Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-0506 Normal Exhibits Submitted e 1~ City Of Ashla: GYaceP int FianNnn Erhibit F~chlt;;# 00 t PA Iv1,3 _Gl 3 d " '/b staff/ Church of Nazarene Date A Church for People Like You To: Ashland City Council From: Ashland GracePoint Church Board Re: Public Comment About Normal Neighborhood Plan Adoption Date: May 5, 2014 Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We are concerned about the restriction the adoption of the Normal Avenue Plan will place on future uses of the lot behind GracePoint Church. We have two major concerns that were not addressed during our participation in the planning hearings. First, the plan designates the W-9 wetland, as adopted by local and state agencies, based on an estimate of this region rather than an actual delineation by species and groundwater survey of the property. The actual wetland area may be larger or, as we see it after seven years of mowing and maintaining, is significantly smaller than current estimates. In the case of the wetland being larger than current estimates, the area available for development will be smaller and our use will be limited. However, in the event that the required delineation results in a smaller area of wetland, there seems no remedy in the current plan for a reduction of the Open Space designation to allow us to use the space available for development. In speaking with the Ashland Community Development Department it was confirmed the W-9 open space size would not change even if a wetland delineation survey showed it to be smaller. It seems that there is some attempted amelioration of this by density transfer from open space to the rest of our property, this allowing a maximum of 64 dwelling units on the entire property. This is atradeoff but is only usable to us if we make unacceptable changes to the property by placing residential dwellings on our front field and in our parking lot. It does not allow us to make up for that loss to the South of the church in our field.. From a five- to ten-year timeline, we have a property that really cannot be used. From a longer-term planning viewpoint this may be a reasonable planning concept, except I must remind this commission that this Nazarene Church was started in Ashland in 1905 (109 years ago) so we do plan with a longterm viewpoint. A combination of two possible solutions exists. The first is allowing the decrease or increase in the conservation area based on future accurate wetland delineation. Secondly, increasing the density allocation from NN-02 (10 units per acre) to NN-03 (15 units per acre) on the only usable space to the South of the church. This would leave the current NN-02 designation for the rest of the church's property. We request you adopt both. This is the third time we have presented these concerns during this process. We have never received a specific response and feel that the planning process is pushing the "open space" agenda as a politically correct move at our expense. If we have no substantive response to our concerns we will consider this adoption a "public taking" and will consider taking legal action to reclaim our lost usable space. Normal Plan Public Comments Letters received between 4/29 and 5/612014 1 Ashland City Council Public Comment About Normal Neighborhood Plan Adoption May 5, 2014 Page Two Shifting the focus now to the matter of two transportation corridors traversing this area. I am told, by staff, that an alley or multi-use path is required by code adjacent to open spaces. This means that in addition to a 50-foot swath through this property for the road, another 25 feet will be taken by the proposed alley. This is in addition to the required 50-foot buffer zone around wetlands. That raises the public taking for transportation corridors to about 75 feet and 125 feet if you consider the buffer zone. This seems exorbitant from our viewpoint. Our request as a solution is to move the current road as far to the south as allowable; within 50 feet of the W-9 open space. This would eliminate the coded need for another transportation corridor. Again we have presented this concern at the planning meeting and received no consideration or change in the plan. Where in this code and planning action is there a use for this property? There feels like a public straightjacket to most reasonable uses of this property. For the Church Board, John Colwell Ray Eddington Ashland GracePoint Church of the Nazarene 1760 East Main Street • Ashland, OR 97520 541-482-1784 www.ashlandgracepoint.com e-mail: office@ashlandgracepoint.com Normal Plan Public Comments Letters received between 4/29 and 5/6/2014 2 Voicemail left on 05-06-2014 To: City Council From: Caroline and Bill Kirkman Caroline Kirkman requested that it be mentioned to Council that "they don't need to annex the Normal Plan and add 400 units to the City" citing general water shortage issues and noting that "we are going into curtailment this summer". Normal Plan Public Comments Letters received between 4129 and 5/6/2014 3 Ken Gerschler inside Ashland May 4, 2014, 5:30 PM 1. Elements I disagree about: The density is too high for this locality. Increased densities should be positioned toward downtown where older non-historical structures can be redeveloped with higher density. There are more services and better transport options downtown. 2. Elements of the plan I support. I appreciate the integrated response from the City of Ashland and a willingness to work through the planning process with the community and stakeholders. Preservation and where possible, the enhancement of the natural stream/pond features is important as this is upstream of Bear Creek and the Rogue River. 3. Overall impression of plan. Good. Normal Plan Public Comments Letters received between 4129 and 5/612014 4 Tod and Paula Brannan outside Ashland May 4, 2014, 2:42 PM from: Tod Brannan and Paula Fox 367 Normal Avenue Ashland We have recently moved to Ashland into the beautiful and peaceful Normal Avenue area that is now part of the Normal Neighborhood Plan. We do not want the Normal Avenue neighborhood to become a busy, congested area of high-density housing. We have attended the planning commission meetings, and have read letters submitted by concerned citizens on the Open City Hall forum. Thus far, however, we have not heard definitive answers to many of the questions and issues raised, such as: Growth projections: Has the city done growth projections? Have the projections been reviewed and confirmed by an independent state agency? Is high-density housing really needed at all? And, if so, why wouldn't the city want such housing closer to the main part of town, where walking, biking, and public transportation are more available. Better alternatives: Building housing in the Normal Avenue area would be very costly in terms of infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, railroad crossing, etc.). Who would pay for those costs? And, if such building is needed, are there other areas already in the city limits that would be less costly to develop? Unpopularity of the plan: The vast majority of people speaking at the city planning meetings and writing letters on the forum are against the Normal Neighborhood Plan. The only group in favor of the plan appears to be developers, and some don't even live in Ashland. Why would the city approve a plan that is overwhelming unpopular? Wetland areas: Currently, there are several wetlands in the Normal Avenue acreage. The proposed plan allows for streets and housing to be build adjacent to and even over these natural features, which will undoubtedly affect the wild life and possibly the wetlands themselves. Will the city get approval from the appropriate state environmental agency before approving the proposed plan? Water: The city already has a water problem, which is now magnified given the current drought situation. Why make is worse? Is the city prepared to develop more water resources BEFORE building more housing? Traffic congestion: The proposed plan includes high-density housing near E. Main Street. This street is already very busy during peak periods (early morning and late afternoon). Is the city prepared to widen and modify E. Main Street BEFORE increasing population density? Normal Plan Public Comments Letters received between 4/29 and 51612014 5 A final question: What kind of city do we really want? We moved to Ashland because it is a wonderful place to live. It is a charming small town that is not congested and yet offers wonderful culture (theatre, food, art) that is all very accessible. Increasing population density could jeopardize all that, and possibly even have a negative effect on tourism. We hope the city council will carefully address all of the above issues BEFORE considering approval of the plan. Specifically, we ask that city officials: - Verify that Ashland needs more housing - Look at less costly alternatives - Consider the unpopularity of the proposed plan - Get state approval for building adjacent to and over wetland areas - Develop/secure more water resources - Determine how to handle increased traffic congestion - Look at the big picture - What kind of city do we really want? Sincerely, Tod Brannan and Paula Fox Normal Plan Public Comments Letters received between 4/29 and 516/2014 6 kelly Arsac outside Ashland April 29, 2014, 11:01 PM I grew up on lower Normal Ave and graduated from Ashland High School. At the time the Normal Avenue was rural and open. Gradually expensive homes were built in the area and it became more congested. A private paved road was put in. All of this "change" happened even if the original owners didn't want it. It seems to me the area will be better served by a thoughtful, well-designed plan. Ashland is a wonderful town. I would love to move back here some day and raise a family, but it seems it's getting more and more exclusive. People like me who grew up there can no longer afford to live there: We've had two elementary schools close and the numbers at the high school have been dropping over the years. I would hope this plan would enable more young families to live in our town and go to our great schools and experience the wonderful community like I did. I was blessed to have grown up in the area, and I only wish the same for my kids. Normal Plan Public Comments Letters received between 4/29 and 5/612014 7 Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us Normal Neighborhood Plan From :Gerry Mandell <rvafi@hotmail.com> Mon, May 05, 2014 05:53 AM Subject : Normal Neighborhood Plan To : randy@maharhomes.com, helmansprings@gmail.com, brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Greetings everyone, especially Brandon, Years ago part of my land at 340 Normal was designated "wetlands." My understanding is that the designation was made by a study of photos and not after scientific process on the land. The proposed plan also shows wetlands with proposed planning according to the unscientific process of yo re. When the time for development comes, the area demarked as wetlands will be subject to scientific review, if it does not meet current standards to be named a wetlands, I expect the City of Ashland to be willing to alter the dwelling density plan as it relates to my property and in keeping with the overall neighborhood design. That would be a fair result and in keeping with the high standards the City of Ashland sets for itself and generally abides by. And if I may say so, I have been impressed by the Normal Avenue planning process: Sincerely Gerry Mandell Omer, Israel Normal Plan Public Comments Letters received between 4/29 and 5/6/2014 8 From : Anya Neher <anyabn@yahoo.com> Fri, May 02, 2014 02:46 PM Subject : Please remember the people who already live here To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Reply To : Anya Neher <anyabn@yahoo.com> Dear Ashland City Council Members, I live at 237 Clay Street and would be one of the city residents adversely affected by yet another big block of high-density housing in this section of town already containing more high-density housing than most. If the Normal Street plan must go ahead, PLEASE do not let the third story be "slipped in" (after it was taken out) before the vote. Please do not cave to one developer. Your constituents are Ashland residents who live and work here every day and who vote for you, not one (almost certainly non-local) developer. This new development, even limited to two stories, is not only going to take away beautiful fields which add immensely to Ashland's beauty not to mention habitat for local wildlife, including the Barn Owls that hunt over these fields in the evening but it's going to impact this end of town tremendously in terms of traffic, noise, and all the usual effects of over-congestion. Again, I urge you to give MORE WEIGHT to the wishes of city residents who actually live in this area already than to a developer who will come and go. Many of us chose to live in this area of town precisely because it had pockets of quiet beauty... the fields. They are worth their weight in gold and are a big part of what makes Ashland so appealing. If we are going to keep giving them up to more and more housing, let's at least minimize the effects of hundreds of more people and cars, not to mention the aesthetic effect of more wall-to-wall housing. Please don't choose the fleeting effects of developer money over the long-term well-being of city residents who already have more high density housing in their midst than most Ashlanders. For every person you hear from, there are many more of us who care and who whose quality of life would be compromised by the packed-in feeling of more and more people on all sides. For many of us, the expansive views and the beauty and serenity of nearby fields are a huge part of what living in Ashland is all about. Don't let Ashland become just another "every place else." Allowing more and more huge, high-density projects to go ahead, and to get away with transgressing the normal standards for height is exactly the kind of step that takes us all further away from the town we love and closer to some crowded, traffic- choked suburbia we don't want to be. Please vote for the higher, greater good and not just for expediency or letting another developer get his/her/their way. They do not have to live here. Sincerely, Anya Neher 237 Clay St. Ashland, OR Normal Plan Public Comments Letters received between 4/29 and 516/2014 9 Susan Wallace 1980 E Main St Ashland OR 97520 April 30, 2014 To the City Council RE: Normal Neighborhood Plan I support the Planning Commission recommendation concerning the timing of transportation improvements related with the future development of the plan area. In order to address current and future transportation along East Main Street and the public rail road crossing at Normal. I agree the south side of E Main Street from Walker Ave to Clay should be fully improved to City Street Standards priorto development within the plan area. And the public rail road crossing be installed and a financing plan be developed prior to annexation and development within the plan area. Addressing these two transportation matters before development and annexation will be vital to support the additional traffic the development will bring to the area. Thank you, Susan Wallace Normal Plan Public Comments Letters received between 4/29 and 51612014 10 From: suzanne marshall [mailto:suzanne.marshall@yahoo.comj Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:48 AM To: council@ashland.or.us Subject: Council Contact Form - suzanne marshall - 4/30/2014 Name: suzanne marshall Email: suzanne.marshall(a-),vahoo.com Subject: NOrmal Avenue Planning Message: Hello, I spent many hours attending meetings of the Planning Commission in regards to the Normal Avenue Plan. I was pleased with their work and attention to neighboring communities' concerns until the last meeting in which the Chair said that since Developers need more leeway in their design plans, the agreed upon 2 and half story 35 foot It eight for buildings should be changed to 3 stories and 40 feet. What a disappointment! I hope the Council can convince the Planning Dept to return to the 2 and half story 35 foot height max. Thank you for your work and time, Suzanne Marshall Normal Plan Public Comments Letters received between 4129 and 5/6/2014 11 Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us Written public testimony: Normal Neighborhood Plan From :Amy Miller <amymillerediting@gmail.com> Wed, Apr 30, 2014 09:39 PM Subject : Written public testimony: Normal Neighborhood Plan To : brandon goldman <brandon.gold man@ashland.or.us> Dear Mr. Goldman, Thank you for inviting public comments regarding the Normal Neighborhood Plan. I would like to submit the following comment for the City Council meeting on May 6th. As a homeowner in the Ashland Meadows subdivision off lower Clay Street -and directly adjacent to the Normal Avenue development area-I would like to add my voice to those of my many neighbors who oppose aspects of the plan. My main concern is the multi-dwelling high-density (NN-03) area that keeps appearing on the plan on the parcel now owned by the Baptist church (Rogue Valley Church). I am continually perplexed that this high-density development keeps appearing on the plan-sometimes a two- story complex, sometimes three, sometimes to the east or west-despite the fact that every time, the neighbors on nearby parcels loudly oppose this part of the development. I would like the high-density part of this plan to be reduced to multi-dwelling low-density (NN-02) zoning for four primary reasons: 1) Lower Clay Street, only a block from the projected apartment complex, has already borne the brunt of high-density housing in Ashland. We already have the (mostly rented and financially shaky) condo complex on McCall Avenue, the large apartment complex on Villard Street, and the eight-unit complex on Dollarhide that went in about a year ago. Lower Clay Street has done its bit for Ashland's high- density housing and is beginning to feel like a dumping ground for these complexes. 2) East Main is already congested and dangerous during school drop-off and pick-up times and on Growers' Market days, and no plan seems to be in place to pay for the needed improvements to it when hundreds of households are added. At every planning commission meeting I've attended, new and conflicting information is presented about how the cost may be distributed among East Main homeowners. 3) The two creeks on either side of the parcel and their associated wetlands are a sensitive and ever-changing habitat for birds and animal sNcgUnnMic(4TftaOls and Lrgker gfved"ttng2p#ndFYT2@111 to the neighborhd?)d's quiet, semi-rural beauty: Adding so many households will undoubtedly impact this sensitive natural area; no amount of planning can prevent that. 4) I find it very disturbing that this high-density complex keeps coming up only because the current landowner and a potential developer want to do it. This looks to me like short-term cash for somebody and long-term consequences for the neighborhood. NN-02 zoning, such as they type that already exists in Meadowbrook Park Estates, Ashland Meadows, and Chautauqua Trace, has already proven fairly harmonious to Ashland's character and needs and would be a much better choice. Thank you for your attention. Amy'Miller 244 Meadow Dr. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 482-2344 amymillerediting@gmail.com Normal Plan Public Comments Letters received between 4129 and 516/2014 13 From: aquiettplace@ashlandhome.net Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 1:03 PM To: council@ashland.or.us Subject: City Council Contact Form Submitted Full Name: William & Judith Quiett Phone: 541-482-1168 Email: aquiettplacenu ashlandhome.net Subject: Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework Doc. Message: Open letter Ashland City Council April 30, 2014 Re: Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework Document Dear Councilors, As our representatives on City Council we are asking you to rewrite this huge development proposal. We feel it is out of step with the charming city we have been involved with for the past 20 years. The density of this plan would negatively impact all of those presently living in the area. The density of the area would destroy open space aesthetics for every Ashland resident and visitor. Once we remove open, breathable space it is gone forever. Look at all the cities that have blight because they did not take city aesthetics into consideration. Please remain sensitive to our environment. Keep Ashland breathable and beautiful! What about the impact on West Main? The traffic would increase going to and from the development, much of it on West Main. Who would pay for the necessary improvements of this through street to enable additional traffic? It would seem that his improvement would have to be done prior to any construction taking place. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. William and Judith Quiett 931 Pinecrest Terrace Ashland, OR 97520 Normal Plan Public Comments Letters received between 4/29 and 51612014 14 Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us RE: Normal Neighborhood Plan Public Hearing May 6th From :Gil Livni - Heiman <helmansprings@gmail.com> Wed, Apr 30, 2014 12:06 PM Subject : RE: Normal Neighborhood Plan Public Hearing May 6th To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Cc :'Gil Livni - Heiman' <Helmansprings@gmail.com> Hello Brandon, Please see my letter to the city council below. Thank you Gil Livni 510-913-5110 Apd 30, 2014 Hello City Council Members The report from ODSL was completed in 2003 (11 years ago) adopted by Ashland in 2007. In any case, the report is not valid at this point because DSL Wetland Reports are valid for five years. These reports were general observations as well and not scientific reports according to the Wetlands Specialist that I hired. I am unclear why significant decisions are being based on such informal, invalid reports (2003). Basically, when this was brought to the Planning Commission, instead of calling it a Wetlands Area, it has been rephrased as a Conservation Area, taking the land for city purposes, in full disregard of my rights as a Property Owner. In Ashland, I have a right to delineate a Wetland, if it exists, and these rights have been taken away from me and the other Land Owners. I am with the belief that this action is illegal because I am being treated differently than other Ashland Land Owners. In my case, more than 50% is going to Conservation Area. A Wetland Expert from Eugene, who works with the DSL very closely, did his testing and inspections on my land about two weeks ago, and concluded that this area (my lot) is NOT Wetland. I keep on hearing that the area used to be a Wetland, yet it remains the case that the area is currently not Wetland area, nor over the past few years has the area been considered Wetlands. When checking for Wetland, the soil is tested down to 12 inches and examined for composition. The resLAts„ fPthis,&od.UrAWg does lamleraller,~ieb od~&aam6o€,years, even if the years are15 considered dry years. The soil tests show no signs of being a Wetland, to date. I want to remind everyone that the Co-Op in the past had been a Wetland Area. For the record, one of the reasons why my lot was thought to be Wetland is due to the standing water from the illegal (without any permission) of dumping storm drain water from 30+ homes and accompanying streets of the adjacent Home Development: Meadow Brook Park Estates. Due to this major oversight by the City of Ashland, my land is now in question for both Wetland and/or Conservation Allotment. As an owner, I am clearly perplexed. Thank You, Gil Livni 240 Normal Avenue Normal Plan Public Comments Letters received between 4/29 and 51612014 16 May 6, 2014 RECEIVED City of Ashland MAY 0 6 2014 City Council Members - 5/6/14 Meeting Public Comments RE: Normal Neighborhood Plan Concerns: As a resident of the Normal Ave. neighborhood, I have the following concerns: 1. According to the 2011 City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory, it shows a lack of need, outside the City Limits, in the next 20 years for developable land. I would hope at least most of this report is accurate. However, if there is still a certain housing zone type which may be lacking in the available city lands, then I would hope this need would be fulfilled with a lower density of housing, & not only limited to this NNP section of the UGB. How is the need for housing zones calculated? a. Especially with the City News Release on May 1st describing this year's drought conditions, how can the City Council and Commissioners approve a plan to add 450 more homes to Ashland when water curtailment will be started due to the "amount of water consumed by Ashland water users exceeds the amount of water flowing into the City's Reeder Reservoir?" 2. The congestion issues which would be created by the 450 new homes in the NNP not only, will have a massive influence onto E. Main Street traffic at the proposed new intersections, but also an increase in traffic all the way along E. Main to downtown. Traffic Commissioner Craig Anderson said that "the Transportation Analysis done for the City showed the impact and traffic volumes were grossly understated in favor of the developers." Even with the underestimated traffic impact of 450 new homes, this scale of development will necessitate upgrading E. Main, between Clay and Walker Streets, from County to urban standards - as is recommended by the Planning Commission. In addition, wouldn't the City also need to modify the full length of E. Main? Testimony was given to the Planning Commission, by a resident of the Mill Pond area, as to how difficult it is NOW to make a left turn onto E. Main St. when the traffic load increases with just Tuesday Market patrons. Who will pay for these millions of dollars of required road improvements created by this development? Developer SDC's are slated to pay for internal infrastructures within the development and an undisclosed portion of the improvements to E. Main Street. Will the nearby residents be hit with an LID to subsidize the unpaid portion of improvements needed because of the development's congestion, or will the entire City residential tax base be liable for these improvements? Is it really necessary to expand the "apparent" need for housing inventory all into one dense section of the UGB? Wouldn't these traffic issues be alleviated by spreading out the "apparent needed housing" to the available lands inside the City Limits and spread throughout the UGB? 3. 1 have the same concerns regarding the private RR Crossing at the south end of the NNP. Again, will a portion of that estimated $4-5 million dollar "improvement" to upgrade it to a Public Crossing be shouldered by our tax paving citizens for use by the development's new residents? If, indeed, the stated design for the NNP is to have connectivity for the new residents and discourage CUT-Through traffic between major arterials, then why aren't these costs to be fully assumed by the developers? An example of this lack of planning and lack of financial foresight is already seen in the development west of N. Mountain Avenue across from Mountain Meadows. Who is slated, now that the construction is done, to pay, for their connectivity to Oak St. for the $6-8 million dollar bridge across Ashland Creek? 4. Another concern I have is 2-fold regarding the open space areas within the NNP: a. The Planning Comm. has said the land owner will be compensated for open spaces not available for development, by allowing L5 density increases on their remaining lands. This logic totally negates the original intent of the NNP to maintain the existing neighborhood character of Single Family Residences - or "like next to like". And, with the last minute Planning Comm. modification of the increased allowable building height (to "give the developers a little more flexibility in design"), the real possibility exists that a 40'tall building will back up to a single story SFR, thereby destroying the existing neighborhood character. It will allow for a piecemeal design of dissimilar structures which, as I understood, was the whole purpose of the NNP - to have a cohesive plan that doesn't end up with haphazard incongruities. b. What happens if the landowner doesn't want their land to be zoned as open space? If they are successful in mitigating or re-delineating a smaller outline of their natural feature, how will the NNP compensate ITS design to provide the indicated GREEN/OPEN Space all these new homes will need? Is the City willing to purchase open space/natural habitats from these landowners in order to preserve them and benefit the whole neighborhood/city? Shouldn't the City follow the examples of their investments like "A" Street RR Park and the open space park on Westwood and Strawberry? Thank you for listening and taking your time to consider these very important issues. Sincerely, Sue DeMarinis, suedem@charter.net 145 Normal Ave. Ashland, OR 97520 To: Ashland City Council From: Debbie Miller Re: Normal Avenue Plan The proposal before you tonight is very complex, complicated and controversial. would hope that you take time to consider all the aspects of this plan, its impact to the residents of the area and of the city as a whole, both financially and aesthetically. This paper contains the concerns I will not have time to present in oral testimony. I hope that you will take this and other submissions with you, study them in the next few weeks and return ready to ask the questions that must be answered before a project of this size is approved. I urge the Council to consider this a two-step process; if the plan is approved, then a request for annexation is sure to follow immediately, as at least three groups of speculators have purchased over 30 acres and wanted to build three years ago. A need for annexation can not be proved, so the application would necessarily, hopefully, need to be denied. According to the 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory, inside the present city limits about 1,883 dwelling units are possible. The present (for past 10 years) growth rate is .79% annually, the average household in town is 2.03 persons, so about 1,604 DU will be needed in the next 20 years to accommodate that growth. The city potentially has least 275 more DU than projected to be needed in the next c 20 years. Some argument has been made that the present R-2 and R-3 zoned land is not adequate for the projected needs. I am not certain that the potential for accessory units, for additional housing in E-1 zones and other means of providing multi family housing within the city limits has been explored. Traditionally, towns have a dense 'urban core' and more open space toward the perimeter of the city limits. Please consider the visual impact of a least 450 houses at this edge of town, some 40 feet in height (taller than the new building under construction on Lithia Way near the Post Office). A plan that allows homes with yards to grow on the good soil and does not impose such a large city feel to this area would be a better use of this valuable resource. The Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter of the Land Use Code, the Performance Standard Options and the Water Resources Protection plan adopted a few years ago address the need to limit alteration of topography, reduce encroachment into and alteration of natural features, consideration of soil types and wildlife habitat, and not allowing roads through open space, certainly not in wetland areas. The maps before you show roadways over wetlands, a total loss of any opportunities for urban agriculture and community gardens. Additionally, the designated wetlands, recognized by the City and State, have been damaged already by the contractors-live trees with green leaves were cut down, the waterway filled with material to try to prevent the flow-vigilance and constant oversight would be needed to see that these ordinances are respected and obeyed. Again, I mention this now because of the immediacy of annexation applications should the Council pass this plan without serious modifications. The residents along the north side of East Main have been forgotten, I fear. Already they are suffering from well water problems due to the construction of the Meadowbrook subdivision and other housing complexes along Clay Street. They will be left with undue traffic, further loss of water, and the inevitable clashes between urban and rural uses. How many more cars will proceed south on Clay Street to Ashland Street and turn left before the state closes off that option? Can anyone imagine the turmoil and danger if all drivers needing to go to BiMart had to make a U-turn at Faith? The traffic impacts to Clay, East Main and Normal Avenue south of the tracks simply have not been addressed. More issues will be presented tonight; again, I ask you to weigh the costs and benefits of this massive proposal, surely one of the largest in the city. In comparison, Quiet Village, not including the Billings homes, has about 280 houses, perhaps up to 300 if other smaller neighborhoods are counted; Oak Knoll holds around 210. So, this would be a major addition to the city, to be considered carefully for its impacts to the city for the foreseeable future. Thank you for your time and efforts. Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us Comments for May 6 City Council on Normal Development Plan From : Alissa Lukara <alukara@gmail.com> Tue, May 06, 2014 04:07 PM Subject : Comments for May 6 City Council on Normal Development Plan To : brandon goldman <brandon.gold man@ashIand.or.us> I would like to submit the following comment for the City Council meeting on May 6th. My husband and I have owned a home at 248 Meadow Drive near the Creek Street part of the Normal Neighborhood Plan since 2001 and are both registered voters in Ashland. I am writing to express concern about the Normal Neighborhood Plan and recent amendments made by the Planning Commission concerning the First Baptist Church property, and how they impact our existing neighborhood and wildlife/natural areas. My main concerns echo those expressed by many of my neighbors in Ashland Meadows and Meadowbrook Estates communities. The plan as presented appears to take far greater consideration of the developer's needs than those of those of us in the communities who will be living with the impact of the plans as they now exist. We are not saying `ho development," but we are asking for responsible, well planned development. 1. Most notably, I am against allowing 3-story buildings in the new development and am asking that density be limited to 2 '/2 stories, just Eke the rest of Ashland's residential areas are limited to 2 '/2 stories. Why the planning commission would make a last minute exception to that residential rule baffles me. I understand that the planning commission wants to provide developers, who do not live in and vote in our community, greater site and building design flexibility. We were shocked to see the change there. Our neighborhoods have had a wonderful, rural feel, which I and others here value, and we have beautiful views, which are already going to be impacted negatively by the development. As a homeowner, I wonder why our neighborhood now also has to bear the full responsibility of added higher density neighborhoods that are part of Ashland's planned urban growth. 2. I also have other concerns. It appears that not enough thoughtful planning has gone into concerns such as sewage, water and other utilities. It is my understanding that the Creek Street 8" sewer line is already over-burdened by the existing residences in Meadowbrook Estates, in some instances causing backups in multiple residences when one residence has an issue. 3. Better thought and funding considerations need to be made to address additional traffic on E. Main, Creek, Clay and other streets that the new units and automobiles will bring. E. Main is already more congested. This needs to be handled now, in tandem with the development of residences, not later. I am asking that this plan be sent back to the planning commission to better address all these concerns. Sincerely, Alissa Lukara 248 Meadow Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 Speaker Request Form . 3"n"' Tt ej- S to • 1'I THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD ALL INFORMATION. PROVIDED WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC 1) Complete this form and return it to the City Recorder Prior to the discussion of the item v isfishla- to sneak about ,rtr,;.- Exhibit 2) Speak to the City Council from the table podium microphone. Exhibit # OU5- 3) State your name and address for the record. PA;laD13.61F S~ a . 3teff_ y i 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Mayor, usually 3 or 5 minu esle~ 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the City Recorder for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the City Recorder for the record if you do not wish to speak. (Comments can be added to the back of this sheet if necessary) 'n Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Tonight's Meeting Date M-q (0 Name / h lease prints Address (no P.O. Box) cp /V V r T / / 5 Phones y/ Email. O~G~- tS s Regular Meeting Agenda topiclitem number OR Topic for publig forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing Please indicate the following: For- _ Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member (a city councilor or a planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Presiding Officer will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak The Ashland City Council generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time constraints limit public testimony. No. person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or cb'sruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. 6 City of As*i- F;arming Exhib Exhiti[ # 00 7 _ I PA 'f_o'tOl_3 _~6 y 8 DateT~ Staff 5 May 2014 To: City of Ashland City Council 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 From: Brett & Susan Lutz 1700 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 541-218-5203 City Council Members, My wife and I moved to Ashland 8 years ago. We met at Mount Ashland, married at Trinity Episcopal Church, and now have three wonderful young children, ages 6, 4, and 2. We own a house in town at 750 N Laurel Street, which we rent out, and currently live at 1700 East Main Street, just outside of the city limits, in the proposed Normal Avenue Neighborhood Development area. Our property lies on 1.16 acres adjacent to the Ashland Middle School and across the bus turn around street near Grace Point Church. My family and I absolutely want to remain zoned in Jackson County. We do NOT want to be annexed into the City of Ashland. I believe this development plan is haphazardly put together and fails to adequately address the concerns of the community. My comments will explain many of the reasons why. Under Housing and Land Use portion of the plan there's a neighborhood street for the project going through what is deemed a "locally significant" wetland, W9. These should be preserved for water filtration and wildlife habitat. In fact, in September of 2013 1 observed two juvenile salmon, one a coho, in the irrigation ditch on the north side of my property. Water from that wetland south-southeast of my property, W9, flows into this ditch. Those salmon likely originated from this somewhere nearby in the water system. Additionally, the existing road is used by the Middle School as a bus turn-around area, parking during sporting events for both Ashlanders and family and friends of visiting schools, and by both Grace Point Church and Temple Emek Shalom. Current traffic volume is so high already during certain times of certain days that adding additional traffic would certainly result in increased congestion likely resulting in the need for a traffic light. Adding a traffic light would increase road noise, pollution to air and water (there is both a stream and a TID line on the north side of our property that ends up in Bear Creek), and slow traffic movement on East Main Street. Additionally, we fear that a traffic light would make it more difficult to get in and out of our driveway that exits to East Main Street and would almost certainly lower the value of our property. Instead, we would like to see the nearby wetlands expanded, not reduced in size. As our climate continues to change, the need for wetlands for filtering water and to buffer us from flash flooding due t to increased rainfall rates will increase. During dry times, these wetlands can buffer us from drought by serving as water and moisture storage for us and wildlife. Therefore, we believe that there should be a wildlife corridor established and preserved from these wetlands to Bear Creek, and see ourselves as part of that. Thus, we wish to be excluded from the Normal Avenue project and ask that no road beyond what already exists be established through the locally significant wetlands and along the east edge of our property. Rather than develop our land, we want to use it for local food production, green space, as a wildlife corridor, and for renewable energy production. Thanks for your time and understanding. Sincerely, I Signed Brett & Susan Lutz and Family v City of Ashie:1d p Fi3onin; Exhibit Exhit:: # OD _ A PA ;!2/i_ C4, Stillwater Sciences b Dated Staff 108 NW N1nth Ave., State 202, Por2land;:ORR=O$ phone 503.267.9006 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Martin Schott, Schott and Associates FROM: David DeKrey, Fisheries Biologist SUBJECT: Cemetery Creek fish presence/absence survey 1 INTRODUCTION Stillwater Sciences was contracted to conduct a survey of fish presence in Cemetery Creek on the northern border of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. 1.1 Methods Stillwater utilized the Oregon Department of Forestry's (ODF) Surveying Forest Streams for Fish Use protocol (http://www.oregon.gov/odf/privateforests/docs/fishpresncsurveyprotocol.pdf). Protocol requirements include the following: A survey intended to show the absence offish must sample at least 50 yards ofstream distance and a minimum ofsix pools, each at least 1 foot deep, immediately upstream of the point at which fish use is believed to end In addition, any beaver ponds upstream must be sampled as part of the survey The protocol further requires that the survey be conducted between March 1 and May 31 in western Oregon streams. Following the survey, a report must be filed that includes the fish presence survey form, and a map indicating the following: • The area of the stream surveyed highlighted in yellow • The upper limit offish use, unless no fish use was found throughout the survey area. • The name of the surveyor and the date of survey Stillwater Sciences obtained an Oregon Scientific Collector's permit (permit number 18789) from ODFW, which authorized electrofishing in Cemetery Creek. The survey was conducted on April 28, 2014 by David DeKrey of Stillwater Sciences accompanied by Jodi Reed of Schott and Associates. The entire length of Cemetery Creek through the Mahar l Technical Memorandum Fish Presence/Absence Survey, Cemetery Creek Homes property (625 linear feet) was surveyed with a Smith-Root LR24 backpack electroshocker. 1.2 Results In the two weeks prior to the site visit Ashland had received just over one inch of rain, with rain on eight of 14 days (http://weather.sou.edu/). Figure 1 depicts the surveyed reach. GPS points were collected at all photo locations and potential fish barriers. Photos are attached in Appendix A. The survey began at the mouth of Cemetery Creek (Figure 1 and Appendix A) and continued upstream. No potential partial or complete barriers were encountered between the mouth and an access road at 42.19596, -122.68250. Three culverts were present beneath the access road, two concrete and one steel, all approximately 16-inches in diameter (see photo in Appendix A). One culvert conveyed nearly all of the flow, and was perched above the stream bed approximately four inches on the downstream end. There was no pool habitat on the downstream end. Given the discharge rate observed at the time of the site visit, low flows through the culvert and the downstream gap between the water surface elevation and the mouth of the culvert created a likely barrier to any small fish that may have been present downstream. There was a ford for a pasture road/livestock trail at 42.19572, -122.68257; between that point and East Main Street, the elevation rose steeply, and the creek was brush- choked. This area of stream was not surveyed. A 30-inch steel culvert conveyed Cemetery Creek under East Main. The culvert was perched six inches above a downstream pool. The pool was formed by a sandbag dam constructed by the landowner. Only a very small amount of water flowed through/around the dam and down the stream channel. The rest of the water was diverted west to a secondary sandbag dam, and a point of diversion consisting of a 55-gallon drum with a screened opening, sunk in the pool formed by the secondary dam. The drum was connected by irrigation pipe to a pump several hundred feet to the west. Water flowing past the secondary dam spread out across a sloping meadow before dropping at least 20 feet down a sheer bank to the creek bed (see Figure 1). The natural creek bed just downstream of East Main was also very steep. The percent slope measured over 14% grade (40 feet elevation gain over approximately 274 linear feet) based on Jackson County mapping, (http://web.jacksoncounty.org/pdo/), and likely poses a natural barrier to fish passage. The combination of the culvert beneath east main, the diversion dams, and the naturally steep topography create a barrier to fish passage above East Main Street. Surveyors did not have access to the property between East Main Street and the downstream end of the surveyed reach. oOnly two pools over one foot deep were present. No fish were observed during the electrofishing effort. Three crawdads were collected/observed. The water was clear and cool (500 F), and the pools present had good cover, with woody debris and some undercut banks. If the stream was fish bearing, the entire length would likely have contained fish, and the two pools almost certainly would have. Based on the observed barrier to upstream passage at East Main Street, the suitability of the habitat and the lack of fish in the surveyed reach, we conclude that Cemetery Creek at the Mahar Homes property is not fish bearing. The Oregon Department of Forestry Fish Presence Survey Form is attached as Appendix A. saawatersnarxes 2 Technical Memorandum Fish Presence, Ahsence Survey, Cemetery Creek r. r. y~ yr N Alt .a ,a~~v' ~ _`~1 11 ice" ~'.1P„' ~ W& kl,4*j t ip, Alp 40 VW I 71 Z, L Surveyed points and electrofished reach Electrofished Reach Survey Points st Map Sources: o u.os OA 0'210-6- Ashland Imagery: ESRI World Mapping Service o Roads, Streams, Cities: ESRI 2012 n n.ws nns o.i Figure 1. Location of fish presence /absence survey. Stillwater Sciences 3 Stillwater Sciences 108 NW Ninth Ave., Suite 202, Portland, OR 97209 phone 503.267.9006 Appendix A Site Photos Technical Memorandum Fish Presence Absence Survey. Ceme toy ('reek ~ r ..,•-r.-~r ~t .gyp s w 41- t<,'l ; j to ~ . ~ + jar IALI 1. ,i {~~yL I Photo 1: Mouth of Cemetery Creek, at Bear Creek I r / r 1J p ter," 1! Ir yj'~ / Photo 2: Three culverts beneath the access road. Right-most culvert (obscured by brush in the photo) was conveying nearly all the flow S&//water Sciences 2 Technical Memorandum Fish Presence 'Absence Survey, Cemetery Creek `.0!uNV Nw a i Who ti iyTF~'' .5~~,. -imw S i ~i~ rdb V-:'~/ ~,,~.'-~II~'~M. ~p YACr '~~r.,f~~l.~'j . Photo 3. Cemetery Creek flowing across the ford in the pasture, looking upstream toward East Main Street. yw r ~ r 1~ r" X91 ~ i . f ~ ~ I.,aJ ~''lo ` 'r A Photo 4. Culvert beneath East Main Street. Ri//water .Sciences ~G Stillwater Sciences 108 NW Ninth Ave., Suite 202, Portland, OR 97209 phone 503.267.9006 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE: May 5, 2014 TO: Martin Schott, Schott and Associates FROM: David DeKrey, Fisheries Biologist SUBJECT: Cemetery Creek fish presence/ absence survey 1 INTRODUCTION Stillwater Sciences was contracted to conduct a survey of fish presence in Cemetery Creek on the northern border of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. 1.1 Methods Stillwater utilized the Oregon Department of Forestry's (ODF) Surveying Forest Streams for Fish Use protocol (http://www.oregon.gov/odf/privateforests/docs/fishpresncsurveyprotocol.pdo. Protocol requirements include the following: A survey intended to show the absence offish must sample at least 50 yards ofstream distance and a minimum ofsix pools, each at least I foot deep, immediately upstream of the point at which fish use is believed to end In addition, any beaver ponds upstream must be sampled as part of the survey The protocol further requires that the survey be conducted between March 1 and May 31 in western Oregon streams. Following the survey, a report must be filed that includes the fish presence survey form, and a map indicating the following: • The area of the stream surveyed highlighted in yellow • The upper limit of fish use, unless no fish use was found throughout the survey area. • The name of the surveyor and the date of survey Stillwater Sciences obtained an Oregon Scientific Collectors permit (permit number 18789) from ODFW, which authorized electrofishing in Cemetery Creek. The survey was conducted on April 28, 2014 by David DeKrey of Stillwater Sciences accompanied by Jodi Reed of Schott and Associates. The entire length of Cemetery Creek through the Mahar Technical Memorandum Fish Presence/Absence Survey, Cemetery Creek Homes property (625 linear feet) was surveyed with a Smith-Root LR24 backpack electroshocker. 1.2 Results In the two weeks prior to the site visit Ashland had received just over one inch of rain, with rain on eight of 14 days (http://weather.sou.edu/). Figure 1 depicts the surveyed reach. GPS points were collected at all photo locations and potential fish barriers. Photos are attached in Appendix A. The survey began at the mouth of Cemetery Creek (Figure 1 and Appendix A) and continued upstream. No potential partial or complete barriers were encountered between the mouth and an access road at 42.19596, -122.68250. Three culverts were present beneath the access road, two concrete and one steel, all approximately 16-inches in diameter (see photo in Appendix A). One culvert conveyed nearly all of the flow, and was perched above the stream bed approximately four inches on the downstream end. There was no pool habitat on the downstream end. Given the discharge rate observed at the time of the site visit, low flows through the culvert and the downstream gap between the water surface elevation and the mouth of the culvert created a likely barrier to any small fish that may have been present downstream. There was a ford for a pasture road/livestock trail at 42.19572, -122.68257; between that point and East Main Street, the elevation rose steeply, and the creek was brush- choked. This area of stream was not surveyed. A 30-inch steel culvert conveyed Cemetery Creek under East Main. The culvert was perched six inches above a downstream pool. The pool was formed by a sandbag dam constructed by the landowner. Only a very small amount of water flowed through/around the dam and down the stream channel. The rest of the water was diverted west to a secondary sandbag dam, and a point of diversion consisting of a 55-gallon drum with a screened opening, sunk in the pool formed by the secondary dam. The drum was connected by irrigation pipe to a pump several hundred feet to the west. Water flowing past the secondary dam spread out across a sloping meadow before dropping at least 20 feet down a sheer bank to the creek bed (see Figure 1). The natural creek bed just downstream of East Main was also very steep. The percent slope measured over 14% grade (40 feet elevation gain over approximately 274 linear feet) based on Jackson County mapping, (http://web.jacksoncounty.org/pdo/), and likely poses a natural barrier to fish passage. The combination of the culvert beneath east main, the diversion dams, and the naturally steep topography create a barrier to fish passage above East Main Street. Surveyors did not have access to the property between East Main Street and the downstream end of the surveyed reach. oOnly two pools over one foot deep were present. No fish were observed during the electrofishing effort. Three crawdads were collected/observed. The water was clear and cool (50° F), and the pools present had good cover, with woody debris and some undercut banks. If the stream was fish bearing, the entire length would likely have contained fish, and the two pools almost certainly would have. Based on the observed barrier to upstream passage at East Main Street, the suitability of the habitat and the lack of fish in the surveyed reach, we conclude that Cemetery Creek at the Mahar Homes property is not fish bearing. The Oregon Department of Forestry Fish Presence Survey Form is attached as Appendix A. Stillwater Sciences 2 Technical Memorandum Fish Presence/Absence Survey Cemetery Creek 4 1 F • f ! t Y . ~ r •M ` y1{ r ~ ill ~T n t 1 f t Surveyed points and electrofished reach • . Electrofshed Reach alr O Survey Points stmR stlenou n.nnsn.m. ~ Tt°~ Map Sources: Imagery: ESR1 World Mapping Service 0 0105 01 0,aamem. Ashland Roads, Streams, Cities: ESRI 2012 ~1'T1 A. I\ 0.11 .5 Figure 1. Location of fish presence/absence survey. RNWater Sciences 3 ~G Stillwater Sciences 108 NW Ninth Ave., Suite 202, Portland, OR 97209 phone 503.267.9006 Appendix A Site Photos Technical Memorandum Fish Presence/Absence Survey, Cemetery Creek a _ w: 'i A:AtA Photo 1: Mouth of Cemetery Creek, at Bear Creek r. 1,4 Photo 2: Three culverts beneath the access road. Right-most culvert (obscured by brush in the photo) was conveying nearly all the flow Stillwater Sciences 2 Technical Memorandum Fish Presence/Absence Survey, Cemetery Creek ,J. Photo 3. Cemetery Creek flowing across the ford in the pasture, looking upstream toward East Main Street. v J~ hiZj' 1 f y ~ f \ 1 I A Photo 4. Culvert beneath East Main Street. Stillwater Sciences 3 Technical Memorandum Fish Presence/Ahsence Survey, Cemetery Creek ( i 4 a + t a 1 1 r Y Photo 5. Sandbag irrigation dam downstream of the culvert beneath East Main Street. i t r ~ tt l~~ l 1 M~~ r vy Y+~ S Y C JR r - W7, Photo 6. Secondary dam and point of diversion Stillwater Sciences 4 Technical Memorandum Fish Presence/Absence Survey, Cemetery Creek s ug, v 4.. r iMl:Yi~ n ~a Photo 7. Downstream end of Cemetery Creek on the Mahar Homes property, looking upstream. Stillwater Sciences 5 Technical Memorandum Fish Presence/Absence Survey, Cemetery Creek Appendix B Oregon Department of Forestry Fish Presence Survey Form Technical Memorandum Fish Presence/Absence Survey, Cemetery Creek OREGON FISH PRESENCE SURVEY FORM 1 ATTACH A COPY OF THE 7.5 MINUTE ODF STREAM CLASS MAP Surveyor Name(s): ogv t`~ 1) e-~C l Agency: ~-l3lwa4v Ste:-a~..-« Land Owner: .'19a4ao 4aN-..r.s Mailing Address: i.,v n/w 9*= h't"c Su: zoz P,ny/o,...,r OR- 9?a.o9 Phone: o~ -33 0 - 41!1) Date Surveyed: Stream: +e'-C.-t, gnu-~'~- Tributary to: (3,2r Cmeek- QuadMap: - Location: T 395 R of - Sec. /0 Survey Method iG Electroshocker D Angling ❑ Visual Survey Above End of Fish Use: Distance (feet) (0 ZS Number of Pools Z Flow Level (6,1): M LOW D Moderate D Haigh F Weather: C,0206? 7~ O ~r Water Temperature: r 50* Water Clarity (V): l9 Clear D Moderate D Turbid FISH OBSERVATIONS AQUATIC WHALEM R ~v,o obSQA~1"' Gr-ru,~'. 3 PHYSICAL STREAM DATA .N pig" tle~~ e~ 2 3 ~7a F w D F Vlne✓,- If fish use ends at a natural barrier, describe the conditions that prevent upstream fish passage. T,-&.r. c~ 7f W; C",/, -kj -,u /Ukr t x YO '()b 19% g,~'- 5-Aza._ ~j .w sat a road crossing, describe conditions that may prevent upstream fish passage. If fish =U, E < sf e9jo OD5{ p asrti~ t Pv~ Cc Pi~~v✓ t ✓ :.r. .a:V2`sin'~ cl oC?i a0r d'r Other commnts (use reverse side if necessary): r, SSVa4 ('P e w 5 a rc.~,.,,_ , Stillwater Sciences 2 \ \\E \ „52 CAHBX OR. TAXLOT320 TCH Normal Avenue Un-incorporated Area a \ \ WETLAND DELINEATION Al" 2,2: m.a rwxLOrzzoo \ \ •y. ~ \ \ a0.5 .5CMS LYA'O S(RIArBWrnQ11 ny yy,5, m SOUTfPsASTQUAR OFSECRONIO \ \E\ R 1~ YOR'NSmP3950 I JAC SONCUU ,OR GON¢TIBAffiAIDfAN T ~ FOR raXLOr2Jaa ,5 ~s.a 05-*' Mahar HOmes, Inc. TAXLOT260 BISAIder LSmh Dnro . \ rwxLOrnao !qI~ . _ rwxLOrasw 2Op$~ ~-9 \ eovrvu.5srcovs \ CRRRX TRAGTD O M.5nv8mw A®-watwNUOtxervwmAv ie'umr Q\\4 Ii \1~\~gggy.~ SUR YNOT2 I~ ~I \ ~ ~ fl - \ \~Y++ u'im30vro ~ . o ~i`,ror[°Mb ~vn~rzssaRa~in~ j 1~'- we 0ourm w u,.roka NLCtvt mo sLMSr m IGC1rr Nm uv n.SE® wnwm ,w' 1 § ~ cnwiz'rm eErxfxN uwa n-.. mir. Jq \ \ ~cr e-` 5 5 / Izrse mn. I I ~ ~ (I I e Ixovl mn. 1 A p Y E Y 67 .W.f}. TAXLOTZbao I . b 05- aeimrni. blav mn I ¢ q _i TAXLOT2TOJ bl 1 1 8 I' I TRACT A 4Q \ 9 ,a'I° c6na'rwar al1l -LOT1100 rwXLOr looO II \ _ _ 1 ` y~ l r°PP> IR I .a I1I ~ 1 a I'.I aow<rcr\\ fl,4~llli Y~1 ~I vjl 11, I1 1 I 0 4> i i \ /Q TRncrs rwxlnr roa i •l. o an• bo• reoS.e/ ~p jl~/6 \ \ \~.Q ars'. i b 0eA A 1r \ TRAL7• / O / / / \ r F 9 YI Y_ / PROr}SSIONRL L LAND SURVEYOR \ r 1\1 'y n , \ °010'J'~ 6 rAwcr n 'S C \ ~ KwPU.wx II \ R \ 4 Q . s rocs TAXLOTJIOJ TAX40T3bCO ~~vewr F \ b I. ! II \ 9 \ I Q vr+:rnu o~ 5/30/2015 o R SURV~ED By POLARIS LAND SURVEYING LLC \ d\ \ \ \Q \ I P.O. BOX 459 4 9 ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (541) 482-5008 i}, TAXLOr31O0 \ I R ,5 ppp MATCHL➢V& \ B \ \11 DATE PROJECTN0.2H65 0-14 POLARIS LAND SURVEYING