining this area as low density
are as follows:
1) Dirt Roads
a) The roads in this area are narrow, unimproved, and
steep. Only one car at a time can pass along Alnutt,
this end of Scenic, and Strawberry.: Lane.
b) Strawberry Ln., shown on the map as access to the
property in question, is particularly unfit for
greatly increased traffic. It is a narrow, steep,
dirt track with very sharp turns at Alnutt and Scenic.
c) The roads are adequate for low volume of traffic.
d) Widening the roads to add a subdivision would change
the scenic, rural setting drastically. Residents would
stand to lose huge old trees and other established parts
of their yards.
2) Traffic
a) Traffic at present is manageable on these roads.
b) The land proposed for change in density covers about
51 acres. This means that a maximum for 22 new homes
could be built if the density were changed to Single
Family 1 :10.
Using the guideline of 10 vehicle trips per residence
per day, these roads could be traveled 220 times more
per day than at present
c) Increased traffic of this magnitude would make travel
on these roads completely unmanageable and dangerous.
3) Water
a) Water supply is already a problem in the area;
pressure is low now without Any additional homes being
built.
b) There is no city plan being followed now to improve
the water system in this area of town.
The monies from the most recently passed city water
bond are being used tr5 other projects within the city.
Only if monies remain after these projects are completed
will a project to improve the water problem in this
area be undertaken. And, even if this measure (a new
line on Terrace) is completed:, this will only slightly
improve water conditions here. The Public Works Dept.
projects that the improvements necessary to give satis-
factory water service to this area will not be under-
taken until the year 1990 or possibly the year 2000.
c) Fire protection access to the area for fire protection
because of winter road conditions (ice and snow on steep
slopes) and limited water supply, is difficult.
4) The Neighborhood
a) The area that would be immediately affected by this
proposed change is made up of parcels of land acre or
more each,
b) The zone change would put a subdivision and resultant
road changes right in the middle of a rural residential
setting, and thus sacrifice the character of the whole
area,
We appreciate the difficulty and the importance of your job
in developing a comprehensive land use plan for the city of
Ashland. The city must organize to make best and most reasonable
use of the land within its boundaries.
And in that context, we strongly reaffirm that reasonable
growth in this area is growth that will not overburden the roads
or the water system, or drastically change the character of the
area, and therefore, reasonable growth here is no more than one
home per 2 acre (Low Density),
9
a
Thank you for your attention,
y djita u4)-an
Lk,
l 5 5 «�b�� r Lc
ed,4`7K Jig
/J
7
Sz 1 Diu
U� Sao
)1'4:1 /1
aitiv)is /4(1V-7 /97
/&-641-4)-zvv 77
e
/t/
/6' 7
5
c 2
rtiohoyrtd,
7/ 6 'r
11X,
2. 3 3 41-
61e,
faL
LD LOW DENSITY (2 acre minimum)
WR WOODLAND RESIDENTIAL
(22 acre minimum)
SF SINGLE- FAMILY
R -1:10P SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL "53
(10,000 sq.ft. minimum)
R- 1:7.5P SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(7,500 sq.ft. minimum)
L
LD to
We, the undersigned, are property owners in the neighbor-
hood of the proposed zoning change described on the attached
map,and we here make notice that we oppose the proposed
zoning change. We strongly request that the present designation
of Low Density remain in force.
-1-
X53
1 &e
January 21, 1983
/7
N 1Q4,6 I `k Ltupau4-CA/ OLALQ,
1' 7 lely.ijii is
11
LD LOW DENSITY (2 acre minimum)
WR WOODLAND RESIDENTIAL
(22 acre minimum)
SF SINGLE- FAMILY
R -1 :1OP SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(10,000 sq.ft minimum)
R- 1:7.5P SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(7,500 sq.ft. minimum)
c
0
0
We, the undersigned, are property owners whose property
fronts Strawberry Lane. We are not willing to join a local
improvement zone in order to pave and otherwise improve
Strawberry Lane.
P o k,aci
4-e
C
f 4frr-d /}7
aUf2-4-12„-W
January 21, 1983
tr ,rk
,75
Lue_ (i) cf?av
t
/17.
r O ate )ZLe_AA 6
Lci
)c]7 q
2
Cna s 7`
6 liCel )Le d
1 5 z BEAR{
MEMO T0: Ashland Planning Commission
As the owner of tax lots 700, 800, 900, and 5100, I am disturbed over
the various zoning changes which have been proposed since I first
purchased property in the Nutley Alnutt area in 1 965.
The latest proposed change seems to me to be inconsistent and discrim-
inatory. I see no reason why the lots on the north side of Nutley
Street to Grandview Drive should be zoned R1:10 while those on the
opposite side between Nutley and Strawberry Lane should continue to
be zoned LD. (I understand that the first notice I received zoning
them as R1 :10 was in error, and I only found that out when I checked
with your office that the plan is to continue them as LD.)
Although I do not plan to do so at this time, I feel that if adjoining
lands can be developed at R1 :10, I should have the right to develop
mine at the same zoning should I choose to do so. For example, lot
700 consists of approximately 1.4 acres. Granted it is a hillside
area, but it is no steeper than other areas in Ashland which have been
developed.
I, too, admire open spaces. In fact, that is one of the reasons I
bought this land. But this fact should not preclude my developing
the lots I own at some later date if I choose to do so since others
may develop their land.
I urge the Planning Commission to be consistent in their planning and
to consider the individual land owner as well as the developer.
CC:
Mayor Medaris
Ashland City Council
Cordially,
h St 1
Dorothy p
RECEIVE JAIL
P.O. Box 73
Ashland, Oregon 97520
January 24, 1983
January 23, 1983
Chairman
Ashland Planning Commission
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear Sir:
1 ask that the following be made part of the record at the public
hearing scheduled for January 26, 1983 regarding proposed zoning
changes.
support the proposed zoning R -1:10P for my tax lot #391 -08AD- 05200.
This property consists of a residence and approximately 2.5 acres
at the junction of Alnut and Nutley Streets. 1 have previously
requested that this property be returned to its original zoning
of R -1 -7500' (8000') in my letter of Sept. 27, 1982.
This was the zoning when the comprehensive plan and zoning proposal
was started in Ashland a few years ago. Over the duration of this
process, zoning for this property has fluctuated from 1 acre lots
to 8000' to 1/3 acre to 1/2 acre and now 10,000'( 1 was told
at the Planning Department last week that because of a few complaints
a "mistake" was made and that is in error. No one has let to
provide an.y basis for any of these changes. It appears to be the
arbitrary and capricious whim of someone at the time, either on
the Commission or in the Planning Department, and this is supposed
to be a long range plan. This constant changing does not represent
long range planning, but merely greases the squeaky wheel.
This property is surrounded by houses on small lots. An apartment
house is tithin 100 feet of the house. You have approved develop-
ments and a street plan on Nutley Street and at the top of Straw-
berry Lane. 1 am going to be forced to sell my home and this
property to pay for inevitable street assessments on Nutley and
Alnut Streets. 1 know my neighbors would like to keep this park-
like, as it is, or at worst lowest density possible but they are
not looking at a 520,000- 25,000 potential street assessment.
1 do not intend to let people in apartments, condos and on small
lots decide that my property is their open space. So you can
plan on an appeal all the way to the State level.
Si
rg Sanders
96 Nutley Street
Ashland, Or 97520
cc: Mayor and Council
COTTLE HOWSER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
607 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD POST OFFICE BOX 627
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
(503)482-2621
January 20, 1983
Mr. John Frigonese
Planning Department
City of Ashland
City Hall
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear John:
It is my understanding that there will be a public
hearing next week, at which time the Planning Commission
will consider rezoning certain property lying in Area #1
near Long Way. Mr. and Mrs. Robert V. Hardy, 400 Ashland
Street, Ashland, Oregon, are the owners of a lot adjacent
to that, being 391E, 16BA, Lot 1200. It is understood
that the proposed change would change the zoning from Wood-
land Reserve to Low Density Residential, or, in other words,
reduce the density requirements from 2 -1/2 acre parcels
to 1/2 acre parcels. Mr. and Mrs. Hardy will be out of town
at the time of the hearing, and as their attorney, I am
authorized to advise you that if we have understood the
proposed change in the zoning, as expressed above, they have
no objections to the same.
RCC:fp
cc: Mr. Mrs. Robert V. Hardy
Yours very truly,
COTTLE HOWSER
Professjonal Corporation
Richard C. Cottle
RICHARD C. COTTLE
THOMAS C. HOWSER
REBECCA GORDON ORF
CHARLES R. WATSON
JUDITH H. UHERBELAU
Dear Mr. Fregonese:
NAN SIEBERT
495 Fernwood Dr.
Ashland, Oregon
January 24, 1983
In case I'm unable to attend the meeting of the Planning Commission on
January 26th, I wish to express concern about the possible negative aspects
of construction on the steep hillsides along Grandview and Scenic, as shown
on the Area #3 map.
In time of heavy rain, we already experience erosion on Grandview and the
dirt is washed from above and across the paving on Scenic to those living
below. I think the majority of home owners who use Grandview especially
in icy, snowy weather, don't want Grandview paved (because we get better
traction on dirt) but would appreciate more frequent grading of the oftentimes
dangerously rutted road. More building in this area means more erosion to
areas below, more traffic down Church or Nutley (through the Park), and
another of Ashland's green hills denuded.
Have you noticed the effect of all the construction on the Thornton Way
Prim Street, etc hill as you exit from Medford on the North Ashland
exchange? A few more years of this kind of construction, and there won't
be a green hill above Ashland anywhere. Speaking of esthetic values may
not be popular, but Ashland's beauty, including it's green hills, is one
reason I (and many others) moved here.
I think there are many things to be considered before we build more on
our hillsides.
Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
`rt.„
Nan Siebert
Memo tb; Ashland Planning Commission
Recently I learned of proposed plans to widen and /or pave
Alnutt Street. As I understand it, the request for this
was made by persons who are developing properties in the
upper Strawberry Lane area.
Plans for improving this street would work a hardship on
those of us who own land bordering this area. (My lot
900 has 256.6 bordering this street.)
I wish to know what responsibility developers have for
street improvements which they plan to use as main access
routes to their properties. I should appreciate hearing
from you in this connection.as well as any other information
you have on the proposed plan.
Copies to:
Mayor Medaris
Ashland City Council
Cordially,
Dorothy E Stolp
P.O. Box 73
Ashland, Oregon
January 24, 1983
;,ENEO JAN 2 5 L