HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-0520 Normal Exhibits & Docs Submitted
City or Ashlanh J ~t/I r R w(
Flannin;n Exhibit
Exhitn# O-
A PA :k ~0~3-0
c~/ taff May 6, 2014
s Dat
To: Ashland City Council
From: The residents of Ashland Meadows, Chautauqua Trace, Meadowbrook Park Estates and
other Ashland residents living on or near lower Clay Street and most immediately affected by the
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Re: Modifications to the plan in the Planning Commission Report of April 22, 2014 covering the
parcel of property between East Main and Creek Drive known as the "Baptist Church property."
The undersigned residents are extremely disappointed that the Ashland Planning
Commission and staff have approved and recommended a plan for the above parcel which
contains a high density zone and changes the 2-1/2 story or 35-ft. height limit to a possible 3-1/2
stories and 45-ft. limit for that zone. This recommendation reverses a position previously taken
by the planning commission over a year ago after many residents voiced concerns about the
impact of such high density on our community, including the adverse impact on sewer, water,
transportation and open space elements.
The Planning Commission Report to the City Council states at pages 3-4 that this change
would "provide applicants greater site and building design flexibility This goal, however,
is directly contrary to the commission's espoused values "of protecting scenic views considered
important to the community and preserving the character of the community.... " The
undersigned would question who is to be served in this matter - the developer or the city
residents and voters? Please amend this "minor amendment" as it was termed in the report, and
continue to heed legitimate resident concerns before allowing an outside contractor to change
Ashland's community standards of livability.
~~ce
Name Address Name Address
9(~ '~Jey, (05 6 t~ re
6 5 ~o^^olfcs 0! clza4
~ fte~L~ l~, lw C20croz 97
Z 3fi'
grbA
0235 ~ C(~p.~~' CCn~e~
/71Croc c ~C
5 r
ff A)
M
cAl~ II A~nm~n 2' G ~I 6,04 NiL
X83 ~rool~c.,SY.
etiw - ~3E3n ~1~r~-~t}v-e
r"~- 2-36 (j db'~lI~~-I-ave
f
;Name Address Name Address
/G~G~ L,~fiGZ 3~ EGA y
p~ 23 C St
~L~ Zoo Cc~~ sg
P, kIE7 54 1~0 GI-4 14
011, 1
/yP9w-
CL $ C,P.&'-'-k Df
pcolkv
Jlewev G,,eet)- / ;Z/zz, 6"CE64 DR,
c Ste- zzq Sf
Name Address Name Address
44
fL Oct
44o Mcc
~r~ ?~6 gnaw -3 PAP 0
MM4 (4)
2 altr~/'/ILV~s~ !J r
-0j All 29 2 q- q~vw 7 o,~.4s 7>.
Z63 P'1 ADOW \DrZ .
~ 1.~7~ ~y3 ,w~.rpow De ~/I~f(,(at,Q a63 o►~►eu~Ar'
Ko-y/rt me"w -7?r
p~,uy~-~.~s. .~OGc~ 3✓rl' .G~.Dd//~ H,1w r ~i g `~1'j~su~P~ J`~ r.
7rH 3 S /Ll~ar,~~w 9 /
Zo 9L Gz' Dr
64L L (✓N" 51al d 0/t,
MEMORANDUM "y°`Ah'd
F!aimin? Exhibit
Keystone Natural Resource Consulting PA k ii#QO6 0
12920 SW Moreno Drive
Gaston, OR 97119 Dat $ta((_
Cell: (503) 201-9077
Email: mike@keystonenrc.com
To: Gil Livni; City of Ashland Date: May 19, 2014
From: Mike Holscher, PWS Pages
Subject: 240 Normal Avenue
Keystone Natural Resource Consulting (KNRC) visited the 240 Normal Avenue site in early April,
2014 to verify an Oregon Division of State Lands (ODSL) on-site determination of the land east of
the unnamed drainage onsite.
KNRC's recent investigation documented conditions on both sides of the drainage within its
floodplain. It has been concludes that there is less wetland than previously mapped by ODSL.
After a slow start to this water year from October January, February and March accumulated 200+
percent of its normal precipitation. Even with the excessive rainfall only a small polygon of land
meets all three wedand criteria. The wetland is near and associated with storm water leaking from a
plugged storm water outfall from the neighboring subdivision at the west terminus of Creek Drive
(untreated road runof
This outfall was recently plugged up and diverted north at the east property line. This plugged
outfall is likely the difference in the water documented onsite by ODSL in 2003 (normal
precipitation year) and what was observed this year. Air photos from 2003 show the subdivision
streets and a majority of the homes present, so street runoff was flowing onsite at the time of the
ODSL site visit. Street runoff is no longer flowing onsite which will be the argument provided to
ODSL in a request to reduce the area of wetland previously mapped.
T ,
U
03 ~ N
1~ Duti,2 O q Fl
n^
u~u p P• n Z ~0C)
QoZo •.3a II ~~.7 0 qµ oW
F WG~rs 2 V ; C~a Ig~~ ° O ~XO
,'1 p,5 aO~ mP ~02t3~ g001Q:V ~Z
y ~Su° :og y o°' a > o o
pQ rc Z
2 dhp ~nS 0. A ] adjs~ <W
V> y _J1Q2~ °
O 9y, 3 = oa
B w
At
I y
1 666rZ - 3.9Q6 N
~aw .rrl
mah
u 3AS A301 - ~
_ yry I H
Y ~ Y
9 W i ^,m^ u~. t i§ I 8 O
m
Q I,1 m m ~
In y ~ r =
O
z
fi
e
1
S
h
ti
W
,a
.e9'9az - 3 ,99.90. N I I g
~Y Y Y r Y Y 9 Y~~Y~l~Y~Y1 I S I 'ss
U
03 J O
o ~Z O b h
CL~ Ww o F o 000
F Nwa
~I 3 puo 3 c z \ 0 ~Vq)'pq dm
F a s E I( = m~a og,
7 0 00 b,C, ti
s., OQ:m
ooz C7" I)~ o~~ a mo' aw
J aqa n< a.~ ~ ~ N gUOy
dz,~rc
a Le
L
h I
o ~ - 2
3uVS 3]t
N
o I
W M u ; i ce
n I
C I I
0
N Q ~ ~`i } I
3 ~
S L i I h
k I a
I 81
v I I
I ~
YO
C
I W
.fL
2
,589ZL - 3.9551140 N
I-r r r ' r r 9 r~r~ I~ I# ~ E
CITY OF
11 -ASHLAND
'e $Y { 9
e 4ftN jM
_ 1 ' n'F r,*asR ~5v"a
f fi
r
k ~rkv;
s * HI $b, = s r 9 3,
hen
r # ~i _ }
3
VJ5 tn/
Yr ~
a ~b
p,Walker _
EleSmcheonotal ry 4-
. r s ' Y
Iq U / p
A
1rS
.4~ dt
I eidv
c s
Qu,r
i 4
Normal Neighborhood Plan o 200 400 800 1,200 Feet
Open Space Network
natural arealopen space green streets)
pocket park multi-use path
3'1112074
CITY OF
ASHLAND
- I I I ~
/VO
u
eet r
Ashland
Middle
I School-i
I
enta
Walker
j DemeMary
School \
1
I I I I r\ ~ q
0 200 400 800 1,200 Feet
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Normal Neighborhood Plan
® Conservation Area
l 5&/y 1046Y?N
In the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), and as was stated by Planner Molnar at the May 6m Council Meeting,
there is a surplus within aty Limits of developable land required by the State. The only needed classification
zoning shown is for multifamily housing. It should utilize the available lands within the City Limits first, then in
77 the Normal Plan NN-03 zone. Why is there an overabundance of NN-02 (wh F tJal~"ahl(ows~for multi-family) in
the Normal Plan when this need is NOT documented in the BLI? ann"'~ fxhib~4
xirih;
pA
Oa x"0185
The current iteration of the Normal Plan Land Use Zones shows multiple are as` t
derlying Open
Spaces with densities of NN-02. The Planning Dept. will compensate land owners for Op pace Areas not
available for development, by allowing 50% density increases on their remaining lands, rather than outright
GtV gCguiSition. First, this doesn't follow the COMP Plan's direction, in chpt. 18.14.02, to purchase and
preserve Open Spaces.
Secondly, when these remaining adjacent lands abut a Single Family Residential (SFR) existing neighborhood,
the 50% density increase would allow an NN-03 type non-compatible 3 story, 40' tall multi-family building
alongside a single family, 1-story already existing residence. Zoning densities adjacent to Open Space should
be amended for these planned 50% increases and start out with NN-01, rather than unneeded
NN-02, next to the Normal Plan Open Spaces.
The Comp Plan specifically identifies the "Normal Street Wetlands (8.09.07) as poorly suited for development
and may contain significant wildlife habitat. The Plan calls for acquisition and retention of this wetland. It is
also identified on the Ashland Parks & Open Space Map as not vet acquired by city, but as remaining on the
proposed plan. It is listed on the City's Wetlands Inventory as #9, the largest designated, significant water
resource in Ashland. Why isn't a proposal in the Normal Plan to acquire this tract of open space land
prior to development, as is outlined in the Comp Plan Acquisition Strategies?
Acquiring this Wetlands #9 Open Space would fulfill the COMP Plan policy (8.16.3) to encourage "school-
park joint developments" as an educational and scientific resource, since it is directly adjacent to
AMIS. Preserving this Wetlands also allows for 1. recharging the aquifers that feed wells, 2. holding temporary
seasonal flood waters from damaging downstream properties, and 3. providing water for surface agriculture.
How can the City add new homes when there has just been a Water Curtailment Notice stating Ashland water
use exceeds the amount of water in Reeder Reservoir?"
The Planning Comm. Normal Plan recommendation allows, with a CUP, a building height to 40' to "give the
developers a little more flexibility in design". Why would this building height be allowed in the Normal Plan
when it directly contradicts Municipal Code 18.22.040 limiting city buildings to Wand 2.5 stories? Cottage
Housing, which is incorporated in the Normal Plan design, is defined in the Land Use Ordinance with building
height maximum at 18', & roof ridge max at 25'. Why is this ordinance definition modified for the Normal Plan?
Thanks, Sue DeMarinis, resident of Normal Ave. Neighborhood May 19, 2014
ww/
SYSusan Wallace
1980 E Main St
Ashland OR 97520
May 14, 2014
Mayor & the City Council
RE: Normal Neighborhood Plan (Cemetery Creek Study)
Outline: 1. Reject the Cemetery Creek and wetland survey by developer, 2. Oppose the high density and
2.5 and 3 story buildings 3. Support fully improving transportation development on E Main St and rail
road crossing before annexation & development.
1. The property owner (developer) behind my property (1980 E Main St) excavated Cemetery
Creek with large equipment. They have narrowed and deepened the original flow.
Approximately 5 years ago over a 2 week period they removed vegetation and trenched
Cemetery Creek to reduce the width. About 6 months ago they came back with large equipment
and again removed vegetation and altered the creek to suit their development needs. The
developers should have done a survey before bring in large equipment to.get a true study. This
is a drought year and couldn't possibly be a straightforward study. Their bias survey should be
rejected, because they manipulated the Cemetery Creek before doing the study. I can see the
survey flags from my property and the markers are not accurate. You can see the surface water,
reed grass, cattails and willows are much wider than the markers.
Cemetery Creek is providing valuable habitat that benefits this neighborhood and outer areas
which should be preserved. The creek and wetlands should be conserved for open space not
additional housing. Today I looked up and saw a Bald Eagle soaring above the creek. Deer, wood
ducks, baby ducks, foxes, possums, grey herons, mallard ducks, hawks and many other small
mammals have been sighted along the creek. Vehicular crossing of wetlands and streams should
minimized. If a road crossing is necessary than a bridge not a culvert should be used. For
protection of habitat, storm-water, snowmelt, etc.
2. 1 oppose the red high density and the overall volume of residents should be reduced for the
Plan. I oppose allowing a 2.5 to 3 story buildings that would alternator the country charm of the
area. This neighborhood has the potential to keep the unique feel of the rural character through
the development design of the area.
3. 1 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.
Addressing these two transportation matters before development and annexation will be vital
to support the additional traffic the development will bring to the area. The south side of E Main
Street from Walker Ave to Clay should be fully improved to City Street Standards prior to
development within the plan area. The public railroad crossine be installed with a finance plan
established prior to annexation and development.
May 18, 2014 RECEIVED
Dear Ashland City Councilors: MAY 19 2014
My concerns as a resident of the Normal Neighborhood Plan are as follows:
1. Density and Zoning
According to the 2011 City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), and as was stated by Planning Director
Molnar in his summary at the May 6, 2014 Council Meeting, there is a surplus within City Limits of
developable land required by the State. The "apparent needed housing" presented in the Normal
Neighborhood Plan (NNP) would be best applied to urbanize the available lands within the City Limits first, and
then spread any growth of needed zoning classifications throughout the additional vacant lands in the Urban.
Growth Boundary (UGB), as well as in the NNP. Development is certainly justified in the NNP, and a coherent
design is applauded, but such concentration solely in the NNP of unnecessarily dense zoning creates traffic
issues with exorbitant capital improvements needed for a single arterial, as well as access and financing issues
over a private RR crossing and effects on natural water features within the NNP. A more sensible
neighborhood plan would take into consideration the existing neighborhoods and natural features and have
the new developments complement rather than overpower them. How can the City even design any
increase in 450-500 new homes (as in the NNP after it is annexed into the City limits) when there has just been
a Water Curtailment Notice on May 1, 2014 describing "the amount of water consumed by current Ashland
water users exceeds the amount of water flowing in the City's Reeder Reservoir?"
According to the Ashland COMP Plan, "zoning decisions must be in agreement with the COMP Plan Map
2.03.04 (www.ashiand.or.us/Files/Comprehensive Plan.pdf), meaning they cannot be of greater density or
intensity than allowed on the Plan Map", which shows the NNP to have only Single Family Residential (max of
4-6 Dwelling Units/acre) and Suburban Residential (max of 7-9 Dwelling Units/acre) zoning. This City COMP
Plan ruling is directly contradicted in the currently presented NNP Land Use Designation Overlay Zoning
densities mapped out by the Planning Commission for your review.
The current iteration of the NNP Land Use Designation Overlay Zones shows multiple areas surrounding Open
Space/Conservation Areas with densities of NN-02 (5-10 Dwellings/acre). The Planning Dept. has said land
owners will be compensated for Conservation Areas/Open Spaces not available for development, by allowing
50% density increases on their remaining lands, rather than outright City acquisition. This doesn't follow the
COMP Plan's direction (18.14.02) to purchase the Open Space. When these remaining lands abut a Single
Family Residential (SFR) existing neighborhood, the 50% increase in density could allow, with a CUP or major
amendment, a 3 story, 40' tall multi-family building alongside a single family, 1-story existing residence. The
original intent of the NNP to maintain the existing neighborhood character is negated. Zoning densities
planned for these areas adjacent to Open Spaces should be amended for these planned 50% increases and
start out with NN-01, rather than NN-02, next to the open space properties identified on the NNP, so that
Open Spaces and existing SFR are not potentially crammed in next to NN-03 (10-15 multifamily units/acre).
2. Building Heights in the NNP
A last minute Planning Comm. modification allows, with a CUP, an increase of building height to 40' to "give
the developers a little more flexibility in design". Why is this building height allowable in the. NNP when this
directly contradicts the Ashland Municipal Code 18.22.040 which limits all buildings to 35' and 2.5 stories
everywhere else within the City? Cottage Housing, which is incorporated in the NNP design, is designated in
the November 2013 Unified Land Use Ordinance (ULUO) as "single story, one and one-half story, or single
story plus a loft. Building height of all structures shall not exceed 18'. The highest point of a pitched roof may
extend up to 25' at the ridge of the roof." How is this ordinance definition allowed to be modified for the
'NNP?
3. Water Resource Land / Natural Features / Open Space Network
As identified in the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, the "Normal Street Wetlands (8.09.07) is poorly
suited for development and may contain significant wildlife habitat. The Plan calls for acquisition and
retention of the wetland. The area should be enhanced as a wetland, with development limited to trails that
would provide for bird watching and the study of nature". This tract of land, identified by the 2005 City of
Ashland Parks, Trails, & Open Space Program Map (https://www.ashIand.or.us/Files/Parks OS Plan 2005 pdf),
is listed as not vet acquired by city, but as remaining on the proposed plan. This Normal Street Wetlands has
been listed on the City's 2007 Local & State Wetlands Inventory as the largest designated water resource in
Ashland, now known as Wetlands #9. It is identified as a significant hydrologic ecosystem of 5.38 acres
privately owned within the NNP. Why isn't a proposal in the NNP to acquire this tract of land prior to
development, as outlined in the Comp Plan Acquisition Strategies? The Comp Plan states (8.14.02) that "it is
in the City's best interest to negotiate with the property owner and purchase the land before it is ripe for
development". What if the owner mitigates, or basically removes such a resource prior to City purchase or
zoning density compensation? How, then, will the outlined amount of acreage of Open Spaces/Conservation
Areas be preserved for the NNP?
The goal of the COMP Plan Open Space Policy (8.15) is to provide the people of Ashland with a variety,
quantity, and quality of parks & open spaces. With this Wetland #9 adjacent to the Ashland Middle School, it
would fulfill the COMP Plan policy (8.16.3) to encourage school-park joint developments as an educational and
scientific resource. Preserving this Wetland #9 also allows for the current residents in the NNP and north of E.
Main St. to use this water resource on which they depend for: 1) recharging the aquifers that feed their wells,
2) holding temporary seasonal flood waters from damaging downstream properties, and 3) providing water
for their surface agriculture.
I strongly encourage reviewing and scrutinizing the density of this NNP development for all the
above issues, as well as those stated by other concerned citizens, i.e. capital improvement funding, city-wide
infrastructure & access costs, and increased demand on city services & facilities.
Thanks for integrating public input into your decisions,
Sue DeMarinis, resident of Normal Ave. Neighborhood