HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-0529 Council Mtg PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
May 20, 2014, Business Meeting
Continuance of a Public Hearing and First Reading of two separate ordinances
amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Maps,
Transportation System Plan, and Street Standards to adopt the Normal
Neighborhood Plan
FROM:
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner, Community Development Department,
Brandon.Goldman@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
These two ordinances amend the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan to implement
the Normal Neighborhood Plan. A Normal Neighborhood District Land Use code amendment is
presented for discussion only. It will be reviewed as part of a separate legislative action in the
upcoming months and is intended to be included in the Unified Land Use Ordinance. Given the
interrelated nature of the Normal Neighborhood Plan elements this Draft Land Use Ordinance, this
language is presented for Council consideration, discussion, and direction at the May 6`h hearing.
The Normal Neighborhood Plan will guide future development associated with approximately 94 acres
of unincorporated lands within Ashland's Urban Growth Boundary. It attempts to implement existing
City land use policies that promote the construction of diverse housing types and a neighborhood
network of connected streets, walkways and cycling facilities, while requiring integration of, and
protection for, the neighborhood's natural areas, consisting of wetlands, creeks and associated
floodplains and riparian areas.
BACKGROUND
In March of 2011 the City Council directed the Community Development Department to apply for a
Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant to prepare a neighborhood master plan for the
94 acre Normal Neighborhood area. Having received the grant award in May 2012, an extensive
public involvement process was undertaken to develop the plan. Public engagement included 32 public
meetings where the viewpoints of a variety of participants including the general public, property
owners and neighboring residents affected the plan's evolution.
On December 2, 2013, the City Council received an update on draft plan which had been discussed by
the Transportation Commission and Planning Commission at their September, October, and November
meetings. The final Normal Neighborhood Plan and draft implementing ordinances were initially
presented to the Planning Commission at a study session on February 25, 2014. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the final plan on March 11"', and completed its deliberations on
April 8, 2014.
Page 1 of 3
ce
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The Normal Neighborhood Plan is comprised of Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework document,
official Normal Neighborhood Plan maps, and the proposed Normal Neighborhood District land use
ordinance amendments (Ch. 18-3.13). Collectively these documents create the underlying physical
form and regulatory structure for the area's future development. Development of this area is expected
to occur in an incremental way, as individual parcels propose annexation for specific housing
developments. The adoption of a Neighborhood Plan for the area will ultimately provide a general
framework for evaluating future annexation requests to ensure that in addition to housing the
coordination of streets, pedestrian connections, utilities, storm water management and open space is
considered as part of development proposals.
A detailed description of the proposed Normal Neighborhood plan's land use, transportation, and open
space, frameworks is provided in the attached Planning Action Staff Report (PL-2013-01858)
NEXT STEPS
Upon approval of first reading of the Normal Neighborhood Plan's implementing ordinances, the final
plan and ordinances, as amended, will be presented to the City Council for second reading.
The Normal Neighborhood District Land Use Ordinance will be presented for legislative approval as
part of the Unified Land Use Ordinance hearing process and will be forwarded to the City Council
following the Planning Commission's public hearing and deliberation.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Transportation Commission
The Transportation Commission took public testimony, reviewed the Existing Traffic Conditions
technical memorandum (dated September 12, 2012) and the Future Traffic Analysis (dated November
19, 2013) over the course of three meetings on September 26, October 24, and November 14, 2013.
Upon review of the materials provided and deliberation the Transportation Commission approved a
motion (3-2) to recommend elimination of two of proposed new street connections to East Main Street,
leaving only the new Normal Neighborhood Collector connection in its proposed location. Prior to this
motion the Commission was split with a 3-3 motion to approve the transportation element of the plan
as proposed.
Housing and Human Services Commission
The Housing and Human Services Commission did not hold a public hearing regarding the draft plan
and as such provided no formal recommendation pertaining to plan adoption. Upon being updated on
the plan and future development potential of the area, the Commission did express the importance of
the area in meeting Ashland's affordable housing needs and the emphasized the value of integrating
affordable housing throughout the plan area consistent with the requirements of the City's annexation
ordinance.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Normal Neighborhood Plan's
land use framework, transportation framework, open space framework, and implementing ordinances
with specific recommended amendments as outlined in detail in the attached Planning Commission
Resort dated April 22, 2014.
Page 2 of 3
1OPFF5r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff believes the revisions that have been made over the last 15 months have refined and improved the
neighborhood plan, and are largely consistent with the original goals and objectives for the planning
project.
Staff recommends Council approve first reading of the ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan,
Comprehensive Plan Map, and adopting of the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework as a technical
supporting document of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends Council approve first reading of the ordinance amending the Transportation System
Plan maps and Street Standards handbook to incorporate the Normal Neighborhood Street Network as
proposed. The Future Traffic Analysis conducted as part of this planning effort found that all existing
intersections in vicinity of the project are expected to continue to function within operational standards
at full build out of the plan area. Further the report confirms that each of the planned street
intersections with East Main Street are expected to function within applicable mobility standards upon
the improvement of East Main Street to meet City standards to include sidewalks and bike lanes.
The proposed Normal Neighborhood District Land Use ordinance will be reviewed as part of the
broader Unified Land Use Ordinance amendment process. However, given the interrelated nature of
the Normal Neighborhood Plan elements, the City Council is asked to provide recommendations on
this ordinance as part of tonight's hearing.
SUGGESTED MOTION(S):
Individual motions are required to address each of the proposed ordinances separately:
I move to approve the first reading by title only of an ordinance titled "An Ordinance amending the
City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to add a Normal Neighborhood Plan designation to Chapter 11
[Introduction and Definitions], Change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for approximately 94
acres of land within the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary from Single Family Residential and
Suburban Residential to the Normal Neighborhood Plan Designation, and adopt the Normal
Neighborhood Plan Framework as a support document to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan,"
and move the ordinance on to second reading.
I move to approve the first reading by title only of an ordinance titled "An Ordinance amending the
Street Dedication Map, Planned Intersection and Roadway Improvement Map, and Planned Bikeway
Network Map of the Ashland Transportation System Plan for the Normal Neighborhood Plan area, and
amending Street Design Standards within the Street Standards Handbook to add a new Shared Street
classification," and move the ordinance on to second reading.
I move to recommend the Draft Land Use Ordinance for the Normal Neighborhood District be
incorporated into the Draft Unified Land Use Ordinance (as amended) to be reviewed under a separate
legislative action.
ATTACHMENTS:
All attachments can be found in the May 6, 2014 agenda packet:
http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavlD=16238
Page 3 of 3
C.:I
Normal Neighborhood Plan Brief Summary
The Normal Neighborhood Plan District is situated between East Main Street to the north and the
railroad tracks to the south, Clay Street to the east and the Ashland Middle School to the west.
Currently, the 94 acre area has a mix of Comprehensive Plan designations including about 50%
single family residential (minimum 4.5 units per acre) and 50% suburban residential (minimum
7.2 units per acre), and is presently outside the City of Ashland (City) city limits but within the
City Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
Land Uses
The proposed Normal Neighborhood District will contain four residential zones, NN-01, NN-2,
NN-03, and NN-03-C distributed throughout the plan area as follows:
37.25 acres of NN-01: The Land Use designation
NN-O1 is intended to provide single family 2% land use Distribution
dwellings, accessory residential units, and cottage 5% within 94 acre Neighborhoc
housing with a base density of 5 units per acre. 0 NN-01
50.25 acres of NN-02: The NN-02 designation R NN-02
provides housing opportunities for individual
households through development of a mix of single- 40% R NN-03
dwelling housing, duplexes, townhomes, accessory R NN-03C
residential units, and pedestrian oriented clustered 53%
housing with a base density of 10 units per acre.
4.25 acres of NN-03: The NN-03 land use
designation is intended to address Ashland's housing
needs through development of multi-dwelling
housing with a base density of 15 units per acre.
Note, the Planning Commission has recommended the maximum height allowance be increased
to three stories in both the NN-03 and NN-03-C zones. The current limit included in the
proposed ordinance is only 2.5 stories and as such Council would have to direct staff to make
such an amendment plan.
2.25 acres of NN-03: C the NN-03-C zone is a residential designation consistent with NN-03,
however it would additionally allow for limited neighborhood serving commercial uses such as a
coffee shop on the ground floor.
Open Space
In addition to the designated residential Land Uses noted above the plan also calls for the
establishment of approximately 26.5 acres designated as Conservation Areas, or 28% of the total
project area. Although these areas do have an underling residential zone they would not be
developable under the plan, however the allowable housing density could be transferred to areas
outside of these natural areas under the plan. The Open Space Network Map shows the areas
intended to be preserved as natural areas or open space within the district which absent of any
environmental constraints would additionally provide recreational amenities to the districts
residents.
Page 1 of 2
Transportation
The Normal Avenue neighborhood's internal street network has largely been designed to keep
travel speeds in the range of 20 mph by introducing elements such as a planted median, small
traffic circles, and subtle changes in direction at block intersections. The backbone of the street
network is a re-routed neighborhood collector that extends from the southern intersection at a
future improved Rail Road Crossing, to East Main Street between Clay Creek and Cemetery
Creek. Including this new Neighborhood Collector, there are three proposed intersections with
East Main Street, located to distribute traffic to and from the neighborhood onto East main. This
distributed interconnected grid was reviewed in the Future Traffic Analysis report by SO
Alliance found that all existing intersections in vicinity of the project are expected to continue to
function within operational standards in the year 2038 at full build out of the neighborhood plan
area. The Report further noted that East Main Street Should be improved to meet City street
standards as an "Avenue" including sidewalks, bike lanes, and potentially a center turning lanes
at the proposed intersections.
Page 2 of 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADD A NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD
PLAN DESIGNATION TO CHAPTER II [INTRODUCTION AND
DEFINITIONS], CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 94 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN
THE CITY OF ASHLAND URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY FROM
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL TO
THE NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DESIGNATION, AND ADOPT
THE NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FRAMEWORK AS A SUPPORT
DOCUMENT TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Annotated to show deleEiens and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold fined-thfottgh and additions are in bold underline.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City The City shall have'all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all
legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of
Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293;
531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced
recommended amendments to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan at a duly advertised public
hearing on March 11, 2014 and subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and on April 8,
2014, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of 6-0; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing
on the above-referenced amendments on May_ 4, and on subsequent public he iar ng
continuance dates and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing
and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the
Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and
benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary
to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base
exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that
such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2. The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter II, [INTRODUCTION AND
DEFINITIONS] is hereby amended to add the following new Section [NORMAL
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 2.04.17] and to adopt the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework as
amended, as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan; former Section 2.04.17 is
renumbered [PLAN REVIEW 2.04.18], to read as follows:
PLAN REVIEW (2.04.17)
NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (2.04.17)
This is a residential area that promotes a variety of housing types including single
family, attached, and multi family residential, with densities ranging from 5 to 15
units per acre. This area implements the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
(2014) to accommodate future housing, neighborhood scaled business, create a
system of greenways, protect and integrate existing stream corridors and natural
_wetlands, and enhance overall mobility by planning for a safe and connected
network of streets and walking and bicycle routes.
PLAN REVIEW (2.04.18)
SECTION 3. The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Appendix entitled "Technical Reports
and Supporting Documents" is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A.
SECTION 4. The document entitled "The City of Ashland Normal Neighborhood Plan
Framework (2014)," attached hereto as Exhibit B, and made a part hereof by this reference is
hereby added to the above-referenced Appendix to support Chapter II, [INTRODUCTION AND
DEFINITIONS] of the Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION 5. The officially adopted City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map, adopted and
referenced in Ashland Comprehensive Plan Chapter II [PLAN MAP 2.Q3.04] is hereby amended
to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation of approximately 94 acres of land inside the
urban growth boundary from Single Family Residential and Suburban Residential, to the Normal
Neighborhood Plan designation including designated Conservation Areas as reflected on the
revised adopted Comprehensive Plan Map, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and made a part hereof
by this reference.
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 6. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 7. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City
Comprehensive Plan and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section",
or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided
however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1, 3-6 need not be
codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any
typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of '12014,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2014.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2014.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 3 of 3
Exhibit A
Appendix A: Technical Reports and Supporting Documents
City of Ashland, Oregon Comprehensive Plan
Periodically, the City may choose to conduct studies and prepare technical reports to adopt by reference within
the Comprehensive Plan to make available for review by the general public. These studies and reports shall not
serve the purpose of creating new city policy, but rather the information, data and findings contained within the
documents may constitute part of the basis on which new policies may be formulated or existing policy
amended. In addition, adopted studies and reports provide a source of information that may be used to assist
the community in the evaluation of local land use decisions.
Chapter II, Introduction and Definitions
The following reports are adopted by reference as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter II, Introduction and Definitions.
1. Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (2008) by Ordinance 3030 on August 17, 2010
- - - - - la - - ---Ord-
2..-Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework (2014) by inance on -,2014-,
Chapter IV, Environmental Resources
The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter IV, Environmental Resources.
1. City of Ashland Local Wetland Inventory and Assessment and Riparian Corridor Inventory (2005/2007) by
Ordinance 2999 on December 15, 2009.
Chapter VII, Economy
The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter VII, The Economy.
1. City of Ashland: Economic Opportunities Analysis (April 2007) by Ordinance 3030 on August 17, 2010
Chapter XII, Urbanization
The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
ChapterXll, Urbanization.
1. City of Ashland: Buildable Lands Inventory (2011) by Ordinance 3055 on November 15, 2011.
I
i
' •j 1
O
141,
4 '
Y. 4
a
1
Alm
a
U
re;
1
1 r; A r
Ty -1-
m ~f3, y. cu
XY LL
w
Y
O
d
E
R
LL
c
R
a
a o
o z
o d
L
>
O >
a d
L Z
Of
Z rn
c
E
o N
Z o
U
D
C
_m
d
M J
C
d
E ~
d =
rn
a =
d m
a
o =
c 3
Y
y O
Q ~
d
7
V
d
L
U
Q
m
m
O
a R t0
c d E N d =
W p
16 E Q O= O E O o
_ ~ ~ T ~ C ~ n O C 'O O E YRI ~ N
O L O a ~ C N C C Z E R N > N O a
O L R O m m O ~ d 'C O. C O p]
m ' L K J ~ ~ ~ ~ R C ¢ C F C d _
o Y n rn c ' E n m O 0 w c o o m
m - m d c R d N a a d c K
N a c _
o `O m m m c m F (L a c d N W L^ c o
=o A - 3 m O L $ C7 c O v n 7 -NO E m m
6 C tj T d r'
c ~ li ^y+ ~ o rn~ E a n d° O o a
A G C m L dl z Q W c N IL T c
y d m L O 9
m ~ m ~ ¢ o C m ? m o w F a m~ N c
m
C q ~ C 'O ~ ~ p N N = E p C J Q y N ~
E m n - a r h c - c o n ~ Q
U R 01 O p O C >
y L ~ IS ~ d ~ O Ol ~ d Cc N d 'C U U «l v d Q
~ < c m~ o ~ Q V Z o ° L O w n Q Q m o e
m> N y E m c N td, Cl e in d
ai
d m T i m -y d m L ° R l0 Q C L Ul
a v O a U) m d J Z r H C7 `o R F`- N W m F u
N N N N M C
E
d
q
N
~ L
3
O
O
.q
O
O.
C
N
F
a
0
W a
OC ~
~ W H
p ~W/1 F m
~ 3 z
~ z o
z 3 N
Fri L
r N M V Ln N m m n N N vl b n n m
a r r
d
C
O
V
O <
J
d
a ~
m w
~ F N_
F ~
K Q
s
o v z a
3 w
d Z O Q
E p V z w
z w a U Z
O N z O Q Q
p o z r p
-o w z Y z Z 6 Q O w
o > O ¢ a ¢ O z z r ¢
L Z F- F_ m ¢ J trig p ~n ¢ O w Y lw.J
p u o z O p W F- F z Q O N
a m o 3 z a w a 3 z z z a
3 o_ C W
L a W a r m Y Q r Q
o, u O v
¢ J O
F- O F' l7 VI l7 a ¢ a J W r N
'd p u z w z z_ M K O r w FQ- Q ~
z K p v_ri z w Z D j w F m ww F ¢ w z z
H = x O > > ¢ O W W w ¢ r u r¢ Q
E z o_ W U LL o J x o¢ CC z ¢ o
o r
z n m a
s
O N N N N N N
3
m
E
m
LL
c ~
10 c
a Y =
0 N w
0 0. z
o
c
t m E
O 0 m >
n m N O1 w
L ~ ~ m z
m
z 3 3«~~ m
a v v 3 =
E v w E =
V N
a O C
Z o a L n o
L L ~ ~ d ~ U
O O in C N Y o
L L J = ` CD
rn a m
W 'N 'N L Ul J J
Z Z v -
~ Ul Ul Ui N N
a o. a a a w m
LL FT FT FT F ~T ~ _
p UI 01 N N d ~ c
N W `I v v m ~
N N VI In IA U d
J
C
3
f
N
N M V V1 ~ h CO ~ O O N ~ ~ n Q~ O N M ~
N N N N ~
T d
C L
'a Y U
(O D- Q
3 v m
~ N Y E
C d Q
C C O •a
M Y Y ~
O
Z a 1O L ~ w
Z a 3
v
v v 3 3
3 v E v `n h L a
~ oa Oc 3 "3 ~
3 v v L ~ v -
rn v
.WU
c ,K c c 4 4 ° z c J ° oo o
m ¢ f0 = Z Z Z u v c U o a E
d j N Z z z y w > > "O L L
m ~o O 3 c c c V Y Y a Q v O O m
m E L L d
MW Q L_ L L d O T 79
N v w w c 3 3 3 w Z o E`o v Z Z
v c ? o v N v v v v v ° u v w m fii 5i
J '0 v w > c 3 ~ 3 33 v ~ m v m a a a o. a m
1A u m W ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ ¢ ¢ m N to v ~ ~T ~T ~T ~T ~ n
IL A y " j N N d d Ul l0 W N w w w w w w Q
O
O t .n v C
u E `0 2 ,~A. 72, v 'c C m v 0 m
3 Q c a m c° `o ° ~ 5tl °4 ~ a G ° ~ v v c
ro a y C U V v C .y% ~ -O ~ N p v 3
u `U N N L W V ~
E E e c ~ ~ r ~ o c cc Z, °r. m °
u U 'O L GO ro v ~ .3 O CamC' C N > ~ U ~ ~CC ~
ro k u u > .C v% E 4 d u ro u N O
d v O
13
E ~ ~ m e N b > 'v c n m o v m
O v C u v ro v " E u .u y u 1 C C O
wi`. N C C L .G. ~ 'O ro Z v v w~ ro -O O
~ 3 ~ O v 5 N u 3 c c N
`o ro u a v `m a. C a v v c L., v t
L CC
CuC " Y+ b u 3 o .m ~ ~ 7 ~ o ~ C v ._^C G F
C N I O v OD m 6 u v C o
~ q v
c~ v W ; ~ ~ a r c a ~ V v o .G 3 ~ n
m v G C .O, E 6 - T
b y E ~ ~ `c° U m m c=" yr m° Ev E E r c m
49 c ,y ro a" c v L" ~
o ro
E .c w v v ~ g ~ ~ ° v ~ s .E 1° E w -c E m [ G
E v 2~ v 5, o= o, v^ .c 'A v v c ,t o f
c z A m v c o o ° c roc ro ro c > c a
u c 3 evo E ~i - b y v v .0 7 s v 3 .E
E o y 'A P "o c o o c ro 'o o ° °O G E a
. w o W ro -5 O
° z O L u ~ 4 v v w0 " v v v 4 u E C v
u C m v v u v 'u o.. o E ? c ~ n o c v v
-z N v c v d v n N O N C v~ C O 3 OD L r ` y v L ~i' aEi
K~ v E ~a7 ro" ~ v m d.° o v °E.^' ~ o. v v o u a v p~ .p 'O
F- r v o c v ~ O v u ~ E c u c v
'tl is L r > ~ U U d Q ro d" m ¢ n O. m C4
Z~ ~o m E ~ w v 3 o d `cr v
o
3
v
LL
C
N
a
a
0
0
r
0
~ qq t
L
m ~ `3
z f'
0
Y
Y '
O ~
~ 1 t W<lsL ~x fx
R ~ t
LL
c INS 1 }
R T~L__ - - MSS
c
v Z rn
o . „i. 3 s z
n m
U
'Zfl~~ , ~ 1~ ~ c
~ w
O i nwhYlPU Y J
O a ~ r ~ I c
1 R
i ■
3
c n m
-p T V y
V ro .C ~i L G t y
v pp
c~ G: a v g°~ u E o. T v, A° u° v E c u v m -
o .n o~ o E~~ o ~ E ~ u~ y -d 3~ n u c c u u v A
H GC L G w 5u 1 w ~ - V ~ d
O V L E 'O ° C T¢ m 'v ~ C O O- G R O L n y 'C U L X
oV, o °
L 3 o E c o o ° s a c v ~ Q m~ E c
u
.T v y 3 a F .S ar' o¢ v E .E c .E 3 .5 o v `m
-a 72
C° c ° v' o v .c° o v> E_ 1 V U Z v 0°
o .v > o c A E_ 3 .d 'v z r _T v o
U t t= K co
>`u ° a
01 3 v y o 0 0 6 n m °u L o o E° 3 E _
.in
v x v W "d C v u E a -~i E o' > u -O L 'yA u v u c~un .T.
u~ .S 5 ~ ~ ° ~ 3 H o U z u ya ~ Fc ~ o c c ° ~ 2 ~ P Fc 3
N
E N E° o o A m c. v u y° ~cd ° m
-u a
u 3 E o v m o a a s 3 ro o. s o
` y v o u 3 v° n v E v E
A u~ e a -c ~c E ~d Z a n yid ~ :3 v c v~ t7
u u tC v G v 6 c rt z n C 1+ is t 'o .N 'u. n u d 'v c
4 b 'r v 3 ° w c 3 d E ai .5 s .°1 s o
`v v _ a
4 L v
~ [ ~ L° z a y V v~~ c v r "c ° v 3 0
a o v Pc' m c o cn ro m o G oc_n m
c~ v c N ° v o 3 v -O c o. = E
o C v n v H u v v c 01 > 7 c C
n u 0 t v E E E v E~ Y v o c c v a o
z E o r
° C c v' q
G o u v A E r-l. u a`i ur ° ° y a .G v f
A y .°1 .b 7 C d v v q O .G W 'O .u 2 v .b
o E w= 'n o c E o o c a v E a~ v~ o A Z. v o
in o 5 c = 0° °u u v -n w o v U< 0E -vo A u c E E
c -
o r~+uRm ~
_ e
.V
~ j E IIn
C FS Y I I J
1Y 6
~ V++]WW J
O
3
m
E
m
i
C ZIMP~M
m
a
0 ri
o ®r
L
O 6Mp WM
a
t
m
z
m 8
0
z
x
Y ~
O
IL F
i f
o et } r~ ;7_ ~ ~ ~ z
7E iyt•• I N
t
f
z ,
m K ~ - 1Qf,
All
O tl T ~ v ~'T rfi' r* ~
m
o. ~ W
v .0 3 u o v d
s i; E~~ c c cc o v r
L U E E o ~ m E°.
V R V 7 C> ~ ro
d R d S m
.9 m ~ -o c v ~ Fr v -
o _ °o o. 3 o N
d ~ E O O R C ,L, 'O Y
i, p L C L .C ~ p, ry - ro p
V _
GG_O C 3 6 z L -d ~ p n
c v c 2` s R 3 x
o
E cc 2 E v 2
15 m
R C C R C d
E R
rt e s E c -2
E
n C u > ❑ Z G. ° C u E
^ is ro g v ro m
C G d t ' J ~ u °O ° p~ 4p ° vd] d
b~ v ~ ti v h 'a c p v O -b c
Z, ~..c c Q v u y c ro 7 r
O ,m E a cG tL' L rt G LL O v O W u O
v
-5 F~
y~ v v o a W m 2 0 3" v u a c u `C° L v v E
~5 o o. ~ y u ~ o c ~ ~ v v n "vas' ,a ° .o o ~ -o E ~ r
L
d v v b
V1 n o 7 o a v 00 v ,Q r o o ..c x o v°`. - ~t° v a
a c o s r s° y ~ c = v ~ ° G eC-o v c m o _ °a
Z ro v cc °u ° o c o
O~o o v a, o. m- c
O° G
J ~ O~ 4 C ~ O ~ v G ~ ~ a C J H~ N~ L a C 3 Cp m
w o -S 3 v` v o E c
z o a
.
Q s s° s 3 K o a v ° _Si c s ° m E s o
tp (D 2m .12
Z ~ a z C r .C 'O ~ 3 b N ° v v O C v 4 m ~ u ,C O u m
Q v o v v ~y m O a~ .G v u v o v v C
z o 3 's a~ c a J 2 .n s' ~ '3 ~ v h s o..C C A o
s
~ 9 f
L
R
J ~
9 ~
C
A 'Y
OI
C~' O A
b e
0
c N m
m i m
a ~ Q
a0 Y
0
0 V Z O
N
E 4 " d
`o S t Z ~i R 4 4
z tg
Mix Z Z Z
a - a Z.3
a ; ,1 E
N ~
LL ~ ~ V e
c U
v I ~ rn
o ~ ~ z
O ( a
o aff ~
a v
F Z
L
Z p~
u c
E o
0 N
z M p
J Ynt } ~ y ~ ~ O
9 rn y~'~1C1J tl ~ O
,ilk L
O iS'e.. n5
~ Q u v .p.
G
v O c C ° p ~ u C O C ~ v °
m u u E u 3 o s u .a u u h n c
L X0
m v O v, C t~ ° GO w G v O v O v L G b Q
3 C O D. '9 u~ L -b ~ Q ~ ~i 'j v -d L ~ V ~ u v L C '9 'u E
o G v u o Z E ° o E E o f en o u o O
a• c 3 r ~ 3 v c o Z~ ~ 'S o ~ c o. ~ ~ ,u° E L
c o y c a e, E ro o. E r r -o u 'O v .5 'n° 0 0 o E~° o
C - L° o v O E O ` b Z O 'O v y L C4 v .G x
a E y .5 Z v U Z A v v 3 0 c4 a A
-5 o° c t m °c_° s s= a co n y ~a 2 :9 v m
u., ~ E~ v o m E A v o .c ~ eo c .c° t a u>~
c u 3
u s u z -S v -uo .b A v .5 on 'b c ° -n :5
E
.c L" U h y o v a. G v u C ° C s° v c o u -
E r c u `o c u v' u c c eo °c' u u E° E
` m a eq v c m c°o c S~,°-~ c -Ei ;E o. o -a c v m
u c ° ,a = O S Fc v N E c c c° A t: o Q a
=;6 Z o. c -n 0 0 -n s v c E _
E u u C c In
u v E 7 d° Z 3 v m E 4 v g v E
en a. v p o c o E z c "c u u ,o .c E "u o. m r
v
a`> c u E o. -v O v .E 3 C v o. ° r v 'o o c o f ~°a Z W
E dl R tl YI p 'O G-0 •b R
E O 'C %O` U G C 7 E' N v 2 C C m
v ° y C G E T
O J A a- ° ' E v o O Z v kC vo u c o C v 2 0
U .a 3 m H s O D .a S 'tr 2 Q =o a c E 3 .c ro o t u
r
an
ro v ~ v E u OCn ~ d O z d
C O V ~ _
u C C u ~v is a 3 'E 'v u y v_ r -v d
O E .E ro t m
c- G ro c_ E .7 v Q Q r c
Z` ro v O C G C V O v E u d
.E c
cn ° c. a m ,9 c ° A u 3 m c4 ro < t4
'p ~ ro v .O ~ L rt~ ~ O v L 1] p v= G ~ L
'E v ~ ~ L on E v m i 4'. Q y m u 3 v C c v
p4 Ei
a o m u" v v t E G= Q v A c a o
.E E d .d C .d ro "D C 3 v .3 v .G v O .0 C L C G T u l7
vO c v a'> Q 'N E v v o c 'E v G c
ro~ ~ v Q v ~ ~ a v env u ~ 3 o u C Q ~ v b~ 5 0
v 3 ~ o = v c E v> m ~ en c' Q : i -n N ~ en c
C jJ' d .G .3 W C d M CD o C O C y0 pp O C C 9 C
C C c: ~ q G .b L V z O C~ O
c a u b <n A E p ~ v c S' v~ ~ Cn E z u M
c m oo' o < w ro o. v E o ¢ 3 n ro u C .u. m 'o 3 L
'JI
o. v o= o Y "E Q 2 0 o> c° 7 3 E ro N <GG z v u d
'O E EC9 L, .C O n¢ A OA z -C G u "O .n Q ro O Q G y H
o s Z ~ s a m c E u .E c aun o G z w A v 'ti
-vi
U~ a z N 9 u v ro~ o s N v u .E v u~ d v ~
of o o o9 c m cu4 v b e a v E' z
rn c N c m e c :e m y v~ m= E E E w v u 'z
cn
z O u N 4. N v v W On u m N 4] v y C O v' a ro
ro v 3 o `o E O .m c 3 c -a o b s~aa N
o ~ 5 O L E E N s~ a 'a .v Q v G v 3 uNi o v g 2
Z 'b m o °o c v o v 2
av. v W (n v .s ° o o v 3 m Ku Q a' v 5 Q .E 0
d
~ ~ y.:' ~ .pryy ~ 4 G33y lVw~~. a
A ~ a t ~ ~~,,VY ~ E
A ~ ~ re
~ V
r, 4
I
j \
s C
o`
C
t0 ~ ~
a a°
0
L
O 14
a 1
N t
4
It} tt``
Z
e
m t y
LL 1
m
a s. ~ ~ c
0 0 , Z
L Al ' a
O ~ >
L i tt Z
rn ) t
' U U
a ~ ~ ` _O ~ C O ~ 'd J
`m ~~w 7r~ I a~ _ ~ v b o ~ c .mac a
ty N v~ v c m
v C v L ~ ° L O CCO
~ G U
~ a ~ m C N~ N OL S C S 3 ~ T m 'C N a
a E 3 v o o E o, v y E o E v c v
O° ° o. 0 2 3 E m 7 A A C 72
E.°- b o v a. E v E u .ti 'xy 3°- c- E
`a oO c Q o 6 3 c O
c° '9 3 E v E u v v u ,~G c .c ° E o A 2 c E
0 u .C Om 3 Op .`7 b U y
N O 75 O O F- W
a 4 u, z c.~3 . . , -n ~ Z Q~ c ro 79
o -6 c u o c: c s c E :n c_
-12
y v c o. tea. E A U Q 9u .n ° s s "y' = o. s E q ° E
.m. ~°a a C ^C id ~y Y V C C L v ~ C N- v E E
m ❑ ro o. ~ c c ~ v .v ~ d E A E 'O 3 ~ m
~ ~ ..c ov C o n ~ c -p c o ° A -o y m
a a ro eCq o N ° m y o N c° o cc v a -°p a
4;; m
v L
y v .n v 3 0 o c u v 3~~ v c z ~ «
O U v~ ` q Q~ ,u_ ~ d C° 3 y i~ L ~ a s o o N E v~ m
~ C O V L 3 C N ~ m L '30 L ~ O. Cq ~ N re X N C ~ 0 v C~ w
N
a o Q y o E v o. 0 7 7 ~v' O 'rc v u
m
c v
O c G
y ° v v ~ E
3 > E c a q ~ o q
v C v v FO ~ Q c Of 1 u q
U C1 T v - 'I' o
v A
v U m
'E o `o c T m' c 25
E c c j m
v o v LE~ u q L ~ ~ 1..; 1 r.
O N G Q m C A L ❑ ~ k i!: 1
U_ O ~ O K O y
~ V tom' L vy~ ~ ~
v N V G~ -Q L 1' G C q q
-o E ~ E
v
E c u E b g t° °
.E c m E d a E .r F y n
T
~ v c v U a U -o N ~
U a
L v ~ C ~ 8
W ~ C E O C O Q an d 1
Z) 0
E v A c A = c v y~ ~ N a
pppppp U CD ~
S O a d~ ~ a~ U C w ~ ~p~ '10.! w10
G U C N ~ k' 4~ l: Ol
eo q c
z c c 4 U `q~ E m o o + 4.
E
d h m .y o o ~ 'd o~ ~ V t o-m ~a.
y 'v q 'p G v v Q L L N y' C
~ l9 i tA ' C
~ 'v E v a3 O o L y~. OO p N co
q C 'O O e~ y 4 O C c: I~ m
o 'ti co c 7 u y E r m e c
y r ro r o. y c a
,n v v c v u v c o U f .
`v C C
to ~E
p v u v t Y A b
E E
,y L C
o ~ o •
o -c ia. y ti m F'
a u ~ c v~ v c m m ~ -
q L 1 q g d c c
o E L A o 4 o N •N ex
E E C v C 3 T
d N
v ~py
t q C G 8 O C O y
B' N >N.m
q A w 5 d CCbi yri tk-
E ~ ,9 q v m U ~ v
E o~ 'fl c o c c v E
o o x~ u v .
:b ° o c .0° u o v o >
Z m v°. Q T o H C U T A s' .c. o
Y
3 p
E O
R b
d M ZmJY c
0o Z < z
z Z v>
0 3 a
a S z O' w
rn ~ w z
Z d r N
z 3 3 K rn
o c
m -
E Q C
o N z V N
z c
y a o
N w ~ U
y c
m
J
d a' - w
N
C .C
9 d ~ Ot
p la{w ' C
J ~ s C
O1
m
m N ~ ~ • O K
e Z ~ ~ ~ j+8i a~ ~
= Z N ~ m
{ O m ~
V 55C ~ U
N V
0 Vi~ °
O 3 L
Q a U D _
N z G
` tE c E
N o
N Z U
• U d Y
O
N
(I n a
d ~
' x
O ~ U x°
r
-a l ❑ ~ a
5 ~ 9
~M q
4A 0
N o N o z w
Ul m ~ n".i711 ~ w_ N z z z z °
fYY~Y • T
V
O
t~ i~_ ~r ~ i! I~~1 d
k -a r
p -o
ji._ E
f~ . f -44 j c a
`~-IL-il L a °
1-7
T
A
A A
a o f .a u u c L .5
G u v E v E c
N
C 4: O N~ ~ L O L > ti O~
u -c
S ~ i O G o G d~ A ?C p A ~
a 2 c A c o : c E u c _c 3
A .G N L ~ o ~ ~ y 'E u O
C C t ~ p C p. 4 u "C y L_T ~ ~ ~9 G
a O V U -O V y V N R B
79
~`j ~ L o E ~ v m -a v ° L W v L s c
v y v ~ o -oc1n o a~ Tv -moo o .y v "0 0
t4 s 'E E~ E c r ti ~
o v
v w Z. v E ~ v td a b~ A 3 ~ m c ~ ^ o
LL O. c t ~ v ~ A c v 'c a s ~ v E r°-G ~ 3 -o ~ t3
c V1 a v o b C 3 E v GG 4 Q1 is
W v o E u L d N o v E 4. h N .G o
a a v o G v ~ > m~ cn ~ c v v -c
o L o E G .°c = 5 v E o c c~. .c~ 3 v c 3
r .b o. o N 3 0 c 'Ou °J v °~A° v u m
o Z m L° r -o 'd .E c ob 4 v - h 3 0
~ GD M G' ~ V ° v A
rn > 2 c v o ° v R c° A E° s N v L A
E m ~
z i v E v v o v c ro ° v A Q o 3 o A V v v
-ca G ~ w
z
W - 2 a m o o v o r 3 v 'c A
E W E v u E .v "d E a ,3„ `L c
o n .c n v u
v
° OC -E v v v E V
z l7 ~n o A o x.. vP ° v A r Z 3
N
Y 4
d N a L ~ u C O 43 v v L
i3 ° -v o m K y E 3 .x s `o
° h e o. 3 E c y F L `0 3 0 _b
u_ a ro O G c o - `o b v S E v v v u
m .NU^. s v o .v F u .y Ej c
d $ 'J L v~ L mac' c C ° '3` c ~ v w v .u. ~ m
u .3 c v .S s ,m v c c° T ° u y w o 3 o w
v v c uv c s ~ 2 z
t Lv b c v U o. -.S E a< s m -m v c m
'u m v E N b a o is "n q c u "0 a L" i
a U o 'd v y, o .b 'v .o o o v v o
U! .2 o v v iV., u v v d sa v o L 3 v "a v pia
5 d Q C o z S p CO O ° v S L O O b G m
E v u u G 3~ v 3 L° =
O O p y E v ~y C ` 'p av. v ~ m ~O < u O O A C N
Z y ° ~ V N 'b ~ L.. "O ~itl y d o > ~ O v Q' a c
v ~~E{ 3 3 n y a 'tl ~~d v° ° E o .L 3 a c
G O C O ..d O N ^ O O L E O c -v M c u .v J
m u o o. s o v u~~ u ti U r oo ~ `c o m y o. ~ .E -
W v O L N u H v .ti. c G C E 'C b h r c
on -o y> o L c m c c m 3 .E 3 o v v E a E 3 m
9 0 °o s a o v
a. o o. s"o # w ° v v ~ v ~ c ~ ° z' c E ~ ~O c Fp 3 ° .°S_ v ~ o
3 m c. o 8 . V c° A c° o L E m t r 0 91 c .v o c ~ o. pia' A Z, o. ~ m L c E ~ E °
~ m v`°. E E u A w
l7 c a o m o c o E c, I E E y 'v o L C y v u
c ~ u~ E A .c o 'a c E~~ v ~ E ~ v N a
c m u 5 u v u °u' ~ o o ~ ~ ~ rv~? ~O ~ 3 v y m 'S
m ~r E v s U 4 u E u m E 3 o m_ a v° ~
E v ro ~ 3 E w s E n ~ ~v o r s '"G y o o~ s ~ E L .d •o q¢
a u A 7 o E m 'O .G t c o~ E c L c c. E
u n v v v v o o ° ~ v u `o L 1] ~ o 'u n ~ u
arv p
A y ~ 3 t 3 ~ a o. 'Lr m 3 ~ ~n >3 s s ° E .f"_ E 5
N
O
- 3
N
a
- x
a
E
m
a
a
c
N
L
a
0
T
V
c
~ v ~ ~ u c. Fc -Zi ~ oa E
3 o -o u o c o m y e
.n U L `v id L C W rJ' L v m
u a E m W ~ .5 ~ o o a «y v y .j o f
E K c s 3 ~ 'o v~ c c a~ o ~ c
u ro 3 C «p `
u t w n ° o m ti -o c rq '3,. c
o y o "u `u c. E E v 8° E m o 0
~ 09 u ° L U 4 L w ~ G m 'D
ro v~. .m O .D .y O v v U «
zi v o C 3 0
c
z
E G ~ m C m a y C c
3 c ~ n e4 c a M c ~ 'a E c ❑ v A
~ c c K o f o > t 2 c v
L O E 9 O C p C G y0 .G v i" W " .S N
u O U O N `Q v U C N k" p v v y T
L p
vI -a 3 e~ ° 6 G N O 3
N I rrf)
v ,
N 1 J p
C n N
y ^ v (NV
° ow
° 4 ~ ~ ~.t I Z m
0
L p ~ l~ tL {
r. W/~ SS
L 1 CL 10
v
-cc MV
Z g Z a11
O
0 it,
Z W
V
v ;n ~ .d m E u o o m v ° „ p~
49
w u £ s W v 3 v y o .n vC° c a T
c a N T
!0 u ~ v G ~ Q N ° J C LOO 0 0" N V~ Cy O .O q
'O C b 'd 4 O 'O p v >a v a b T v y O C
G U O O E 1 L .C E ~i C k k .L y 30 L > tj y rn
L c 3 .3 m o s u~ b e E E g `°o' -ao o m .a° v c v
O _ o ~ ° y ~ 3 .'90^ ~ 4 -G. ~ z C L L v.. 'D o u .uv. ~ E G >
L
n c o s 3 v u o s c o L° .o ° v z° z
Z ~ ~2 rc6 cc Gu ro m .a 4. N E W > ~ 5 o L c ~ o m
70 O ~i v L 7a .C O C v p u La z v) d O E c
E p ,v, o o - o o E o¢ c a v
Z c h ~E E .c °L' c s v p c M y .m i'n
L .o / o .E o v_ o r c U ° c o. L c. `u7 ° o o, E h v
i~ u v ~ v v. L v~ ~ -o h E c 'S o c ~ b 9 F` c c
2 vC o 75~ B:
= ° v E E_ ° v b L u
L C ~ v.. > > A N L C U G O N `n N o~~ '.O. C v~ =n C y a a
a v OO H v ro c -p C V u v0.
d v b 7 G u v C v v ~ L ~i v L pU l! v X O v u v 3 G Oi
o u v T ~ v S ~o 3 3 v .U, 3 L` E° a u w t~ >
~ A v W b~ o ° v~€ 7 ~ ~ ro~ ~ W v y T ro~~~ E A c o c
Z` c c `v c w ~ ~ ~ ~ 3
N 3 E y V) G L N C ~ L n ~ E O W ~ `v O v v O CCL v ~ O
N m b U y L h T Om O 3 3 mm N 3 f
c E vi o A .LV v Len ? a`~, ' vo P v c u o ~c° d
,LL V O .U I"' ` L v 7 L r F' V L '.O J T> L
3 .E .V u y u z o A D L > v y 'o L v °
« L v ~ A v v c ~'v v A c
F- y a v o v o -7 ❑ o L ~ L E c E ° 'S. ¢
m 'd u v u U. u T
J Z v C C E 0. Q Z o 3 'd ? L
~ y ~ v -vo > L~ v a ~ s o z m qn c v C y A C ~ v o u E
Y .L' L ~ v L .Q ~ av. C v t7 v v a v C L w v C7
N
O
3
N
VI.N N
u
~~3ppYx -
~wpXJ~ 0 1
~ Q..6~ ice? a
v
~ lr m
a
0
r
v
a ~ I E
}S L y
j ~
T -Q o
0.~-. 1 e
o
/ O
a
T ~ L N
c
Y A
a I Sirifi ~ ~ ~ f
N
°i~ ° v° .v o en w b v ~ E v u
c~ v v c c
~a v v c v A
o ~ >
o E r 3 v c= y s m c c ° o. E° E
3 > C E O D. b ° ~ ~G Ly ~ v O N E L L~ L C
J` 'y E L v O o .c ~2 vo C E p, t^ C o. ° U
E v ~ „ 3 Q u g c `o V A
-v 'O- vE E 6 c c a. ° 'o u m y? u 4 3 v z
u c v o 2
A~° E u C A A~ ro~ c ro o 'c ~ y u °
L c c ° ,m o E c ec"n c ~ 3 ~ A v ~ b s c
m o o `v uN c n °u v v °u a t v 8 0 W .5 o u
.L G N O N p ~ ~ L C ~ u u q u ~
a. .o o v E 3 a 7 w .c_ E o, r v u .m o c. u
v G ro v E m v N A c c y m- A c W. E G G
C ° !p Q T V 'D ~y L y O O
a .°_4 c v A Ly" °o o A o. Z Z c .c K u o ~
v v E u G c en ~2 o m> E m o 3 U v G 6
° 'o o.0-v° v -c$ v z W c v -u E
° L L u z > v 'E v v u h `n h O E> U u
-o .3 ° E° c u E A -d n s= s v G i, F m Q E r E
w
d ~ u L ^O i ~i v O ~ ❑ ~ v v C u E m 9 E> c ,,ttv
° c Z. t-
m o _0 0 3 v o E u: o Z, a s ~n v J
c E a c o V° E c c c
c p " ~ ^C ly.O L C m GL Z C ~ C G e~ .C U O u0 ~ _
m D. cC .a u 2 v L.c+ c c. -v v R .y = -C
a u v = o E E c E u
o m o,,'~,
uo E p y 3 s u: O ° s v R v 4 A s
o q v ° E E ro
.E u b Y ~ u Q E .y -E m .v. °
` V L E U O
o L v z o v a s td aR c c° X E u .8 o. v° v r,
G7 b E C L O av, v v m t! U v u 7
L y u ~B v icy p O.Ot°. E v 3 U c~ a u U c v v Z•
.v v v c g c L E G L E~ c W u c m E
Z a., ~{C~` C E r C G ^C v bG ° O O h LE DD
R v u ~ O ~n N v ~ d ~ 7 ° O E N ~ >V. ~ ~ 7 y v~ p° E v
N ~tl 'u u u u° G 1I U v G E L V u a7
= v h Q v u0 W G.. W .E
O C L u c~ V u v tc{. C L L m
Z A -o o k G .E Q Q E °u c v cn 3 c
7
r
A
c
3 E m A ~ ~ -c° c c v v c
~ T ,b n G v O L n O C~ ~O O c ~ v ro L u b C U > ~ av. "O
LL 'J '"d C. N° ~i O N L ° m y [ 'Q m u u v Z UU
c u
x a x 'E
o c M- m _°o v° ° b ou c c m `a
4 v m_ C u O w C
O OA v U "G09 v i~ u O L. ° .yu 'O
r ° .N a 4 v C up .v C a N Z
O J Z C O ti 12
L C~ - ro z U .b s E N m rn y c u a °
n F, E o v ca o « -o a r c .3 E v '~a c v c
L L o o '9 ° s Z C o y E cc v v m Q Y, 2 0 o v° c z
v N v z o -5 C o° y c b a y c c E ro o
Z .rJ N 1 V o O v.. O u vp •%C y~ u O W? m
m n c o. o u E y a E m s o. E~ N o E v a s a °u c c
O 4 C ° ° `
E c v a U y° `o E v o. v v A d y C7 a Fc o. c
_ c
'O ai .G 6 0 r. G~ tE 4 'V C C ~ 11 A Z C v L O v b vJ " ~ U U
Z u E x w° n. v m s o `u C o. r v c C; n Eyc'.
o m
E R o b MC
m
y l E C U J
a. " °i u c° 'u o y o U? 'E N z o c U= u r v
cC 3 O- u 4 u ° N u s u .c c -c w v
u ~n .E
41
A
a H= o D o° E 3 -E to F> o
o °
c
m
a
c
3
0
iv ny F
~ 'rvr ¢ d
_ V
M- - it VIII I K`s O L
5
N
R ~ - °v t d
N a
' S Y
p' VI
O
a$pe • i
ge,
'1ur "`+.'waa4"s npmYrUrar I t %
~ y c
3 ~ ~ t
x c
t, .C
• ~ xO L C y w
Z d rn rn m
, Y!8 Tv?zzc
o;
Z c I I
C
d
d
m
A
c
A
`L
L
O
l7
C
O
O
n
c
A
F
a
0
N
T
A
C ~
b
OD ~ X G. ~ ~ A b p G
G v O. u ~O G A v J b
.D O ~ O ~ C yy N p A
A O ~ ~ ° GO .X 1 y `n
v G .pG ° >3 C ~ n
~ ro o ~ v
p ° d ~ p s
vcn m h v ~ o E u
-O A ° ° G A A
x o ~ a a~~~ v~ v s
O W .C ~ S ~ W~ u p Q~ z '
O A ~ v N OGA 0-A ~ .b ` . w
.C .!C u R A v V J G G O
u O v G ~ 6 'm m
_ c
A Ln " V
V) G ~ O "O 0
E O ~ vt C J .y' y 'J y G Q u~ v v
LL ~ v N b L v e°q 4 a ~ C
C n ~
N ~ u ,N 'dd O ~ L~ pGp O W
6 t C O u A 4' o '9 C O v
O Q ` C v t h T L t4
O V Y_ ¢ OA G z O .C ~ ! ~
M r+ t4S C ~ G ~i O y a/ G.
3 p m O v
Z %1
m 3 E C ~ b o E z o o 'd ~ Z_' ~ OC d
"c c .5 v U a ~LL
j m
V t~ V ~ V v
Z v` o. F` F A < o .5 v .S ~ ° c
m
° r c o ' v = ~ G E
E C v L~~ '3 u ~ O X pp 'D O n ~ v C
LL y C .'3 O~ v L~ 'C v, 5 C ~ ~n ~ ~ O c C
d V d ~ Ou o o, " y s' ° "9°~ O c v Maui m n A 3 ~C 3 c
O O~ U 3 C "O C O u X O p' ~ C O~ N E ~ o ~
t L ~1 O 'OC v Q v ~ rv C~ v ~ O y E ~ ~ v o j' A
O ~ Y L N ~ "O CD -2i v .D w°: w C E .C v G 3 ~ C v ~ ~ >
n = f0 O O v pp ~ vP ~ ~ A v L L a O ~ C rt 2~ A
ry Z y yp 0 ~ ~ u~ C O. O~ C v N b ~ 3 a 'Ce9 o O S ?
~ lA 'ai pp 4, a rd N o ~ v 'O L C is pup ~ L v ~ S c
O G O v m$ fE r v Q v `v v 3 u .v v o
Z Z O 2-f] - v 3 S o 3 0. c°. m° sa 2 y
0
U
x a
A
f \ ~.1 A
T ~ J
a rn
o c
- a
c
~ i~ y z~z • W
r v
e g U
r xt ~~14~ _I 's`~~ L
3 ti's?
r E
x A
yp t~
MY~}ter. 4. N y ~ d
) ~ ~ Y S
k; x
m
m
a
9
C
L
Q
O
T
V
m
A
C
N
Vim. tt`'✓ ~j r
hL C
Y S r
N
f
: y
1
o
s
M a ° ~ `v E
m G ~ y L .y
c W v 3 c do
° c ro
a V E L 3 A v° m d~ 3
6
t W
~ C d L v v ~ y O y
o O Y ~ 4 .G, y v C ~
t O v
N A N v L 'O v vyvi O A v L -O
E ~O o an E v Lnn
z it
z F- s z v o
0
N
N
~ C C C
0 o m o '3
3 u o
LL ~ N O ~ ~
O Y ~ C b
a u v on 3 ~ c
a o~ m~ u m
o c v ° 3 d
L VI p o
~ C
o e s ~ ~ ~
V V .Q N N
n o
L ~ E v z
m o
-BE
v N v v o
,O c
Z ~ fJ O N U ~
u ~ C
Z / ~ U
a
c
w t m
v
o c
c
a
f 3
-yrs. ~5';v'~ ,xt.~~0 y}~'e ~a+ zz+t „,E~,~j•~ 1 xt .~"r-5~'zi^ ~ ~ ~ y
t a~ x' sips v K^? 'Yf y ^+t " ~.'.m'`t
L
A ~yy ~
I 5 1
y y ~ ry
Of Y
f C
O
P ` 3
_ N
G _
O
Ol x
v
3
Y A
d LL
Y
9
O
L L
.a
t o
V
C
d
E
d
m
A
C
A
L
3
0
u
e
0
.q
a
i'~l^k M
T
" irc S.i`e
tk 15 ~ ,
~m+ ~ i~r4i
yr
Y ''--e~^ 111
N L o b
m
g
3 ~ l3 ~ d
Cf v d O= L W C v O
rn
L o a
S O A L W O
O N L ~i p v o z p, d CO O L ie
m r 3 a o m z s
E 9'a m v v L v E 3 v m
O d C "v w O G v "y
Z Z O .Z y t~ w O 3 .C. O L`vi 'S z y
N
N
N
N
s N c A s~ ~ u E
.p ~ o v o v 7o
3 v u v 'a, ~ r ,ov ~ z m
~ 3 g v C~~ .3 ~ c 3 rJ
m F .o c L G= a c
~ 3 3 m x v
LL L ~ v o ~ a~ 3 '
m ~ ~ ~ .3 v a ~ c ~ o
a d v u ~ ~ o a ~
F`y ❑ o
0o v~ u ~ w 5 ~Z 'v Z
~ L o E ° ij " c
o ~ E > a E -o >
a
Of O L ~i ~ C L p a 6 O ~ Z
~ ~ A .~/y~E c ~ 'E ~o\~ji rn
E Za Q o 3 ~ o & m 2 =
o ~
' Z o
a
c
m
J
T 1
_ ~ -
a ~ ~
o
~ c
. C
' a
(G 10-
}BA' C
- ~ yr - roti5w d ~ ~,vr,~ ~q ~ a°~ m
.j 3 ~ ~ d',. "~"'"3 ~ a
n"~ q}rq ' x dl ~ ~ a
~ rfi~ 1 ~ s ~ s r • °
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ U
y ~ ~ ~ ~~a ~ m
k, ~v~'rr~ ~r ~r}%a t
w a ~ a
F4 f ~ ~
~ x E
~ 2 ~
t ~mr e o d
~ 'per" ~ `~"a.,,, $ {'n' y, r ~ . ~ . r S~ ~
R t ~ rYn ~ `t~~~5}xyr~ ~ 'i- ~ - y
m
2` s o
X~. ~ypq
S., .g 7
g x
v ;i; , ~
E
m
m
a
iaga -
9
C
N
L
O
T
® ~
V
C
W
E
w
m
w
e
N
L
O
C
f r
i I
m
T
`{r
r
a
0
F
C
~ ? o
G
~C A s v 4 v 5 .c na o
A `O 3 ~o v .o ~ E a
`o $ ~ 3
a v 7 u °o o ~
li N O L rt T -o ~ S 3 ~ o
c O ~ o b~ n~ 3 c r
CL E .con o c o ro s
v ~ v c
o u z E o, v o. z c
o V1 'V" c 'v a E s
rn p ~ L~ E~ v v
w s ,v o v u~- c a ~ t
Z r. c EE y 3 0 v C G
O a v o. H
0 72
Z Z X ro v A 5 'm' S c c? 3
c
N
N
A
L ~ v E
o u b N ~ ~ o
L CN Y5
R -b G 0 v n O C A
IL -73 C W U 3 "
z e A ~ ~ o
d d u v~ ~ ro h ~ `p ❑ ~ a A
° a~+ C u A ~ i~ v~ L p c~ Z
O O ~ u ~ CCO' ~ A C 0. E -d a
L L C O b 3 N Q dlb ° Z
O •a .4 -S o a u O °~.t
01~~0~`~ „ u o E ; nl' of
on ` c
Iz.
Y J
t~ t
' a
U
a
r _
u E
A
try!
Y
( O
4`I
/J a
> $ E
_3{ A
V III _ s- a
A
u
C
W
E
W
a
A
• C
A
L
3
O
f \ C
W
O
6
C
W
f
O
O
N
T
A
"e, I
A"
Y
W d ~ u
E ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ° g t
ct T $ o a E~ b y -
L OCO •7i V7 ~ ~ ~ ~ O C 6 v O N ~ a0+
•s z 'G ~
n u 3 y F ~ o r ~v ~ o s' u 'n .y
L i+. v
LU Uy L V A a .C a e
OI d w ~ rt ~
Ol v~ O 3 G v O y O u~
Z ~ v p~ p~ v v u i O L ~ C~ G
(0 •6 to ~ 3 W ~ ~ ~ v v O L' h ~ 'b ~
yl t ~ O u, rt 4~ b :Q^ v 0`
0
Z VL1 v,Gi x m Gd G ~ o t^ o z y h m h o
N
r
N
O C
~ V
z €
v v c v
e v y v v A p, v
m E o v m u L zY v
LL ~ b ~ p = C ~ ~ o
v
m ~ m cV ° ~ ~ 3~a~3
d a > r. v W~ ~ .n ~ m
R O L > O y p 7 v
'O
O a'2 m ~ G d ti n Z
O v m G y N ~ O_ ~ N L1 7
L ~ C ~ v~ 6 -Q ~ 30 L Z
'b - N -p v 4. OD L m O
> c 3 c s E c -
Z o p, o C rn
-y y Fu z„~ 3
Q 4 n O u C w
Z c
0
U
a
c
A
d
J
T
a rn
O c
c
A
a
c
3
0
F-
v
N
L
owl, A
E
- A
N
O
3
N
a
7
k
X
E
A
m
a
9
C
A
t
Q
O
T
V
C
Y
E
Y
m
A
C
A
L
O
u
l/ O
a
i,
H
' a
n
T
A
_ 4.
s V
e
E o c
m o b ~
m E'
o ~ b n o
o g o
t
o c
t « n a son
~ a
z w cA. ~ v
m
E a - c z o n
z c Y E
u C b
N
N
E c o 0 0° ~ ~ v o y '3 3 E v c E 'm
v ` A o 3 ~ x c c
m ~ n. `v h E o v A A c c v A c v c
ii -D ~ v ~ °o c z v v o o. E E b E
CL 0
5,1 z
0 0. t Q v x o E ~ E E E a °v° b r v u a~ -'y z
L v a E a 00 t 'e O O v v jC CO u
a E u "U-' v v aEi t 'b, E w c E -v" c E w 'w
v ~ N - U V '-N tr L C. y L L v E Z
m E E u G ° m c Ev ° c a E 3 .
Z m V o E U y E E r! v c A U v °c 'a rn
m E m y m y o ° 3 o c C A 2 3 0. ° o c E E c
E ro ° E v a a r°l o
m , u u o> v Y u b v .G
° v ~ 'v C v = ~ m ° u y7 m v C v g 3 C U v 3 C ~
'J O -d tmi o
Z c. o - U O m o m c E m n A c E s v
a c
n G '3` ? m v Z 3 v A ^o v _3 -o E u ° -`u^, U s° ;2 0
v c? u w° " -R E c o o E a° o s v v 3 =
E u u U o m° o . c c ° m
v s`"a' v c ° m v° c s° c o v v v u: c
r O z C rt .C c b " ~ L 3 E u H _
E v _ ~ h v~ C L m C O ~ v S v G
o a o
v v c ° u c ~ 3 ~ c o N E o °
3 m 3 u b c 3 "C 2 c y o c r a
- E vcu x Q C ~ ° u E E C o .w°.
~ v 3 m v a ~ 'o ❑ c c v H
E c
3 E y° c E
n -c In 3 ,ro c. s u = q a c~ E c ~ = y m o. E 3 r 3~ -Oc v
.C ~ .C v, a .t L' ? ro c is o c~ cq LL b N
v N d "9 C « ~y m C ttl v 3 ^G 7 .r3 v uv 2 Q
o A In v E a 'E v 3 E E E E E E
U 4 W v V v = ` v .`v' L° -b C 6 w G p O p L C? Cq p m
o 'v v E A o ~ y0, c cc c cc E m A a v> W 3 w$ o o. d
to 0
Z ~ ~ S in E v o ° .E °
N
Y
3
I N
a
r
.°-~~df • J 01 x
1 e ,.y 1 +r ,T E
V-d
= v
wo
~ a u
C
Y
E
Y
m
Y
e
Y
L
3
O
t7
C
O
.q
O
6
C
`u
.G GG ~ w C ° o ro - 2 F
3° .c G o Q .E > °0 2 EM s c° o c °n
m v C a G C 'pp u O v = L' ° L v `J m T
c Q u E m u v ~
G n E ° v v rt C A m .ty O E v
CO G O 'ro0 u v CD O o O N
u
C E C Cu C L u Vo o a v U 61 ro~`^
p v -O L u s " _ z [A E u
n s b _ .G Z` v v `i u E D C7 P7 N
O v u y O u G ~ v E O W p Y =
79
v° ° J v v ° L > o ro== x
74 c
0 .5p
Y O 4 O 1 G C ° O C s
w j O = C b v Gq
` v O u 94
79
o v
m o. Cv~° ~c ro ro E o= .v u .vv. E C o z
3 a. U g° 0 3 o v' Z° E
av. N 3 C O L u y S W E W v
v
s E U .n 3 E c -n E -v ro m p ~ .E c a ~
w
m v o c ' J c A v v v E
EL v 3 d 7 O 'O v .G v m y m 4 ` u .u=.
_ C H w ro 'O
c E a en v U J o u ro u n = C u `c"= c
C G E C V > m y= L-. Div " L, m ro
Z v ro v -n v v y°O v Z ,a 2 6 7 E 'coc
' m O C E C « C~ R. :1 Q ro ro v 'o 4 ° v u ro ro G
u ro = - F C = .C C u ..C wo = C
E Q m E u ro R m Y R
Z ro U m U G. s a i 2 m Vf o. ~c 3 5 2 o v vai
0
c+~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
~l
i
ai 3
n
traet
II
Ashland i % EnuiN~
Middle
School
91~~/
Walker
Elementary
School /
j
t
3
O m
i
y m
0 200 400 800 1,200 Feet
Normal Neighborhood Plan l . . .
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Q Normal Neighborhood Plan
® Conservation Area
3/11/2014
CITY OF
ASHLAND
s
6
-4
shun FMANY 1
Schoo
1
.r. t
It, I
•
t
l
x.4yT-erg
Elementary I g
;SchoolA :
x
r
_ J
m
D 57.,x._-.° .
Normal Neighborhood Plan 0 200 400 800 Feet
Land Use Designation Overlay Zones
NN-01 ® NN-03-C
NN-02 ® Conservation Areas
NN-03 3/11/2014
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Ash n .5 $i
S, 00 `g ,e1.,PT, a h
g g
♦ £ L~Ftry: + ■ rat
d ff 1 I 1
Elementary
*Wme I o
SCh 001111
>¢e1i':
~r ~ 1 Y
Ertl ~r rr
~ I Y. I ® ` • r tltl
I/1 Otl
Normal Neighborhood Plan 0 200 400 800 1,200 Feet
Neighborhood I I I I ~ I I I , I I 1 ,
Open Space Network
- natural area/open space green streets
- pocket park multi-use path
3/11/2014
CITY OF
ASHLAND
..".~•4 ..s' e ~ C e
{ ca
LJ`iJ i~LL ~ i
`fns • A )4
'IS
0i i
p + Sa
P4
Ashy r °'~4 if ► ps J' i ~'t., -F Mn1N8
■
y,.j
Shared Streets may be
r7j
alternatively developed Aims > • Y
s. q
as alleys or multiuse paths.
`R O 41 I j ■ 1> i
1 ~ . ~ ki`.'"ri i ■ ■ ~u
zj 17
1
Improved crossing will require f
an application for an at grade - _ o ■ /
I crossing be approved
GY„f -1
pi LLLiii
r °
~ t
ror
Normal Neighborhood Plan 0 200 400 800 1,200 Feet
Street Network '
Neighborhood Collector Alley
Neighborhood Street - - - - Multi-Use Path
Shared Street 3/11/2014
CITY OF
ASHLAND
I~
k. alb ~ l T 4~ ~ ,cf
~ ~ I C1 ~ ~ ~,1 H
shlan
Mid .
Sc oo
r.
t Walker -
Elementary 6.
School? e ~v
Y
wrasr
3a w_
Normal Neighborhood Plan 0 200 400 800 1,200 Feet
Street Network - Green Streets
green streets
® conservation areas
3/11/14
CITY OF
ASHLAND
• ~e
}p ~ f "~.ap3 s 4.
r ❑ V,[ • ~8lq ~ ! y
•
sniff •••.N
-mi
Sc oo
A,
. J,I. 3 kx
Yy'~ YJe~S'`•,p•~, ~J~ Cy'~iy~~C Try. ;U14F ~
H `°'~Al"~''..t..,I,V iY.ILy'y`yr,~,,.,I -•i•;••••s~ _11 ;
s , i . .3r~s s
•
1Walker iii = !,i sk wt
a i
a
Eye enWrY • s ~ Y
• • V{ VV ryf,
•
Ws 9.
Normal Neighborhood Plan 0 200 400 800 1,200 Feet
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
lanvolle alley shared street
mimmin, streets with sidewalks multi-use path
avenue with sidewalks & bikelanes • • central bike path 3/11/2014
CITY OF Exhibit C
ASHLAND
I' I
a
a!~ Street
Ashland i% E~nnniw
Middle
School
Walker
i
Elementary
.
School
i
f 1 i
m
0 200 400 800 1,200 Feet
Normal Neighborhood Plan I . . .
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
rM Normal Neighborhood Plan
® Conservation Area
3/11/2014
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STREET DEDICATION MAP,
PLANNED INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT MAP,
AND PLANNED BIKEWAY NETWORK MAP OF THE ASHLAND
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE NORMAL
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA, AND AMENDING STREET DESIGN
STANDARDS WITHIN THE STREET STANDARDS HANDBOOK TO
ADD A NEW SHARED STREET CLASSIFICATION.
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold lined-through and additions are in bold underline.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all
legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of
Beaverton v International Ass'n of Firefighters Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293;
531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced
amendments to the Transportation System Plan at a duly advertised public hearing on March 11,
2014 and subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and on April 8, 2014, following
deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of 6-0; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing
2014, and on [subsequent public hearing
on the above-referenced amendments on WE
continuance dates]; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing
and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the
Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the Ashland Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies intended to work
towards creating an integrated land use and transportation system to address the Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR) Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0000 directive for coordinated
land use and transportation plans should ensure that the planned transportation system supports a
Page 1 of 3
pattern of travel and land use in urban areas that will avoid the air pollution, traffic and livability
problems faced by other large urban areas of the country through measures designed to increase
transportation choices and make more efficient use of the existing transportation system."; and
WHEREAS, the Street Dedication Map, Planned Intersection and Roadway Improvement Map
and Planned Bikeway Network Map are adopted official maps for long range planning purposes,
and are periodically amended to identify streets and pedestrian and bicycle pats that will be
needed in the future to connect the street network and provide access to undeveloped areas
within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB); and
WHEREAS, the Ashland Comprehensive Plan includes the following policies addressing street
dedications: 1) Development of a modified grid street pattern shall be encouraged for connecting
new and existing neighborhoods during subdivisions, partitions, and through the use of the Street
Dedication map. (10.09.02.32); and 2) Street dedications shall be required as a condition of land
development. A future street dedication map shall be adopted and implemented as part of the
Land Use Ordinance. (10.09.02.34).; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order protect and
benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents, and to address changes in
existing conditions and projected needs related to land use and transportation patterns, it is
necessary to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan in the manner proposed, that an adequate
factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive
plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2. The officially adopted City of Ashland Street Dedication Map, referenced in
Ashland as Figure 10-1 in the Ashland Transportation System Plan is hereby amended to include
the Normal Neighborhood Plan Street Network attached hereto as Exhibit A.
SECTION 4. The City of Ashland Planned Bikeway Network Map, referenced in the Ashland
Transportation System Plan as Figure 8-1. is hereby amended to include the Normal
Neighborhood Plan Pedestrian and Bicycle Network attached hereto as Exhibit B.
SECTION 5. The City of Ashland Planned Intersection and Roadway Improvement Map,
referenced in the Ashland Transportation System Plan as Figure 10-3. is hereby amended to
include East Main Street as a Planned Avenue from Walker Avenue to Ashland St.
SECTION 6. The Ashland Street Standards Handbook, Street Design Standards
is hereby amended to include a new classification of "Shared Street" as attached hereto as
Exhibit C.
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 7. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 8. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City
Comprehensive Plan and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section",
or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided
however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1, 3-6 need not be
codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any
typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 12014,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2014.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 2014.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF Exhibit A
ASHLAND
q~y i "~a r ~ s
mr
a t. ~ :
Ql-
Ash r~drMNIM 7run*,~
Mi f
-School
Shared Streets may be
e alternatively developed n
t
' as alleys or multi-use paths. ~ O iak y ■ 1 , : '
}r n 1' 1 t~ mss( `,~`n'~ {
Ai 4.R,2 . . ' ~ ,.j ~ L otrJ,l.l■ . ~
Improved crossing will require' , Its
i
an application for an at grade < ■
railroad crossing be approved.
}
ooli P /1"41,,~q}p{{~'~p~g~Ep
s
Rem
r,HL
Normal Neighborhood Plan 0 200 400 800 1,200 Feet
Street Network
Neighborhood Collector Alley
Neighborhood Street - - - - Multi-Use Path
~n■u■nr Shared Street 3/11/2014
CITY OF Exhibit B
ASHLAND
%
Aa, ~I I "yl y vtY 'x of h t x f~ ~
li r 4a, .z ~,ci+ ~S
1 t ~'J`-~ l~`T 'b ref
~ `cr ? "6 .5 t • 7. !1 y"
sha0 a ~t ~1=1N ( e e 31 s
11 'Mid ~A, r
4
Sc oo r U
161 rM
Zsq;
a ~ °
•<Y NFi a.w
Walker y ,R, _ '-l
Elem ne'tary teary r~_°° ~ ~ I i
!School o {C b
„a
t
M1; '
' u a... Y~.: lp I
Normal Neighborhood Plan 0 200 400 800 1,200 Feet
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network ' i ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
alley shared street
streets with sidewalks multi-use path
avenue with sidewalks & bikelanes • • • • central bike path 3/11/2014
Exhibit C
Shared Street
Provides access to residential in an area in which right-of-way is constrained by natural
features, topography or historically significant structures. The constrained right-of-way
prevents typical bicycle and pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and bicycle lanes.
Therefore, the entire width of the street is collectively shared by pedestrians, bicycles,
and autos. The design of the street should emphasize a slower speed environment and
provide clear physical and visual indications the space is shared across modes.
Street Function: Provide vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle neighborhood
circulation and access to individual residential and
commercial properties designed to encourage socializing
with neighbors, outdoor play for children, and creating
comfortable spaces for walking and biking.
Connectivity: Connects to all types of streets.
Average Daily Traffic: 1,500 or less motor vehicle trips per day
Managed Speed: Motor vehicle travel speeds should be below 15 mph
Right-of-Way Width: 25'
Pavement width: 18' minimum, maintaining full fire truck access and minimum
turning paths at all changes in alignment and intersections.
Motor Vehicle Travel Lanes: Minimum 12' clear width.
Bike Lanes: Not applicable, bicyclists can share the travel lane and easily
negotiate these low use areas
Parking: Parking and loading areas may be provided within the right
of way with careful consideration to ensure parked vehicles
do not obstruct pedestrian, bicycles, or emergency vehicle
access.
Parkrow:. Not applicable
Sidewalks: Not applicable, pedestrians can share the travel lane and
easily negotiate these low use areas. Refuge areas are to be
provided within the right of way to allow pedestrians to step
out of the travel lane when necessary.
Shared Street Cross Section
3
~s
i
18,
25'
Normal Neighborhood District
Draft
May 6.2014
The proposed Normal Neighborhood District Land Use Ordinance will be reviewed as part of
a separate legislative action, as it is to be incorporated into the Unified Land Use Ordinance
(UL UO) process presently underway. However, given the interrelated nature of the Normal
Neighborhood Plan elements this Draft Land Use Ordinance Language it is being presented
for Council consideration, discussion, and direction at the May 61h hearing. This code and
any recommended amendments will be incorporated into the UL UO for final adoption.
Chapter 18 Code Amendments
18-3.13.010 Purpose
18-3.13.020 Applicability
18-3.13.030 General Requirements
18-3.13.040 Use Regulations
18-3.13.050 Dimensional Regulations
18-3.13.060 Site Development and Design Standards
18-3.13.070 Conservation Area overlay
18-3.13.080 Review and Approval Procedure
18-3.13.010 Purpose
The neighborhood is designed to provide an environment for traditional neighborhood living. The
Normal Neighborhood Plan is a blueprint for promoting a variety of housing types while preserving open
spaces, stream corridors, wetlands, and other significant natural features. The neighborhood
commercial area is designated to promote neighborhood serving businesses with building designs that
reflect the character of the neighborhood and where parking is managed through efficient on-street and
off-street parking resources. The neighborhood will be characterized by a connected network of streets
and alleys, paths and trails, with connection to the natural areas, wetlands, and streams. This network
will also connect to the larger network of regional trails, paths, and streets beyond the boundaries of the
neighborhood. The development of the neighborhood will apply principles of low impact development to
minimize the extent and initial cost of new infrastructure and to promote the benefits of storm water
management.
18-3.13.020 Applicability
This chapter applies to properties designated as Normal Neighborhood District on the Ashland Zoning
Map, and pursuant to the Normal Neighborhood Plan adopted by Ordinance [#number (date)].
Development located within the Normal Neighborhood District is required to meet all applicable
sections of this ordinance, except as otherwise provided in this chapter; where the provisions of this
Page 1 of 10
chapter conflict with comparable standards described in any other ordinance, resolution or regulation, the
provisions of the Normal Neighborhood District shall govern.
18-3.13.030 General Regulations
A. Conformance with the Normal Neighborhood Plan. Land uses and development, including
construction of buildings, streets, multi-use paths, and conservation shall be located in accordance
with those shown on the Normal Neighborhood Plan maps adopted by Ordinance [#number (date)].
B. Performance Standards Overlay. All applications involving the creation of three or more lots
shall be processed under chapter 18-3.8 Performance Standards Option.
C. Amendments. Major and minor amendments to the Normal Neighborhood Plan shall comply
with the following procedures:
1. Major and Minor Amendments
a. Major amendments are those that result in any of the following:
i. A change in the land use overlay designation.
ii. A change in the maximum building height dimensional standards in section 18-3.13.050
iii. A change in the allowable base density, dwelling units per acre, in section 18-3.13.050.
iv. A change in the Plan layout that eliminates a street, access way, multi-use path or
other transportation facility.
v. A change in the Plan layout that eliminates or reduces an area designated as a
conservation or open space area.
vi. A change not specifically listed under the major and minor amendment definitions.
b. Minor amendments are those that result in any of the following:
i. A change in the Plan layout that requires a street, access way, multi-use path or
other transportation facility to be shifted fifty (50) feet or more in any direction as
long as the change maintains the connectivity established by Normal Avenue
Neighborhood Plan.
ii. A change in a dimensional standard requirement in section 1 8-3.13.050, but not
including height and residential density.
iii. A change in the Plan layout that changes the boundaries or location of a conservation
or open space area to correspond with a delineated wetland and water resource
protection zone provided there is no reduction in the contiguous area preserved.
2. Major Amendment- Type II Procedure. A major amendment to the Normal Neighborhood Plan is
subject to a public hearing and decision under a Type II Procedure. A major amendment may be
approved upon finding that the proposed modification will not adversely affect the purpose of
the Normal Neighborhood Plan. A major amendment requires a determination by the City that
that:
a.The proposed amendment maintains the transportation connectivity established by the
Normal Neighborhood Plan;
Page 2 of 10
b. The proposed amendment furthers the street design and access management
concepts of the Normal Neighborhood Plan.
c. The proposed amendment furthers the protection and enhancement of the natural
systems and features of the Normal Neighborhood Plan, including wetlands, stream
beds, and water resource protection zones by improving the quality and function of
existing natural resources.
d.The proposed amendment will not reduce the concentration or variety of housing types
permitted in the Normal Neighborhood Plan.
e.The proposed amendment is necessary to accommodate physical constraints evident on
the property, or to protect significant natural features such as trees, rock outcroppings,
streams, wetlands, water resource protection zones, or similar natural features, or to
adjust to existing property lines between project boundaries.
3. Minor Amendment- Type 1 Procedure. A minor amendment to the Normal Neighborhood
Development Plan which is subject to an administrative decision under the Type
Procedure. Minor amendments are subject to the Exception to the Site Design and Use
Development Standards of chapter 18-5.2.050(E).
18-3.13.040 Use Regulations
A. Plan overlay zones. There are four Land Use Designation Overlays zones within the Normal
Neighborhood Plan are intended to accommodate a variety of housing opportunities, preserve natural
areas and provide open space.
1. Plan NN-01 zone The use regulations and development standards are intended to create,
maintain and promote single-dwelling neighborhood character. A variety of housing types are
allowed, in addition to the detached single dwelling. Development standards that are largely the
same as those for single dwellings ensure that the overall image and character of the single-dwelling
neighborhood is maintained.
2. Plan NN-02 zone. The use regulations and development standards are intended to create,
maintain and promote single-dwelling neighborhood character. A variety of housing types are
allowed including multiple compact attached and/or detached dwellings. Dwellings may be grouped
around common open space promoting a scale and character compatible with single family homes.
Development standards that are largely the same as those for single dwellings ensure that the
overall image and character of the single-dwelling neighborhood is maintained.
3. Plan NN-03 zone. The use regulations and development standards are intended to create and
maintain a range of housing choices, including multi-family housing within the context of the
residential character of the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan.
Page 3 of 10
4. Plan NN-03C zone. The use regulations and development standards are intended to provide
housing opportunities for individual households through development of multi-dwelling housing with
the added allowance for neighborhood-serving commercial mixed- uses so that many of the activities
of daily living can occur within the Normal Neighborhood. The public streets within the vicinity of the
NN-03-C overlay are to provide sufficient on-street parking to accommodate ground floor
neighborhood business uses.
B. Normal Neighborhood Plan Residential Building Types. The development standards for the
Normal Neighborhood Plan will preserve neighborhood character by incorporating four distinct land use
overlay areas with different concentrations of varying housing types.
1. Single Dwelling Residential Unit.
A Single Dwelling Residential Unit is a detached residential building that contains a single dwelling
with self-contained living facilities on one lot. It is separated from adjacent dwellings by private open
space in the form of side yards and backyards, and set back from the public street or common green
by a front yard. Auto parking is generally on the same lot in a garage, carport, or uncovered area.
The garage may be detached or attached to the dwelling structure.
2. Accessory Residential Unit.
An Accessory Residential Unit is a secondary dwelling unit on a lot where the primary use is a
single-family dwelling, either attached to the single-family dwelling or in a detached building located
on the same lot with a single-family dwelling, and having an independent means of access.
3. Double Dwelling Residential Unit (Duplex).
A Double Dwelling Residential Unit is a residential building that contains two dwellings located on a
single lot, each with self-contained living facilities. Double Dwelling Residential Units must share a
common wall or a common floor/ ceiling and are similar to a Single Dwelling Unit in appearance,
height, massing and lot placement.
4. Attached Residential Unit. An Attached Residential Unit is single dwelling located on an
individual lot which is attached along one or both sidewalls to an adjacent dwelling unit. Private open
space may take the form of front yards, backyards, or upper level terraces. The dwelling unit may be
set back from the public street or common green by a front yard.
5. Clustered Residential Units - Pedestrian-Oriented. Pedestrian-Oriented Clustered Residential
Units are multiple dwellings grouped around common open space that promote a scale and
character compatible with single family homes. Units are typically arranged around a central common
green under communal ownership. Auto parking is generally grouped in a shared surface area or
areas.
Page 4 of 10
6. Multiple Dwelling Residential Unit. Multiple Dwelling Residential Units are multiple dwellings
that occupy a single building or multiple buildings on a single lot. Dwellings may take the form of
condominiums or apartments. Auto parking is generally provided in a shared parking area or
structured parking facility.
7. Cottage Housing. [Description to be added consistent with Unified Land Use Ordinance)
C. General Use Regulations. Uses and their accessory uses are permitted, special permitted or
conditional uses in the Normal Neighborhood Plan area as listed in the Land Use Table.
Ta61e 18-3.13'040 l-11111
NN'01 NNlt I NN'03 NN'03-G
Descri tions p 9jingle Multi-family Multi-family Mh
esiential ensity igDesitRdential esientiaResitlenfial Uses
Single Dwelling Residential Unit
(Single-Family Dwelling) P P N N
Accessory Residential Unit P P P P
Double Dwelling Residential Unit N P P P
(Duplex Dwelling)
Cottage Housing P N N N
Clustered Residential Units N P P P
Attached Residential Unit N P P P
Multiple Dwelling Residential Unit N P P P
(Multi family Dwelling)
Manufactured Home on Individual Lot P P P P
Manufactured Housing Development N P P P
Neighborhood Business and Service Uses
Home Occupation P P P P
Retail Sales and Services, with each building limited to N N N P
3,500 square feet of gross floor area
Professional and Medical Offices, with each building N N N P
limited to 3,500 square feet of gross floor area
Light manufacturing or assembly of items occupying
six hundred (600) square feet or less, and contiguous N N N P
to the permitted retail use.
Restaurants N N N P
Day Care Center N N N P
Assisted Living Facilities N C C C
Public andanstitutional Use1 all
s
Religious Institutions and Houses of Worship C C C C
Page 5 of 10
Public Buildings P P P P
Community Gardens P P P P
Openspace and Recreational Facilities P P P P
P = Permitted Use, CU = Conditional Use Permit Required; N = Not Allowed
1. Permitted Uses. Uses listed as "Permitted (P)" are allowed. All uses are subject to the
development standards of zone in which they are located, any applicable overlay zone(s), and the
review procedures of Part 18-5. See section 18-5.1.020 Determination of Review Procedure.
2.Conditional Uses. Uses listed as "Conditional Use Permit Required (C)" are allowed subject to
the requirements of chapter 18-5.4 Conditional Use Permits.
3.Prohibited Uses. Uses not listed in the Land Use Table, and not found to be similar to an allowed
use following the procedures of section 18-1.5.040 Similar Uses, are prohibited.
18-3.13.050 Dimensional Regulations
A. The lot and building dimensions shall conform to the standards in Table 1 8-3.13.050
below.
Table 18-3.13.050 Drmensron
s al Stantla~ds"' NNyO1 NN 02 NNT63
NN-03 -C
Base density, dwelling units per acre 5 10 15
Minimum Lot Area', square feet 5,000 3500 3000
(applies to lots created by partitions only)
Minimum Lot Depth', feet 80 80 80
(applies to lots created by partitions only)
Minimum Lot Width, feet 50 35 25
(applies to lots created by partitions only)
Setbacks and yards (feet)
Minimum Front Yard abutting a street 15 15 15
Minimum Front Yard to a garage facing a public street, 20 20 20
feet
X2 X2 X2
Minimum Front Yard to unenclosed front porch, feet Currently under discussion as part of the ULUO update
to be consistent
Minimum Side Yard 6 106 6
3 3
Minimum Side Yard abutting a public street 10 10 10
Minimum Rear Yard 10 ft per Bldg Story, 5 feet per Half Story
Solar Access Setback and yard requirements shall conform to the
Solar Access standards of chapter 18-4.10.
Maximum Building Height, feet / stories 35 / 2.5 :353512.5
Maximum Lot Coverage, percentage of lot 50% 65% 75%
Page 6 of 10
Minimum Required Landscaping, percentage of lot 0% 35% 25%
Parking See section 18-0.3.080 Vehicle Area Design
Requirements
Minimum Outdoor Recreation Space, percentage of lot na
1 Minimum Lot Area , Depth, and Width requirements do not apply in performance standards subdivisions.
2 Minimum Front Yard to an unenclosed front porch (Feet), or width of a public easement whichever is greater.
3 Minimum Side Yard for Attached Residential Units (Feet)
B. Density Standards Development density in the Normal Neighborhood shall not exceed the densities
established by Table 18-3.13.050, except where granted a density bonus under chapter 18-3.8
Performance Standards Options and consistent with the following:
1 General Density Provisions.
a. The density in NN-01, NN-02, NN-03 and NN-03-C zones is to be computed by dividing the total
number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public.
b. Conservation Areas including wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, and water resource protection
zones may be excluded from the acreage of the project for the purposes of calculating minimum
density for residential annexations as described in sectionl8-5.7.050F.
c. Units less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the
purposes of density calculations.
d. Accessory residential units consistent with standards described in section 18-2.3.040 are not
required to meet density or minimum lot area requirements.
e. Accessory residential units shall be included for the purposes of meeting minimum density
calculation requirements for residential annexations as described in 18-5.7.050F
2. Residential Density Bonuses.
a. The maximum bonus permitted shall be 40 percent.
b. Cottage Housing. In the NN-01 zone, developments meeting the standards of section 18-2.3.090
Cottage Housing will receive a density bonus consistent with 18-x.xx.xxx []to reference the
density bonus standards stipulated in the ULUO]
18-3.13.060 Site Development and Design Standards. The Normal Neighborhood District Design
Standards provide specific requirements for the physical orientation, uses and arrangement of buildings; the
management of parking; and access to development parcels. Development located in the Normal
Neighborhood District must be designed and constructed consistent with the Site Design and Use Standards
chapter 18-5.2 and the following:
A. Street Design and Access Standards. Design and construct streets and public improvements in
accordance with the Ashland Street Standards. A change in the design of a street in a manner
inconsistent with the Normal Neighborhood Plan requires a minor amendment in accordance with
section 18-3.13.030.8.
Page 7 of 10
1. Conformance with Street Network Plan: New developments must provide avenues,
neighborhood collectors, streets, alleys, multi-use paths, and pedestrian and bicycle
improvements consistent with the design concepts within the mobility chapter of the Normal
Neighborhood Plan Framework and in conformance with the Normal Neighborhood Plan
Street Network Map.
a. Streets designated as Shared Streets on the Normal Neighborhood Plan Street
Network Map may be alternatively developed as alleys, or multiuse paths provided
the following:
i. Impacts to the water protection zones are minimized to the greatest extent feasible.
ii. Pedestrian and bicyclist connectivity, as indicated on the Normal Avenue
Neighborhood Plan Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Map, is maintained or
enhanced.
2 Storm water management. The Normal Neighborhood Plan uses street trees, green streets,
and other green infrastructure to manage storm water, protect water quality and improve
watershed health. Discharge of storm water runoff must be directed into a designated green
street and neighborhood storm water treatment facilities.
a.. Design Green Streets. Streets designated as Green Streets within the Street Network,
and as approved by the Public Works Department, shall conform to the following
standards:
i. New streets must be developed so as to capture and treat storm water in conformance
with the City of Ashland Storm Water Master Plan.
3. Access Management Standards: To manage access to land uses and on-site
circulation, and maintain transportation safety and operations, vehicular access must
conform to the standards set forth in section 18-4.3, and as follows:
a. Automobile access to development is intended to be provided by alleys where possible
consistent with the street connectivity approval standards.
b. Curb cuts along a Neighborhood Collector or shared street are to be limited to one per
block, or one per 200 feet where established block lengths exceed 400 feet.
4. Required On-Street Parking: On-street parking is a key strategy to traffic calming and is
required along the Neighborhood Collector and Neighborhood Streets.
B. Site and Building Design Standards.
1. Lot and Building Orientation:
a. Lot Frontage Requirements: Lots in the Normal Neighborhood are required to have their Front
Lot Line on a street or a Common Green.
b. Common Green. The Common Green provides access for pedestrians and bicycles to
abutting properties. Common greens are also intended to serve as a common open
Page 8 of 10
space amenity for residents. The following approval criteria and standards apply to
common greens:
i. Common Greens must include at least 400 square feet of grassy area, play area, or
dedicated gardening space, which must be at least 15 feet wide at its narrowest
dimension.
2. Cottage Housing.: Cottage housing developments are allowed within the Normal Neighborhood
subject to the applicable standards of chapter 18-2.3.090 Cottage Housing and as follows:
a. Cottage housing developments are allowed within the NN-01 zone subject to the applicable
provisions of the underlying zone and review through Chapter 18-3.8 Performance Standards
Option.
i. In the NN-01 zones, two cottage house units developed consistent with the requirements of
chapter 18-2.3.090 will be awarded a density bonus4s as approved under section 18-
3.8.050.6.5.
3. Conservation of Natural Areas. Development plans must preserve water quality, natural
hydrology and habitat, and preserve biodiversity through protection of streams and wetlands.
In addition to the requirements of 18-3.10 Water Resources, conserving natural water systems
must be considered in the site design through the application of the following guidelines:
a.Designated stream and wetland protection areas are to be considered positive design
elements and incorporated in the overall design of a given project.
b.Native riparian plant materials must be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance habitat.
c.Create a long-term management plan for on-site wetlands, streams, associated habitats and
their buffers.
4. Storm Water Management. Natural water systems regulate water supply, provide biological
habitat, and provide recreational opportunities. To minimize infrastructure costs and the adverse
environmental effects of storm water run-off, from building roofs, driveways, parking areas,
sidewalks and other hard surfaces must be managed through implementation of the following
storm water management practices:
a. When required by the City Engineer, the applicant must submit hydrology and hydraulic
calculations, and drainage area maps to the City, to determine the quantity of
predevelopment, and estimated post-development, storm water runoff and evaluate the
effectiveness of storm water management strategies. Computations mustbe site specific and
must account for conditions such as soil type, vegetative cover, impervious areas, existing
drainage patterns, flood plain areas and wetlands.
b. Future Peak Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed the pre-development peak flow.
The default value for pre-development peach flow is .25 CFS per acre.
c. Detention volume must be sized for the 25 year, 24 hour peak flow and volume.
d. Development must comply with one or more of following guidelines.
Page 9 of 10
i. Implement storm water management techniques that endeavor to treat the water as close
as possible to the spot where it hits the ground through infiltration, evapotranspiration or
through capture and reuse techniques.
ii. Use on-site landscape-based water treatment methods to treat rainwater runoff from all
surfaces, including parking lots, roofs, and sidewalks.
iii. Use pervious or semi-pervious surfaces that allow water to infiltrate soil.
iv. Design grading and site plans that create a system that slows the stormwater, maximizing
time for cleansing and infiltration.
v. Maximizing the length of overland flow of storm water through bioswales and rain gardens,
vi. Use structural soils in those environments that support pavements and trees yet are free
draining.
vii. Plant deep rooted native plants.
viii, Replace metabolically active minerals, trace elements and microorganism rich compost in
all soils disturbed through construction activities.
5. Off-Street Parking. Automobile parking, loading and circulation areas must comply with the
requirements of chapter 18-4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation Standards, and as follows:
a. Neighborhood serving commercial uses within the NN-03-C zone must have
parking primarily accommodated by the provision of on-street parking spaces, and
are not required to provide off-street parking or loading areas, except for residential
uses where one space shall be provided per residential unit.
18-3.13.65 Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards
An exception to the requirements Site Development and Design Standards must follow the procedures and
approval criteria adopted under section 18-4-1.030, unless authorized under the procedures for a major
amendment to plan.
1 8-3.13.070 Conservation Area Overlay
All projects containing land identified as Conservation Areas on the Normal Neighborhood Plan Land Use
Zone Map must dedicate those areas as: common areas, public open space, or private open space
protected by restrictive covenant. It is recognized that the master planning of the properties as part of the
Normal Neighborhood Plan imparted significant value to the land, and the reservation of lands for
conservation purposes is proportional to the value bestowed upon the property through the change in
zoning designation and future annexation.
18.3.13.080. Review and Approval Procedure. All land use applications are to be reviewed and processed
in accordance with the applicable procedures of Part 18-5.
Page 10 of 10
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Planning Commission Report
DATE: April 22, 2014
TO: Ashland City Council
FROM: Ashland Planning Commission
RE: PA#20130-1858 Normal Neighborhood Plan
Planning Commission Recommendations
Summary
The Ashland Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 11, 2014 related to the
Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, Transportation System Plan, and Ashland Land Use
Ordinance amendments proposed to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan (Planning Action 2013-
01858). The Commission concluded their review on April 8th and following discussion and deliberation
unanimously recommended the City Council approve of the Normal Neighborhood Plan with a number
of specific recommendations as outlined in this report.
The Normal Neighborhood Plan area is one of the last sizeable tracts of largely undeveloped land
designated for residential purposes in Ashland's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The future
development of this area is expected to contribute toward accommodating long range population growth
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and Ashland's position in the Greater Bear Creek Valley
Regional Problem Solving Plan (RPS). The Planning Commission recognizes in order to maintain a
compact urban form and to ensure the orderly and sequential development of land (Comprehensive Plan
Goal 12.09) that neighborhood planning is an appropriate tool for this area. The creation of a
neighborhood plan in this area is particularly valuable as over three decades of development has
occurred in the area, under county standards, since the original Comprehensive Plan land use
designations were assigned to the area. Consideration of the area's existing pattern of development,
presence of water resource protection areas, existing and projected traffic volumes, and public testimony
has allowed the Planning Commission to better understand the development constraints within the plan
area, and carefully address the coordinated provision of open space, transportation, infrastructure, and
housing.
Recommendations
The Planning Commission identified two categories of recommended amendments, those changes that
are minor editorial corrections, and those changes that have broader policy implications. Amendments
that are editorial in nature and necessary to clarify terminology and provide inter-document consistency
are to be included in the final documents presented to the City Council. A list of these editorial changes
is attached to this report (Appendix A). The Commission's recommendations pertaining to allowable
land use standards, the stated purpose of open space, and the extent and timing of transportation system
improvements are addressed in this report as specific recommendations for Council's consideration.
Comprehensive Plan Change and Land Use Designations
The Planning Commission supports the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and Land Use
Designation Overlay Zones as proposed, and recommends the following:
-2-
• Approval of the proposed amendment to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map to create a
designation for the Normal Neighborhood Plan District, including revised boundaries for
Conservation Areas within the plan area.
o Adoption of the Normal Neighborhood Plan Land Use Designations Overlay Zone Map.
o Adoption of the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework document as a supporting document
to the City's Comprehensive Plan, with recommended changes to the mobility and open
space chapters as described below.
Mobility (Transportation) Framework
The Planning Commission supports the Street Network, Pedestrian and Bicycle Network, Green Street
Network, Shared Street Standard, and Street Classifications as proposed, and recommends approval of
amendments to the the City Transportation System Plan (TSP) and City Street Standards to incorporate
these elements of the Normal Neighborhood Plan as follows:
o Amend to the Street Dedication Map (TSP Figure 10-1) to incorporate the plan area's
proposed Street Network, and reclassification of Normal "Avenue" to be a Neighborhood
Collector.
o Amend the Planned Intersection and Roadway Improvement Map (TSP Figure 10-3) to
include East Main Street as a Planned Roadway Project.
o Amend the Planned Bikeway Network Map (TSP Figure 8-1) to incorporate the planned
multi-use trails within the Normal Neighborhood Plan.
o Amend the Street Design Standards within the Street Standards Handbook to incorporate the
Shared Street classification.
The Planning Commission has specific recommendations relating to the timing of transportation
improvements associated with the future development of the plan area. In order to address current and
future transportation along to East Main Street, the Commission recommends the mobility chapter of the
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework Document be amended to reflect the following:
• The south side of East Main Street, from Walker Avenue to Clay Street, should be fully
improved to City Street Standards prior to, or coinciding with any future annexation and
development within the plan area.
• A future transit stop coordinated with the Rogue Valley Transportation District, in the
immediate vicinity of the NN-03 Land Use Zone, should be incorporated into the East Main
Street roadway design and development.
• That prior to annexation and development within the plan area the following items relating to
the future Railroad crossing at Normal Avenue be addressed:
o That the proposed public Rail Road crossing can be installed without necessitating the
closure of any existing public crossing within the City.
o A financing plan be developed and approved by the City for the future improvement of
the rail road crossing.
Open Space Framework
The Planning Commission supports the Comprehensive Plan map amendment to establish designated
Conservation Ares as proposed, which include the Cemetery Creek and Clay Creek 100 year
Floodplains, Wetlands identified in the 2007 Local Wetland Inventory, and wetland and riparian buffer
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
wwx.ashland.or.us
-3-
areas consistent with the Water Resource Protection Zones. The Planning Commission further supports
the Open Space Network map as presented and recommends approval of these plan elements.
The Planning Commission has determined that the provision of open space within the plan area has
environmental, recreational, and aesthetic value to the neighborhood. The contiguous open space
corridors are a neighborhood defining characteristic and as such the Planning Commission recommends
the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework Document's Greenway and Open Space chapter be amended
to further emphasize the community value of open space retention with a concluding statement on page
14 as follows:
The Normal Neighborhood's distinctive character is shaped by the presence ofprominent open
spaces and natural areas. The preservation of these neighborhood defining features is central to
the success of the neighborhood plan as they ensure the protection offragile ecosystems, provide
passive recreational opportunities where people can connect with nature, protect scenic views
considered important to the community, protect fixture development fromfood hazards, and
preserve community character and quality of life by buffering areas of development from one
another. The permanent establishment of interconnected open spaces and contiguous
conservation areas as proposed in the Open Space Framework is essential to promote and
maintain high quality residential development which is appropriate to the distinct character of
the neighborhood
Land Use Ordinance
The proposed Normal Neighborhood District Land Use Ordinance will be reviewed as part of a separate
legislative process as it is to be incorporated into the Unified Land Use Ordinance (ULUO) process
presently underway. However, given the interrelated nature of the Normal Neighborhood Plan elements
the Planning Commission took testimony regarding the draft Normal Neighborhood District Land Use
Ordinance at March 1 Ich public hearing in order to evaluate the draft ordinance and formulate
recommendations for the Council's consideration. The Planning Commission supports the draft land use
ordinance's mix of land uses, housing types and proposed densities, Site Development and Design
Standards, and flexibility afforded by the proposed major and minor amendment provisions, with
following recommended policy change:
• The Commission recommends the dimensional regulations in the proposed land use ordinance
(18-3.13.050) and the review procedures be amended to include a Conditional Use Permit to
increase building height from the proposed 35ft and 2'h story maximum up to 40ft and 3-
stories exclusively within the NN-03 and NN-03C zones. The Commission finds that such a
change would provide applicants greater site and building design flexibility in achieving the
stated densities (15 units per acre) within the NN-03 and NN-03-C zones, while retaining a
publically noticed review process to evaluate the bulk and scale of proposed buildings to
ensure neighborhood compatibility is preserved.
Conclusion
Through the two year public neighborhood planning process the Planning Commission has evaluated the
impacts of future development in consideration the of goal to ensure a variety of dwelling types and
provide housing opportunities for the total cross section of Ashland's population, consistent with
preserving the character and appearance of the City (Comprehensive Plan goal 6.10). The resulting
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
xvru~ I=,
.ashland.or.us
_4_
neighborhood plan strives to preserve the character of the neighborhood, accommodate a variety of
housing types, connect a system of greenways, protect and integrate existing creek corridors and
wetlands, and enhance mobility for area residents through establishing safe and direct walking and
bicycle routes. The Planning Commission finds the Normal Neighborhood Plan, with the additional
recommendations included in this report, achieves these objectives and will be a valuable guide for
future annexation and development of properties within the 94 acre area.
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
~.ashland.or.us
-5-
Appendix A
Editorial Changes incorporated into the final plan documents
The editorial changes recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff were needed to clarify
terminology and provide inter-document consistency. These changes have already been incorporated
into the draft documents presented to the City Council for consideration. The following lists the specific
changes that were made to the plan documents presented at the first public hearing on March 11, 2014:
• Amend the framework document (page 7) under Double Dwellings to strike NN-01 as a zone
where they are permitted.
• Amend the Framework Document to alter references to Pedestrian Oriented Cluster Housing
(e.g top of page 7) to be consistent with the description of the Housing Type as written on
page 8.
• Amend the Framework Document to eliminate statements that stipulate that rear alleys "help
to eliminate pavement" as although true in some site configurations it is not universally true
in all circumstances (pg 16).
• Amend the Framework Document's "Use Table" on page 10 to include Pedestrian Oriented
Cluster Housing as permitted in NN-02 and NN-03 consistent with the draft Land Use
Ordinance.
• Amend the draft Land Use Code 18-3.13.040 as follows:
o A2: The use regulations and development standards are intended to create, maintain and
promote single-dwelling neighborhood character. A variety of housing types are allowed
including multiple compact attached and/or detached dwellings. Dwellings may be
grouped around common open space promoting a scale and character compatible with
single family homes. Development standards that are largely the same as those for single
dwellings ensure that the overall image and character of the single-dwelling
neighborhood is maintained.
o 135: Pedestrian Oriented Cluster residential Units are multiple dwellings grouped around
common open space that promote a scale and character compatible with single family
homes. Units are typically arranged around a central common green under communal
ownership. Auto Parking is generally grouped in a shared surface area or areas.
o 137: Add a place holder for a Cottage Housing description consistent with the Unified
Land Use Ordinance.
• Amend the draft Land Use Code 18-3.13.050 to read as follows:
o B 1(e). Accessory residential units shall be included for the purposes of meeting
minimum density calculation requirements for residential annexations as described in 18-
5.7.050F.
.o 132(b): Cottage Housing. In the NN-01 zone, developments meeting the standards of
section 18-2.3.090 Cottage housing shall receive a density bonus consistent with 18-
x.xx.xxx .(to reference the density bonus put forth in the ULUO)
• Amend the draft Land Use Code 18-3-13.060 to read as follows:
A3(a): Automobile Access to development is intended to be provided by alleys where
possible consistent with the street connectivity approval standards.
Ashland Planning Commission
20 E. Main Sheet
Ashland, Oregon 97520
wxw.ashland.or.us
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
March 11, 2014
PLANNING ACTION: PL-2013-01858
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
LOCATION: Normal Neighborhood District Boundary
ZONE DESIGNATION: Jackson County RR-5 (Rural Residential 5 acres)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: City of Ashland Single-Family and Suburban
Residential
Jackson County Rural Residential Lands
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Chapter 18-3.13 Normal Neighborhood District
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS: Goal 2 Land Use Planning
Goal 14 Urbanization
OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS): Chapter 197 - Comprehensive Land Use Planning
Coordination
REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, Transportation
System Plan, and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan.
1. Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning, as well as Chapter 197 of the
Oregon Revised Statues requires a land use planning process and policy framework as
a basis for all.decision and actions related to use of land. Specifically, plans and
implementation measures such as ordinances controlling the use and construction are
permitted as measures for carrying out Comprehensive Plans.
Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 14, Urbanization, directs communities to plan for
the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate
urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure
efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. The existing
Comprehensive Plan designation for the Normal Neighborhood Plan area was
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Repod bg
Applicant City of Ashland Page 1 of 12
established in 198 1. The area's development as low density residential, changes in
the City's population demographics, land availability, housing supply and type, and
water resource protection standards over the decades warrant a re-evaluation of the
area's Comprehensive Plan designations in consideration of these changed conditions.
In March of 2011 the City Council directed the Community Development Department
to apply for a Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant to prepare a
master plan for the 94 acre Normal Neighborhood area, and the City's project was
selected for award in June 2011. The TGM program is ajoint program of the Oregon
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT).
The City of Ashland received the TGM grant for consultant services in May 2012 to
undertake the neighborhood planning process. A number of urban design, planning,
engineering, environmental services and architecture firms were selected to prepare
the draft plan. Consultants included Parametrix Inc, UrbsWorks Urban Design,
Joseph Readdy Architect, Qamar Architecture and Town Planning, Leland Consulting
Group housing market analysts, and Nevue Ngan Landscape Architects. The
submission of preliminary draft plan materials and a revised final draft plan
concluded the TGM funded portion of the project in September 2013.
The neighborhood planning process has involved considerable public involvement
including a resident survey, two neighborhood meetings, three public open houses,
two Planning Commission site visits, individual stakeholder meetings with property
owners and nearby residents, and numerous Planning Commission, Transportation
Commission, Housing Commission and City Council study sessions. The design
phase of the planning process was initiated in October 2012 with a three day public
design charrette, or workshop. The charrette allowed for the identification of issues
and concerns, development of goals and objectives for the master plan, and creation
of a conceptual neighborhood design. Following the October 2012 charrette, plan
options were developed and presented at study sessions and public open houses to
obtain public input to assist the design team, city staff, and the Planning Commission
to further refine the plan concept. The final Normal Neighborhood Plan, and draft
implementing ordinances, were completed in February 2014 and initially presented to
the Planning Commission at a study session on February 25`h, 2014.
The issues and opportunities identified during the first public workshop and key
participants meetings were used to create the project goals and objectives as listed
below:
Maximize land use efficiency by concentrating housing in a strategically
located area within the City Urban Growth Boundary.
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 12
• Create a development pattern of blocks and streets that supports a balanced,
multi-modal transportation system that offers a full range of choices to its
occupants and that supports active transportation opportunities like walking,
bicycling or using transit in those areas planned for transit service;
• Provide a range of housing choices and a variety of open space, public space,
and green infrastructure improvements, in a way that preserves and enhances
the area's creeks and wetlands;
• Design a local street grid for the Project Area including connections to existing
and planned street, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities beyond the project area that
overcome the challenges to connectivity and better integrate the area into the
Ashland transportation system;
• Provide for pedestrian and bicycle routes and facility improvements within the
plan area that will provide safe access to local schools, activities,
neighborhoods, and destinations;
• Apply those principles of low impact development to minimize the extent and
initial cost of new infrastructure and to promote the benefits of stormwater
management;
• Provide developable alternatives at planned densities that will eliminate the
need for expansion of the urban growth boundary; and
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by implementing transportation and land use
plans that encourage reductions in vehicle miles traveled.
Background Studies
To inform the neighborhood planning process a number of studies were completed
and previously presented to the Planning Commission in support of this project
including:
• A Buildable Lands Inventory (approved November 15, 201 ]-ordinance #3055)
provided a basis for evaluation of the amount of available land within the City
Limits and Urban Growth Boundary.
• A Housing Needs Analysis (approved September 3, 2013 - ordinance 43085),
summarized the types of housing that have been developed throughout the
City in the recent decades, as well as the projected needed housing based on
income and population demographics.
• An Executive Summary of Existing Conditions to provide background
information for the Normal plan area including the results of a resident survey
conducted in June-July 2012.
• An analysis of five components of the neighborhood design including
infrastructure, mobility, sustainability, open space and greenways, and
housing and land use.
o Infrastructure Framework
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 12
o Sustainability Framework
o Mobility Framework
o Greenway and Open space Framework
o Housing and Land Use Framework
• The traffic engineering firm SCJ Alliance completed an Existing Traffic
Conditions technical memorandum (dated September 12, 2012), and a
Future Traffic Analysis (dated November 19, 2013) to investigate current and
future traffic conditions in the Normal Neighborhood Plan study area.
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The Normal Neighborhood Plan District is situated between East Main Street to the
north and the railroad tracks to the south, Clay Street to the east and the Ashland
Middle School to the west. Currently, the 94 acre area has a mix of Comprehensive
Plan designations including single family residential and suburban residential, and is
presently outside the City of Ashland (City) city limits but within the City Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB).
This area constitutes the largest remaining area of residentially designated land that is
suitable for medium- to high-density development which remains largely vacant or
redevelopable. The plan area contains 35 properties ranging in size between 0.38
acres up to 9.96 acres. There are 26 property owners within the plan area with a
number owning multiple parcels. Residential development in the plan area has
historically been low density large lot single family homes consistent with Jackson
County's rural residential zoning standards.
The Normal Neighborhood Plan District includes significant natural features
including Cemetery Creek, Clay Creek, and three designated wetlands (W9, W 12,
W4) that are included on the City of Ashland 2007 Local Wetland Inventory (LWI).
The local wetland inventory was approved by the Department of State Lands (DSL)
which means the LWI is part of the Statewide Wetland Inventory. The mapped
wetland boundaries are estimated boundaries, they have not been surveyed, and there
are inherent limitations in mapping accuracy as hydrology conditions change over
time. The City of Ashland will require applicants for annexation with potential
wetlands on their property to obtain a wetland delineation by a qualified consultant
and submit it to DSL and the City prior to development.
The Normal Neighborhood Platt is comprised of Normal Neighborhood Plan
Framework document, official Normal Neighborhood Plan maps, and the proposed
Normal Neighborhood District land use ordinance amendments (Ch. 18-3.13).
Collectively these documents provide the underlying conceptual and regulatory
structure for area's future development. Development of this area is expected to
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 12
occur in an incremental way, as individual parcels propose annexation for specific
housing developments. An adopted neighborhood plan allows individual
development proposals to better coordinate the provision of streets, pedestrian
connections, utilities, storm water management, and open space. Such an approach
can ultimately help reduce development costs through appropriate sizing of needed
facilities, provision of easements, and secured street access. Additionally a
significant benefit of an adopted plan is a clear expectation and understanding
regarding the level of development anticipated by both developers and neighboring
residents. In this way the development and annexation process for all properties with
the plan area is streamlined while ensuring the City can accommodate its future
growth in a systematic and efficient manner.
The proposal involves Comprehensive Plan Map amendments, Transportation System
Plan amendments, as well as amendments to the proposed Ashland Unified Land Use
Ordinance (ULUO). The proposed implementation plan includes:
• Adopting the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework document as a
supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
• Adoption of official Normal Neighborhood Plan maps:
o Land Use Designations Map (NN-01, NN-02, NN-03, NN-03C)
o Street Network
o Pedestrian and Bicycle Network
o Street network: Green Streets
o Open Space Network
• Amending the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map to create a designation for
the Normal Neighborhood Plan District, and revised boundaries for the
Conservation Areas within the plan area.
• Amending the Transportation System Plan (TSP) as follows:
o Amend the Street Dedication Map (TSP Figure 10-1) to incorporate
the plan area's proposed Street Network, and reclassification of
Normal "Avenue" to be a Neighborhood Collector.
o Amend the Planned Intersection and Roadway Improvement Map
(TSP Figure 10-3) to include East Main Street as a Planned Roadway
Project.
o Amend the Planned Bikeway Network Map to incorporate the planned
multiuse trails within the Normal Neighborhood Plan.
• Amend the Street Standards to incorporate Shared Streets.
• The draft Unified Land Use Ordinance will be revised through a separate
legislative planning action to include a new Chapter 18-3.13 Normal
Neighborhood District, to guide and direct both public and private
improvements. Additionally, multiple section of Chapter 18 will be amended
to provide reference to, and consistency with, the proposed Chapter 18-3.13
Normal Neighborhood District.
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 5 of 12
II. Project Impact
A. Approval Process and Noticing
The proposal involves Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan
amendments, as well as additions and revisions to the Ashland Unified Land Use
Ordinance (ULUO) necessary to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan. The
Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the package of amendments, and
the City Council makes the final decision.
Approximately 200 written notices (postcards) were mailed to property owners in and
surrounding the Normal Neighborhood District boundary regarding the Planning
Commission public hearing (March I Ph, 2014) and City Council public hearing (May
6`h, 2014). A notice was published in the newspaper and a meeting announcement
was emailed to residents and workshop/open house participants that provided their
email addresses to the City. Meeting announcements and plan materials are posted on
the project web page www.ashland.or.us/normalnlan
B. Proposal Impact
The Planned Housing Types and Land Use Designations
The proposed Normal Neighborhood District will contain four residential zones, NN-
01, NN-2, NN-03, and NN-03-C. The use regulations and development standards set
forth in the proposed land use ordinance (Ch. 18-3.13) for these zones are intended to
provide a significant degree of flexibility as to the form and character of individual
developments.. Affordable housing with the plan area would be provided by future
development as a condition of annexation consistent with current requirements. The
Normal Neighborhood Land Use Zones map establishes the proposed designations for
the properties within the district.
NN-01:
The Land Use designation NN-01 is intended to provide single family dwellings,
accessory residential units, and cottage housing with a base density of 5 units per
acre. The "cottage" housing type is to be consistent with the standards proposed in
the Unified Land Use Ordinance as proposed under a separate legislative planning
action.
NN-02
The NN-02 designation provides housing opportunities for individual households
through development of a mix of single-dwelling housing, duplexes, townhomes,
accessory residential units, and pedestrian oriented clustered housing with a base
density of 10 units per acre. Clustered housing, commonly referred to as "pocket
neighborhoods", are a new housing type envisioned for the plan area where
multiple compact detached or attached dwellings are grouped around common
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 6 of 12
open space. Through the consolidation of common open space and or parking
cluster housing developments can often achieve a housing density comparable to
attached row houses or low-rise apartments, yet with a lower profile retaining the
appearance of traditional single-family homes.
NN-03
The NN-03 land use designation is intended to address Ashland's housing needs
through development of multi-dwelling housing with a base density of 15 units
per acre.
NN-03-C
The NN-03-C zone is a residential designation consistent with NN-03, however it
would additionally allow for limited neighborhood serving commercial uses such
as a coffee shop on the ground floor.
Greenway and Open Space
The Plan's approach to the greenway and open space framework is establish
"Conservation Areas" through a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Map. As proposed these areas are to include FEMA's 100 year floodplain, Ashland's
designated floodplain boundaries, wetlands identified in the 2007 Local Wetland
Inventory, and wetland and riparian buffer areas identified in the Water Resource
Protection Zone ordinance. Precluding development in these areas will reduce or
prevent the detrimental effects of flood waters, support native vegetation, provide
habitat and a travel corridors for wildlife, and promote environmental quality by
absorbing, storing, and releasing storm water. The Open Space Network Map shows
the areas intended to be preserved as natural areas or open space within the district
which absent of any environmental constraints would additionally provide
recreational amenities to the districts residents.
Streams and wetlands will be maintained as amenities with access to area residents
due to the carefully considered transportation network that ensures that these areas are
not hidden in back yards. Accommodation of the pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile
circulation along the edges of the riparian zones and designated wetlands provides
visual and physical access and increases the buffer zones between pockets of
development enhancing the character of openness within the plan area.
Transportation
The Normal Neighborhood Plan includes a transportation framework that would be
implemented by the proposed amendments to the Transportation System Plan (TSP)
and Normal Neighborhood District Standards. The transportation framework includes
a street network, a pedestrian and bicycle framework, and a green street framework.
The general location of future roads and paths is addressed by the Normal
Neighborhood Plan Street Network Map, although design and engineering at the time
Planning Action PL42013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 7 of 12
of the actual development will determine their precise locations. The proposed Street
Network additionally includes designations for streets within the plan area that are to
be developed as "green streets" designed to capture and treat storm water in
conformance with the City of Ashland Storm Water Master Plan. The proposed
street network would amend to the TSP's Street Dedication Map in the Normal
Neighborhood District area.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Network map includes facilities incorporated into the
streets, as well as off-road multi-use paths including the establishment of two paths
crossings Cemetery Creek, paths or shared streets along the west side of Cemetery
Creek, a path connecting the terminus of the existing Normal Avenue to East main
Street, and a connection from the plan area to the eastern boundary of the Ashland
Middle School property. The proposed multi-use paths would amend to the TSP's
Planned Bikeway Network Map in the Normal Neighborhood District area.
The Normal Avenue neighborhood's internal street network has largely been
designed to keep travel speeds in the range of 20 mph by introducing elements such
as a planted median, small traffic circles, and subtle changes in direction at block
intersections. The backbone of the street network is a re-routed neighborhood
collector that extends from the southern intersection at a future improved Rail Road
Crossing, to East Main Street between Clay Creek and Cemetery Creek. Given the
anticipated traffic volumes on this new road being approximately 1000 average daily
trips it is not necessary that it be classified as an "Avenue" but rather a
"Neighborhood Collector" designation would suffice. Neighborhood Collectors are
expected to accommodate 1500 to 5000 vehicle trips per day and as such this lesser
classification would adequately accommodate expected use.
The Normal Neighborhood plan also introduces a street type that was recently
included in the Transportation System Plan: the "shared street". A shared street is a
very low speed street where all of the functions of the transportation system coexist in
the same space. There are no individual sidewalks separated from the street surface
by curbs and planted medians. There are no bicycle lanes separated from the street by
painted lines. The low volumes, low-speeds, narrow cross-section, and traffic calming
design elements make it possible for all users safety occupy the street surface by
yielding to the slowest and most vulnerable present at a given moment.
The use of rear lane alleys helps to reduce the extent of paved areas, and will support
a complete grid of finely-grained urban blocks. These alleys will provide the primary
access to garages and backyards. The specific alley locations within the designated
blocks is left to future development site design considerations, subject to the
maximum block length and parking access standards. As such those potential alley
locations most subject to adjustment are not included in the Street Network map but it
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 8 of 12
is expected that future development will provide alleys to meet access management
and connectivity standards.
The Future Traffic Analysis report by SO Alliance found that all existing
intersections in vicinity of the project are expected to continue to function within
operational standards in the year 2038 at full build out of the neighborhood plan area.
The report recommended that East Main Street should be improved to comply with
existing City standards at which point that the improved Avenue could accommodate
vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic, and that each of the proposed street
intersections with East Main Street would function within applicable operational
standards.
Plan Amendments
A minor and major amendment process is included in the proposed Chapter 18-3.13
Normal Neighborhood District, which will be the land use ordinance chapter
governing the future development of properties within the plan area. The proposed
amendment process provides flexibility to address unforeseen changes in conditions
such as shifts in demand for. types of uses, and physical or natural constraint
challenges in individual developments.
• Major amendments provide for a change in a land use overlay, modification
of the street layout plan or other transportation facility, reduction or
elimination of designated Conservation Areas, a change in the applicable
standards, and any other changes not listed.
• Minor amendments include shifting the location of streets, alleys or paths
more than 50 feet, adjustments to the boundaries of designated Conservation
Areas, and changes in dimensional standard requirements not including
building height and residential density.
C. Discussion Items
The attached Normal Neighborhood Plan maps, Framework Document, and draft land
use ordinance (18-3.13), have been revised to include items the Planning
Commission has discussed over the past several months. A summary of the
highlights of the latest revisions as follows.
• Designation of open space lands as protected conservation areas.
• Provisions allowing the transfer of housing density out of the water resource
protection zones.
• Establishment of a minor amendment process to allow final open space
locations to be moved to correlate with natural features (future wetland
locations and boundaries), and a major amendment process if a proposal
would reduce the contiguous acreage of conservation area/open space as
represented in the plan.
Planning Action PLk2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division-Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page .9of12
• Flexibility to allow shared streets to alternatively be developed as alleys or
multiuse paths where appropriate adjacent to water protection zones.
• Inclusion of mandatory standards relating to storm water management.
• Alignment of streets and zoning to correlate with existing property lines.
• A change in the street designation of the previously proposed alley in the
North west portion of the plan area (Wetland 12) to be a shared Street,
thereby allowing the potential to be alternatively developed as a multiuse path
if necessary to preserve wetlands or open space.
• Clarification to the description of Pedestrian Oriented Cluster Housing within
the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework document.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
18.108.060 Standards for Type III Planning Actions:
1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes subject to the
Type III procedure as described in subsection A of this section may be approved if in
compliance with the comprehensive plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of
the following:
a. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing,
supported by the Comprehensive Plan; or
b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan
designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances;
or
c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; or
d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning
district to another zoning district, will provide 25% of the proposed base density as
affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in 18.106.030(G);or
e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment
or industrial zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City of
Ashland's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan,
and will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with
the approval standards set forth in 18.106.030(G).
The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be determined by
rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar
legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period
of not less than 60 years. Sections D and E do not apply to council initiated actions.
18.108.170 Legislative Amendments
A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make
other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report bg
Applicant City of Ashland Page 10 of 12
changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within
the authority of the Council.
B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application
of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the
proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days
after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed
amendment.
C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning
Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first
considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee.
D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public
hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold
a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief
description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation
in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing.
E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered
by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such
request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission,
new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
The planning process which resulted in the Normal neighborhood Plan involved a wide
variety of participants including the general public, property owners and neighboring
residents. Staff believes the revisions that have been made in the development of the
implementation package over the last 15 months have refined and improved the
neighborhood plan, and are largely consistent with the original plan goals and objectives.
Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map amendments, adoption of
the official Normal Neighborhood Plan Maps, and adoption of the Normal Neighborhood
Plan Framework as a technical supporting document of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends the Transportation System Plan be amended to incorporate the Normal
Neighborhood Street network as proposed. The Transportation Commission
recommended that the proposed Neighborhood Collector be the sole vehicular connection
to East Main Street, thereby recommending elimination of two of the three intersections
as proposed in the draft plan.
The proposed Normal Neighborhood District Land Use ordinance will be reviewed as
part of the broader Unified Land Use Ordinance amendment process. However, given
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 11 of 12
the interrelated nature of the Normal Neighborhood Plan elements, the Planning
Commission is asked to provide recommendations on this ordinance as part of tonight's
hearing. Staff recommends approval of the Normal Neighborhood District Land Use
ordinance.
Attachments
• Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework Document (March 2014)
• Normal Neighborhood Plan maps:
o Comprehensive Plan Map amendment
o Land Use Zones
o Street Network
o Pedestrian and Bicycle Network
o Street network: Green Streets
o Open Space Network
• Normal Neighborhood District Chapter 18 Code Amendments (draft dated 3/11/14)
• Letters:
o Open City Hall public comments as of 3/5/14
o Hunter letter dated 2/25/14
o Public letters submitted relating to prior iterations of the draft plan are not physically attached to
this Staff Report, however they remain available online at www.ashland.or.us/normalplan
including the following electronically linked letters:
• DeMarinis letter and exhibit (10/3112013)
• DeMarinis letter and exhibits (10/8/13)
• Meadowbrook Home Owners (Anderson) letter and exhibits (10/8113)
• Ashland Meadows (Skuratowicz) letter (10/8/13)
• Koopman letter and exhibits (10/8/13)
• Lutz letter (9/26/2013)
• Yidmar letter (7/29/13)
• Carse letter (6/27/13)
• Gracepoint letter (6/12/13)
• Vidmar letter (4/26/13)
• Shore letter (4/10/13)
• Marshall letter (4/10/13)
• Horn letter (3/05/13)
• Filson letter (2/25/13)
• .Vidmar letter (2/251203)
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg
Applicant City of Ashland - Page 12 of 12
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Project Guiding Principles and Objective
Throughout the process of developing the Normal Neighborhood Plan the Planning Commission,
design team, resident participants engaged in the process, and staff have referenced the following
goals and objectives to help guide discussions about various plan elements:
• Increase efficiency in the use of land through concentration of housing in a centrally
located area within the City UGB planned for future urban development;
• Achieve a development pattern that results in a balanced, multi-modal transportation
system and that enhances opportunities for walking, bicycling or using transit in areas
planned for transit service;
• Delineate housing, neighborhood serving commercial, open space, public space, and
green infrastructure improvements, in a manner that provides for preservation and
enhancement of creeks and wetlands;
• Develop new illustrative conceptual architectural and site plans for the project area
consistent with Transportation and Growth Management objectives. Concepts will meet
the City's and the property owners' development goals and standards.
• Design a local street grid for the project area including connections to existing and
planned street, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities outside the project area to more fully
integrate the project area into the City transportation system;
• Provide for pedestrian and bicycle routes and facility improvements within the project
area that will provide safe access to local schools;
• Provide alternatives to, or delay the need for, expansion of the City UGB;
• Reduce emissions that contribute to climate change through changes to transportation or
land use plans that reduce expected automobile vehicle miles traveled;
• Provide an implementation strategy that includes supporting Comprehensive Plan and
updated TSP amendments, form based codes, and design standards; and
• Present the Plan and documentation necessary to support adoption to City's Planning
Commission (PC) and City Council (Council).
Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us
regards 3 story height limit opposite Creek
From : Jonathan Seidler <jonathan.seidler@gmail.com> Wed, Apr 30, 2014 08:23 AM
Subject : regards 3 story height limit opposite Creek
To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us>
Brandon, As it seems likely compromise will continue with developers till last day on the plan, it
would be comforting to see some items non-negotable. 3 story heights will have huge impact on
our quality of life for all of us living next door to Creek. Please try to limit height to 2 stories.
Sincerely yours, Jonathan Seidler, Hilary Jacobson
357 Meadow Dr.
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 1 Public Comments
Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us
RE: Normal Neighborhood Plan Public Hearing May 6th
From :Gil Livni - Helman <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 - Helman' <Helmansprings@gmail.com>
Hello Brandon,
Please see my letter to the city council below.
Thankyou
Gil Livni
510-913-5110
Aprf30, 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 resLAtsTafNt: isoaWh testing does not alter in atrahart span of years, even if the r(s wo c5
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 Neighborhood Plan letters 3 Public Comments
Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us
Normal Neighborhood Plan
From : Eric Sharp <eric.andrew.sharp@gmail.com> Tue, Apr 29, 2014 01:55 PM
Subject : Normal Neighborhood Plan
To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us>
Hi Brandon,
I am a former resident of Ashland having grown up there, and would like to move back one day.
Having heard a bit about the Normal Neighborhood plan, I'd like to voice my support for
incorporating the Normal neighborhood into the city limits. As someone who could see themselves
moving back to Ashland one day, I'd like to see hope prices not be overly inflated due to our city
limits being so small. While it wouldn't make a massive impact, I think the incorporation of the
Normal neighborhood is a step in the right direction to help keep Ashland from becoming
prohibitively expensive to those of us who would like to one day return to our wonderful home
town.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Eric Sharp
916-749-8069
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 4 Public Comments
Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us
Normal Neighborhood Plan
From : T & P Jacobson <Jacobson510@comcast.net> Sun, Apr 27, 2014 07:40 AM
Subject : Normal Neighborhood Plan
To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us>
Brandon-
I own a condo in Ashland Meadows facing Creek Drive. I am worried about the increased congestion in the
neighborhood if the City of Ashland goes forward with a high-density development plan in the Normal
neighborhood. While I fully understand the need to provide appropriate housing for all residents, I also think
there should be sufficient space for all residents. Putting high-density apartments into this small section of
Ashland without proper green space, walking paths, appropriate access etc. will not enhance the beauty or
livability of Ashland. Much more study needs to be done on this plan before implementation. Please
consider my comments in future discussions about this plan.
Thank you,
Patti Jacobson
Tom Jacobson
2110 Creek Drive
Ashland
510-409-5033
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 5 Public Comments
Bryce C. Anderson
2092 Creek Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
April 8, 2014
Troy Brown, Jr.
Michael Dawkins
Richard Kaplan
Deborah Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Tracy Peddicord
Lynn Thompson
City of Ashland Planning Commission
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon
Re: Normal Neighborhood Final Plan
Dear Commissioners,
The undersigned is chair of an ad hoc committee representing the homeowners'
associations of Meadowbrook Park Estates, Ashland Meadows and Chautauqua Trace regarding
the Normal Neighborhood Final Plan. This letter addresses the concerns we have regarding that
portion of the plan area that lies between Clay Street on the east, Cemetery Creek on the west,
Creek Drive on the south and East Main Street on the north, and known informally as the
"Baptist Church property."
At the March 11, 2014 meeting, we presented our concerns regarding density on this
property and asked that the NN-03 and NN-03-,C areas be changed to NN-02 until the problems
regarding utilities and improvements on East Main are solved. At that same meeting, staff
expressly stated that once a property is given a certain zoning, the most difficult change to make
is to lower the density. It makes no sense to lock this property into a higher density zone when
future circumstances may indicate a lower density is preferable, particularly when the density can
be increased if the need arises.
For all of the above reasons, the three homeowners' associations ask this commission to
amend the plan to eliminate the NN-03 and NN-03-C zones from the plan.
Very truly yours,
Bryce C. Anderson
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 6 Public Comments
Paula Skuratowicz
2124 Creek Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
March 31, 2014
Troy Brown, Jr.
Michael Eawkins
Richard Kaplan
Deborah Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Tracy Peddicord
Lynn Thompson
City of Ashland Planning Commission
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon
Re: Normal Neighborhood Final Plan
Dear Commissioners,
1 have. been following the development of the Normal Neighborhood Plan for the past two years and 1
am still asking the same question I originally asked of the Planning Commission. Who will benefit
from putting concentrated high density (NN-03 and NN-02) in only one area of the Normal
Neighborhood Plan instead of distributing it throughout the neighborhoods. It is no secret that there is a
developer ready to build on the Baptist Church property and can't help but wonder if this circumstance
has been a driving force behind the decisions on where to put the high density building.
1 was recently surprised to hear that high density building is not really necessary to meet future growth
needs of the city. And even more distressing were the comments made at the last Planning Commission
meeting that once this high density zoning is in place it will be very difficult to reduce it later. It also
appears there are still very major issues regarding traffic on East Main that may not be resolved for
years and still no current plans to provide reasonable public transportation through the area. As a
resident of Ashland Meadows, I have seen the increase in traffic on East Main and am very concerned
about the problems that will arise with even more traffic on this road. 1 understand that sewer and water
infrastructure is another of the unresolved problems and have heard the existing sewer and water lines
are already barely adequate. I do know the creek that runs through our common area requires constant
maintenance for sewer backup. Stressing this system with even more density could be quite a long term
problem.
Because of the above reasons, 1 am urging the Planning Commission and the City Council to eliminate
the NN-03 and NN-03-C zones on the Baptist Church property and make the entire parcel no more than
NN-02 density. Thank you for your consideration of this.
Sincerely, Paula Skuratowicz
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 7 Public Comments
From Grace Point Church
Submitted by email 3/11/2014
Planning Commission,
We are concerned about the restriction the current Normal Avenue plan will
place on future uses of the lot behind Grace Point Church.
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 7 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 a tradeoff 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 5 to 10 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.
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 8 Public Comments
A combination of 2 possible solutions exists..The first is allowing the decrease or
increase in the conservation area based on an accurate 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.
Shifting the focus now to the matter of 2 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.
Where in this code and planning action is there a use for this property? There is a
public straightjacket to most reasonable uses of this property. We might just have
to lease to a farmer who wants fence for livestock to raise cows, sheep, goats and
pigs and not ever annex.
Finally, there have been comments made in the public forum pertaining to
ditching we have done on the property. Some well meaning folks seem to think
that this is their property to police. Prior to any ditch cleaning we contacted the
Oregon Department of State Lands and were told that there were existing ditches
on this parcel and that maintaining these ditches was allowable. We did as they
recommended, cleaning these drainages to their previous depth and removing
brush from these ditches. We were able to find the previous depth because there
were existing culvert pipes in at least 3 locations to set our cleanout depth.
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 9 Public comments
I 1 1014
Ashand Planning. Commission Meeting April 11; 2014 MAR
Subject : Normal Housing Project
Thank you for your civic and professional time and service's on this ambitious project. I realize it is an
important plan in Ashland's housing future. While there have been some helpful zoning, location and
other changes made as the planning process has moved on, even a good plan might be improved or
provide more guidance for future implementation by decision makers and contractors. Some concerns
like about water and waste- water hook-ups, East Main Street modifications, and financing plans are.still
to come. It would seem that any initial development would almost require that those elements would
be resolved before there could be any occupancy.
1.My earlier concerns about planning for accessability for seniors and ADA for disabled have been
allayed by planning staff.
2.Accessorv Resdential Units (p. 7 ) will be permitted in nearly all zones, no information was provided.
Does this potentially authorize a doubling of living units to this plan? If so, does that voilate the zone
density standards. I understand that not many in Ashland have used that infilling strategy as a long-term
rental option. If this particular development might attract more people to live in small detached units, it
would be a big consideration for the design plan.
3. Affordable housing and less-expensive housing (p. 9). Design for less lawns and maintenance which
helps on home-owner association fees. Vest pocket parks (0.14). are labor intensive and not very
functional, particularly for any recreational use. A larger central park with picnic facilities and informal
play space would be easier to maintain. and allows for more recreation than just walking or biking.
5. Shared streets (p.15) by biker, walkers and autos can be hazardous, particularly if any parking is
allowed on them. All on-street parking should be restricted to bays or parking pads.
6. Street mobility (p. 15) + walk-ability look okay within the plan, but anticipate a significant increase of
traffic on the east-west corridors, particularly on East Main because that is where the high density
housing will be. The improvement of East Main will need turn lanes and the retention of bike lanes at
the minimum. Hopefully sidewalks on lower East Main, too. Walking and biking are healthly and
encouraged but the long linear layout of Ashland at the base of the Siskiyous has its commercial
locations, entertainment, and most dining'facilities.at its north-west mid-section and south-east
ending section located several miles appart. Realistically, not many residents of this plan will be
walking or biking to shop for food and basicsupplies, or for dining and entertainment. Hopefully this
plan will be sure that there is adequate off-street parking to accomodate the influx of senior retirees
and others who will rely on their vehicles. Thanks for your consideration of these points.
Dale Swire 233 Clay St. Ashland
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 10 Public Comments
Bryce C. Anderson
2092 Creek Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
March 11, 2014
Troy Brown, Jr.
Michael Dawkins
Richard Kaplan
Deborah Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Tracy Peddicord
Lynn Thompson
City of Ashland Planning Commission
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon
Re: Normal Neighborhood Final Plan
Dear Commissioners,
The undersigned is chair of an ad hoc committee representing the homeowners'
associations of Meadowbrook Park Estates, Ashland Meadows and Chautauqua Trace regarding
the Normal Neighborhood Final Plan. This letter addresses the concerns we have regarding that
portion of the plan area that lies between Clay Street on the east, Cemetery Creek on the west,
Creek Drive on the south and East Main Street on the north, and known informally as the
"Baptist Church property."
A reasonable development of this property would be welcome, as the portion of the site
behind the existing community church is both an eyesore and a fire hazard. There are some
problems with the current plan, however, which should have been addressed in more depth.
Because this property is very likely to be the first to be developed, and because these concerns
should have been addressed more fully in the existing plan, the above associations would ask that
the current plan be modified to eliminate the NN-03 and NN-03-C areas from the plan until these
problems are solved.
1. Traffic on East Main: Currently, this narrow two-lane road has no curbs or sidewalks
east of Walker Avenue other than the portion of East Main fronting the Mormon Church, no left
turn lanes, and narrow shoulders which serve as both pedestrian and bicycle lanes adjacent to
large drainage ditches that pose hazards to both pedestrians and bicyclists. Moreover, only the
southern side of East Main is in the plan boundaries because the northern side is not within the
City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary.
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 11 Public Comments
To: Ashland Planning Commission March 11, 2014
Re: Normal Neighborhood Final Plan Page 2
As is indicated on page 15 of the plan, entitled "Mobility," no improvement is planned
for the northern side of East Main, and any improvement on the southern side must await
development of all or nearly all of the properties along the entire frontage of East Main. In the
meantime, the inclusion of high density residential and commercial uses on this property will
immediately cause traffic hazards as drivers coming east and west on East Main in a 40-mph
speed zone attempt to navigate around other drivers turning left or right on the streets leading
into this proposed development. Although these hazards cannot be eliminated without improving
East Main, they can be significantly lessened by eliminating the commercial and high density
residential uses from this property. As tacitly noted at page 6 of the plan introduction, the
possibilities for commercial uses in this area are dubious at best, and need for such services
highly questionable. High density residential uses are also questionable due to the absence of
rapid transit facilities (see page 18), the limited parking which would be available in this zone,
and the above traffic problems.
2. Sewer and Water Infrastructure: As indicated at page 29 of the plan, the existing
sewer and water lines on East Main and Clay Street are barely adequate, and occasionally
inadequate, to serve the existing neighborhoods. The plan, however, has no provision for
expanding these lines even though the development of the I 0-acre Baptist Church property alone
under the current plan would add more than 100 dwelling runts, more than exist in Meadowbrook
Park Estates and Ashland Meadows combined, in addition to the allowable commercial
development. Even a medium density residential development will severely strain existing
infrastructure; any higher density will overload it with no planned solution for decades.
For all of the above reasons, the three homeowners' associations ask this commission to
amend the plan to eliminate the NA-03 and NA-03-C zones from the plan.
Very truly yours,
Bryce C. Anderson
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 12 Public Comments
2105 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
February 25, 2014
Re: Normal Street Development Plan
Please read this document atyour planning meeting so it will be entered into the
records of the Ashland Planning Commission
We have some serious concerns with the Normal Street Development Plan; we feel
that, if implemented, a multi-story development on the Baptist Church property on
East Main Street would adversely affect the quality of life for the property owners
on the north side of the street.
In prior testimony and letters, no mention has been made of the impact on those
properties, since they are in the county and not in the urban growth boundary. We
have lived here and farmed this land since 1986. just because the properties on our
side of the street are not under the jurisdiction of the City of Ashland doesn't mean
that we should be ignored during the planning process.
Our concerns are in three areas: water, traffic, and future expense.
We depend on a combination of TID water and Clay Creek to irrigate our fields,
which we are required to farm under an EFU (Exclusive Farm Use) designation.
This past summer (2013) was one of the most difficult irrigation seasons we've
experienced since 1986; the water just wasn't flowing enough to irrigate our fields.
And this year's drought conditions may cause an even more difficult summer
watering season.
Twice in the past 15 years we have also experienced problems with the drinking
water from our well. Both times our well dried up during the hot summer days, and
we were forced to dig a deeper well, at great expense. This happened soon after
new development on both sides of lower Clay Street and after the Mormon Church
sunk a new well for irrigating their ball fields. Our property is at the end of the
"water chain," adjacent to Bear Creek, so we are at the mercy of those using.the
water above us - or buildings and concrete limiting the flow of water. We can only
imagine what a new high-density development across the street from us would do
to exacerbate the water flow issue.
Looking at current traffic problems, we would definitely not support an increased
number of cars speeding by our property if new feeder streets pour traffic into East
Main. At some times of the day it's already a 5-minute wait to safely walls across the
street or leave the driveway in a car. If the proposed plan for the area on the south
side of East Main Street were to be implemented, there would be as ignifl cant
increase in vehicle trips along our street.
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 13 Public comments
From what I gathered at the October meeting, some think the traffic solution is to
widen East Main Street, adding sidewalks and gutters. Since we have a long street
frontage, l am concerned that we would be forced to incur a massive expense to
"improve" East Main, which we would rather not see turned into a city street.
We all know that EFU and high density residential are incompatible uses near each
other; property on the edge of town is usually kept at a very low density to make the
transition to agricultural use logical and seamless. If the parcel of land in question
were planned for mostly single family homes instead of higher density housing -
with strong protective measures for dealing with water problems - then fewer
houses would be built, the street would not need to be redone, there would not be
additional concerns about water, and the retention of a rural atmosphere would
prevail.
Thank you for listening to our concerns and considering them in your planning
process.
Yours truly,
Jim and Marcia Hunter
i
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 14 Public Comments
To: craig; 'David Chapman'; Mike Faught grain sou.edu; shawn; Corinne; dyoungajeffnet.org; carol; April Lucas;
tbrownpc; rpkaplan46; Debbie Miller; Melanie Mindlin; Bill Molnar; mike; tmpeddicord
October 31, 2013
Dear Commissioners,
After speaking with Senior Planner Brandon Goldman, I have modified
recommendations for your consideration in the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan.
Following staff guidelines for the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan, locating similar
densities of development across from established neighborhoods has been a
primary objective since the Charrette process. North of Creek Drive, and west of
Clay Street, the zoning plan has been changed from NA-03 to NA-02 because the
proximity and density of the higher multi-family housing type would put too much
traffic out onto existing (NA-02) single-family neighborhood street frontage.
I believe this should hold true for the existing (NA-01) neighborhood along the
current Normal Avenue as well. The proposed new Normal Ave. (main collector
road traversing north/south) should have the most density along this "spine" road,
thereby retaining the single family dwelling (NA-01) neighborhood character where
it already exists along the current Normal Ave. If the housing density is shifted
towards the new Normal Ave., then the need for the problematic egress across the
Wetlands #9 is eliminated. The better alternative egress for a centrally located
density would be to direct residential traffic DUE NORTH to E. Main (see option #2
below). The closer you have the higher density zoning (NA-02, NA-03) to the new
main neighborhood collector road, the less vehicle miles people will have to travel
through neighborhoods to egress onto a major arterial like E. Main St. The City's
goal to preserve its natural areas, especially its largest designated wetland, will
then be possible.
In considering alternatives necessary for the project area connectivity to E. Main St.
from the west side, there are two options.
1. If connectivity is proposed by extending the current Normal Ave. through
to E. Main St., the following problems are encountered:
a. The connector road would be a pretty tight fit restricted between
existing structures, and even necessitating the demolition of some.
b. The potential intersection with E. Main St. from the existing Normal
Ave. would suffer the consequences of its proximity to the blind curve
hindering line of sight of oncoming E. Main traffic from the west, and
making for a very dangerous left turn onto a main arterial.
c. The City planners have made great efforts to create a road that
doesn't produce a straight shot through the project (from the RR tracks
to E. Main). Connecting traffic would see a straight line through the
current Normal Ave to continue directly to E. Main, where speeds could
increase to 30 mph (similar to the problem on Faith St.). Without that
straight line connection, a more central "spine" route using the new
Normal Ave., with its circuitous design, will require behavioral
modification as it slows vehicular speeds, making it safer for cyclists,
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 15 Public Comments
children, and even cars passing each other. The new sinuous Normal
Ave. will be more obvious as the main collector going through to E.
Main, and will be seen as access to the development, rather than a cut-
through for non-residents.
2. If connectivity is proposed by extending the "spine" road (new Normal Ave.)
through to E. Main, you solve a multitude of problems:
a. There are no structures which would need to be demolished and, due
to lack of nearby existing buildings, the road would not need to be a
tight fit or restricted in its placement.
b. The intersection onto E. Main would have twice the visual clearance
distance since it is further away from the blind curve in the road (along
Temple Emek property) than option 1's hazardous egress.
c. With the zoning density more centrally shifted, this egress option is
closer and more accessible for residents, with less vehicle miles
required to reach the main arterial of E. Main.
d. The visual straight shot North/South road is eliminated and through
traffic will more likely be development/resident related and safer. The
current Normal Ave. will retain its neighborhood feeling and safely
encourage pedestrian/cyclist multi-modal use to open space and school
zones.
The City has housing types which it needs to provide for all types of residences, as
well as simultaneously achieving density goals for the Normal Ave Neighborhood
Project. Rezoning the land and its uses into the center of this project will
allow for economy of scale, with full block lengths accommodating multi-family
dwellings and their required parking areas. Transitioning out from this core (NA-03)
zone, cluster cottage-type housing (NA-02) around common greens can develop.
The single family (NA-01) character can then be retained in the existing
neighborhoods on the edges of the project area. The overall density of the project
will remain with approximately the same number of dwelling units (450) as outlined
in the most recent iteration of the Planning Land Use Zone Map.
Please review the attached version of the alternative connections and zoning
recommendations I have identified. I hope you will consider these as viable options
in your final plan for the Normal Ave. Neighborhood Project.
Thanks for your thoughtfulness and time. I would also like to thank Brandon
Goldman, Senior Planner, for all his expertise and patience in explaining and
working with me to find viable solutions that will retain the goodwill of the
community involved in this project.
Sincerely,
Sue DeMarinis
145 Normal Ave.
Ashland, OR 97520
suede mCahcharter.net
cc: Brandon Goldman
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 16 Public Comments
Submitted Illustration by Sue DeMarinis:
SESMF.'•. ` G~CY ` V • M r~
bit .p ~
F
n
t v f
q ~ f~l. t
a ~ !r t
grin of 53x1 j t u 4 ~e Fd+
• 4~~m SCD risp.~. iNCmnmetmlR~e>!
_ - ..-.•.e i
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 17 Public Comments
From: "Sue D." <suedem@charter.net>
To: "craig ashland" <craig.ashland@gmaiLcom>, davidchapman@ashiandhome.net,
faughtm@ashland.or.us, graf@sou.edu, shawn@polarissurvey.com, corinne@mind.net,
dyoung@jeffnet.org, carol@council.ashland.or.us, "april lucas" <april.lucas@ashland.or.us>,
tbrownpc@gmaiLcom, rpkaplan46@gmaiLcom, "Howard Miller" <hmiller@jeffnet.org>,
sassetta@mind.net, molnarb@ashland.or.us, mike@council.ashland.or.us,
tmpeddicord@gmail.com
Cc: normalpeople@tenderelf.com
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:23:13 AM
Subject: Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan Revisions
October 24, 2013
Dear Transportation Commissioners,
As a concerned citizen of the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan, I have thought long and hard about the
issues that keep plagueing this Master Plan. I finally realized that it was the distribution of the zoning
densities that was creating the problems. These problems were hazardous traffic patterns/roads,
diminished wetlands with asphalt roads through them, long,straight connectors inviting hazardous speeds
(regardless of the posted speed limits), as well as too many road crossings over sensitive
wetlands/creeks.
So, I sat down with a bottle of white out and some markers and redrew the Land Use Zones and the
subsequent road patterns that would be needed to accomodate these zoning densities and traffic flow. If
you compare the attached latest iteration from Planning Staff (9/24/13) to my attached modified version,
you will see some beneficial changes. I have included an attached map of the Wetlands Inventory for you
reference as well.
Even with all these changes, THE SAME NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IS STILL WITHIN THE
NORMAL AVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN !
1. The Wetlands #9 (5.38 acres) is now shown as intact with only a foot/bike path (indicated with an
"F") traversing it. This allows a connection and access to the Ashland Middle School that is not only safe,
but encourages the new neighborhood's children to use it. This design also keeps safe the arrival and
pickup of students using the school bus turn around by not having a major road connector dumping
vehicular traffic into this area. This connector road is not necessary when the zoning is redistributed to the
center of the development. The central density will more naturally use the closer outlet roads feeding
onto E. Main St. (the horseshoe exits around the commercial zoning within NA-03)
2. The decreased density just north of the AMS school bus turn around (showing some more NA-01
yellow), as well as not having a major connector road bringing more vehicular traffic across from the
center of the development, will limit the problems and hazards when connecting onto E. Main Street.
from Ashland Middle School bus turn around.
3. In following the Staff guidelines for Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan, I have tried to locate similar
densities of development across from established neighborhoods. Mostly, the front of any existing
house is now facing the same zoning density in which it itself is located. Even some of
the proposed development areas are occasionally facing a lower density. This design gives the
Neighborhood a "Bell Curve" shape with the edges having the lower densities adjacent to/facing existing
neighborhoods, and concentrates the higher zoning density toward the center of the development where
no neighborhoods currently exist.
Letter and Exhibits submitted by Sue DeMarinis
Oct. 24, 2013
RE: Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan.
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 18 Public Comments
3. 1 have shown a decrease in roads crossing the Wetlands #12, thereby preserving and enhancing the
creek/wetland habitat and flow. The water protection zone buffer of 50' adjacent to Wetland #12
necessitated my moving the west side of the new Normal Ave to now go between the new NA-01(yellow)
& NA-02 (orange) land use zones just west of Wetlands #12. The east-west cut throughs between the
new blocks off of the west side of the new Normal Avenue are staggered, rather than straight across,
which will, by design, require vehicles to travel at a slower speed, rather than hoping they follow the
speed limits.
4. Foot/bike paths are indicated with an 7" for their crossings of Cemetery Creek/Wetlands #4.
5. The most southeastern portion of the Plan had only NA-02 zoning. I increased it to NA-03 since it
will only be facing open space and the RR tracks and no existing neighborhood. Where the pocket of NA-
02 adjacent to Wingspread Mobile Home Park backed up to an existing home, I changed a portion of that
block to be NA-01 thereby matching a density with an existing homesite. Also, this most southeasterly
portion of the development did not show any road around the NA-02 blocks, so I added them.
6. In the most northeastern portion of the development area, which faces single family homes on Clay
Street, I changed the density zoning (to NA-01 yellow) to match across the road with the existing
neighborhood. As the density changes on Clay Street after passing Abbott St., the development zoning
changes (to NA-02 orange) to match the density of the neighborhood it faces. This is also why the
portion of the development that faces the established neighborhood on Creek Drive has retained its NA-
02 character.
I believe these changes in design to the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan will help solve many of the
public's concerns which haven't been addressed by the current staff plan. My ideas are just another way
of looking at potential development that truly has input from the people who will live with it. Thanks for
taking your time to consider this alternative to making Ashland livable, affordable, safe and beautiful.
Regards,
Sue DeMarinis
145 Normal Ave.
Ashland, OR
suedem(rDcharter. net
Letter and Exhibits submitted by Sue DeMarinis
Oct. 24, 2013
RE: Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan.
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 19 Public Comments
•h 9
t r ` 1N I f ~ ~r ° ~ ~ aq F'1
t 7 ~ rs x
t f. .p tr ,q.
3 n ~ ® Y
~ < s tna
k
' G a
r
@ Q
` ~ 11 , ;ate .
3 A L ,
R -Z
ti F
sy"1k:' f.•,. is "'1 _ Aft
g e
v' P
of ~ n e ~ '
P
E t esq.
v .O N ".RY
' ~fys • ~ K r~ "w. ~~4.
~ NR-01 3. m /y L
FV Q+
-04:OVm Spam .
U-30U 500 north
'pIZ,e 1: Neighborhood Comm r btl Allowed
_ s
Letter and Exhibits submitted by Site DeMarinis
Oct. 24, 2013
RE: Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan.
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 20 Public Comments
City of Ashland
Local Wetlands Inventory
C., O.
A HLAND . T395 R1 E 10
{ ; '1 s jn 6ex?'.~~. bt+n^e:,fl.r eH.t'
x 1. Mpw ai I 1~
I
~ • IL f{~'1 I ~ It
+ ~ Imo, u L I 3"
r II
1 a p ~aum1.T. _ ,--cnn v ~I~s
` T39 1E109C I~ !wy
. a M ) ~ ~1EEII L
tl 10 f
I l l yt i t 1 ey. K;
1` 4. t t 41 1
r + ~
. iep A
I IFji ..\C I ~ 1.. a
yL Y t < fr. f• A Q
w..b... L7 nse YY.~.w.dsblp.
quws.vuubr' O weoootieb.~ °tl"~..~
VJ f~iCylre .1.IWr•
O.sbu.vmm
®rom d rbebpm.o~wfr ~ .
obll~pebn - .wi.yru vbsew "....•.'I....r...
w.bml.Inl.EbrFOr GM.M.rgp e
Letter and Exhibits submitted by Sue DeMarinis
Oct. 24, 2013
RE: Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan.
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 21 Public Comments
From: "Marni Koopman" <marnikoopman@yahoo.com>
To: tbrownpc@gmaiLcom, rpkaplan46@gmaiLcom, hmiller@jeffnet.org, sassetta@mind.net,
molnarb@ashland.or.us, mike@council.ashland.or.us, tmpeddicord@gmaiLcom
Cc: john@council.ashland.or.us
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 1:49:57 PM
Subject: Normal Avenue Development comments
Dear Commissioners-
I wanted to thank you for your time last Tuesday night and for listening carefully and
respectfully to the comments of the public, including my comments about the increased
risk of building in floodplains with accelerating climate change impacts.
In May of 2012, the City Council approved, based on recommendation of the Conservation
Commission, an amendment to develop a City Operational Sustainability Plan and use that
experience as a pilot project in the subsequent development of a broad community Sustainability
Plan. The complete amended Council goal is as follows:
"Develop a concise sustainability plan for the community and for City operations,
beginning with development of a plan framework, suggested plan format, timeline and
resource requirements for City Operations that can be used as a model for a community
plan to follow"
The sustainability plan closely follows the guidelines set out by ICLEI, of which the City
of Ashland is an affiliate community.
I am currently helping to develop the community sustainability framework. An important
component of this framework is to make sound decisions based on likely FUTURE
conditions rather than historical conditions.
Another component is to consider social equity issues in conjunction with climate
change impacts in ongoing planning efforts. Unfortunately, the Normal Ave.
development would not align with the Sustainability Plan for numerous reasons,
including flood risk and the greater risk to lower-income individuals. An example of
social inequity of risk is the fact that much of the trailer park on Clay Street is directly in
the high risk flood zone as indicated by FEMA's flood maps.
I'm sorry that the sustainability planning framework is not yet fully realized, as I think it
would greatly inform the Normal Avenue Development process. I heard comments from
the Planning Commissioners about how this development should not be treated any
differently than other developments in Ashland. But I would like to remind the
Commissioners that things are DIFFERENT than they used to be (last summer as the
warmest ON RECORD for this area). Conditions are changing and they will continue to
change even more quickly. We cannot afford to plan and build in the ways we have in
the past. It will put people's safety at risk, low-income populations at even greater
disadvantage, and it will cost more and more in damages and lives.
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 22 Public Comments
Its time to look forward rather than to the past to inform our decisions. The conditions
that our grandfathers experienced, or those of the 1960's floods, will not resemble future
conditions. Ignoring record floods in Colorado, New York, Vermont, and along the
Mississippi, record rainfall in Washington, record drought in Texas, and record heat in
California while making decisions based on historical averages is dangerous practice.
We know better.
Please see the attached research from Stanford University, showing a 25-30% increase
in severe storms that produce destructive rainfall, hail, and tornadoes.
"The severe thunderstorms we experience now can result in very high economic losses,"
Diffenbaugh [Stanford professor of Environmental Earth System Science] said. "Sadly, we have
many examples of cases where a single storm has had disastrous impact. So a 25 or 30 percent
increase in the annual occurrence represents a substantial increase in the overall risk."
Building affordable housing in a floodplain is risky and inequitable - if you decide to
move forward with the project, I hope you are willing to hold the responsibility for taking
that risk. Thanks for your attention to this issue.
Marni Koopman, Ph.D.
Climate Change Scientist
971-221-9868; marnikoopman@yahoo.com
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 23 Public Comments
Meadowbrook Park Estates
Homeowners Association
Bryce C. Anderson, Board Member
October 8, 2013
Troy Brown, Jr.
Michael Dawkins
Richard Kaplan
Deborah Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Tracy Peddicord
City of Ashland Planning Commission
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon
Dear Commissioners,
As we have stated before, the Meadowbrook Park Estates, Ashland Meadows and
Chautauqua Trace Homeowners Associations are in favor of the development of the property in
the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan that lies between the western half of Creek Drive and
East Main Street, known informally as the "Baptist Church property." The portion of the site
behind the existing community church is both an eyesore and a fire hazard, and development
would be a welcome improvement. At the same time, as indicated on pages 15 and 16 of the
September 24 report, there are serious traffic problems along East Main. This narrow two-lane
street has no curbs or sidewalks cast of Walker Avenue other than the portion of East Main
fronting the Mormon Church, no left turn lanes, and very narrow pedestrian and bicycle lanes
adjacent to large drainage ditches that pose hazards to both pedestrians and bicyclists. Moreover,
only the southern side of East Main is in the plan boundaries because the northern side is not
within the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary. As a result, any improvement of East Main
in the development area will result in bicyclists, as well as pedestrians running or jogging in the
bicycle lanes, using the southern side of East Main for travel in both directions.
To make matters worse, if the current plan is followed, the development of the Baptist
Church property will immediately result in at least two additional streets feeding into East Main,
as well as an unknown amount of commercial traffic from the proposed development. The
additional street traffic feeding into a two-lane road with a 40 mile per hour speed limit will
present numerous additional hazards. (The attached map shows East Main, with the 40 mile per
hour portion indicated in blue.) This problem will not be solved until the City of Ashland gets
control of, and develops the north side of East Main, which will probably have to be done by
expanding the Urban Growth Boundary, but the alternative is a crowded, unsafe street. These
issues are only hinted at in the current development plan, and we submit that they should be set
forth explicitly in considerably more detail.
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 24 Public Comments
To: City of Ashland Planning Commission October 8, 2013
From: Meadowbrook Park Estates HOA ct al. Page 2
We would note again that the above comments are focused mainly on that portion of the
plan covering the Baptist Church property, because this portion is likely to be the first developed,
and to have the most immediate impact on the three homeowners associations affected by such
development. There may well be other serious concerns regarding that portion of the plan
covering the Normal Avenue extension, such as wetlands preservation, storm water dispersion
and the like, but we will leave any comment on these aspects of the plan to the homeowners
immediately affected by them.
Thank you for your consideration of these items and your work on the plan.
Very truly yours,
Bryce c. derson
Meadowbrook Park Estates HOA
i
I
I,
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 25 Public Comments
,
s _
7 Z
~.~JII' I J~ I -
- 1- l ❑
( I
a ;L
I
~J T
~'~>'7~ ( ` , ~•r r 1~~~1 i~_ : l-fir ,if ~j,
.t
Y%/ _ ^ii jig/ /r•-.~
r =
Ill I yTi•
i j _ err • 1 ,
1
,t c i
s 4'Normal Nei hhorh~ood Plan` I'6; r t~"°,j~'•chad
Public Comments
26 Sep 2013
To:
City of Ashland Transportation Commission
Ashland City Council
City of Ashland Planning Commission
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
From:
Brett & Susan Lutz
1700 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
541-218-5203
i
Council and Commission Members, I
My wife and I moved to Ashland 7 years ago, in the latter half of 2006. We moved here to become
part of the vibrant community, for the good schools, the balance of open space with wise development,
and plentiful outdoor recreation, among other reasons. Last summer we moved to 1700 East Main
Street, into the proposed Normal Avenue Neighborhood Development area, with our 3 young children.
Our property lies on 1.16 acres"adjacent'to the Ashland Middle School and Grace Point Church.
My family and I wish to continue to remain zoned in Jackson County. We do NOT want to be annexed
into the city of Ashland. My comments to follow, specific to the transportation plan, will explain some of
the reasons why.
In the Phase 2 (long term) portion of the "Neighborhood Plan", the diagram found at
http://www.ashland.or.us/SIB/files/Phase2 Aerialx.pdf shows a neighborhood street for the project
going through what are deemed "locally significant" wetlands. These should be preserved for water
filtration and wildlife habitat. 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
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.
1
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 27 Public Comments I
Thus, we wish tqp be excluded from the expansion project and ask that no road beyond what already
exists be establisiS ffirough 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,
Signed
Brett & Susan Lutz and Family
i
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 28 Public Comments
1
L 1
-77
" e
f;
N
71
,F
41
}
}
I
f Nonnai~Nelghtorhood Plan 's 'Fa'e ' " letters 29 i `+e xr - 24. Public Comments '
y :_.i:- Pt°^h-.. i° mss.. 3.4i~`r } 'Y.; y T;... jai`'.". ~,rS-rs::. i.. .-i~..._-'
8 October 2013
Dear Ashland Planning Commission
1 am providing written and verbal comments today about the proposed Normal Avenue
development. I want to first mention that I fully support infill to prevent sprawl. I applaud
the Planning Commission's diligence in meeting the city of Ashland's goals to provide
affordable housing for residents while honoring the city boundaries.
1 am concerned about the proposed construction of so many units in such a delicate and
vulnerable area, however, and feel that just because the property is within city limits does
not automatically make it a desirable place to build.
My job is to help cities prepare for the impacts of climate change. I have worked for the
communities of San Luis Obispo, Fresno, Missoula and Fort Collins, Colorado. I am currently
helping Fort Collins city planners, just like yourselves, identify where residents are most
vulnerable to climate change impacts and develop strategies to reduce their vulnerability.
Fort Collins has had 2 recent wake-up calls to the impacts of climate change - the first was
when school was cancelled city-wide due to heat (rather than snow) and the second was
the devastating 1000-year floods they experienced just a month ago.
Climate change is expected to lead to more extreme events - more heat waves, droughts,
catastrophic wildfires, and floods. I have looked closely at the models for southern Oregon
and there is a clear signal of increasing potential for large winter storms for this area.
With this new knowledge of increasing flood risk related to climate change, it is no longer
responsible to build in areas where we once considered building. We need to reduce the
risk to people in flood zones. Unfortunately, the people most at risk during floods are
usually those with the lowest incomes and least ability to respond or bounce back.
I looked at the FEMA flood maps for the Normal Ave. planned development, which is
immediately next to the Clay St. development. The Clay St. development is mostly in a
Moderate Risk area for flooding, which FEMA defines as between the 100-year and 500-
year flood risk zones. Parts of it (especially the trailer park) are in the High risk area as
well, which is within the 100-year floodway. The Normal Ave. development area was not
studied by FEMA, but is adjacent to it and has similar features, including streams and
wetlands that are of similar size and volume of water.
This shows that the area is currently at risk, but we need to remember that climate change
presents us with even greater risk to consider. Climate change is expected to increase
substantially in the coining decades, with greater and greater risk of floods, drought, and
wildfire. Planning for resilient communities means thinking ahead and keeping people out
of hazardous areas now, to reduce their vulnerabilities during future disasters.
While I support infill, l cannot support this project. The area is perfect for a park with
natural vegetation and trails that can be used by the schools nearby and local kids.
Thank you,
Marni Koopman, Climate Change Scientist
Ashland Resident (1790 Homes Ave.)
3 attachments: (1) Excerpts from the Climate Resilient Communities Primer, (2) FEMA
Maps of the proposed Normal Ave. development area, and (3) pictures of Colorado floods.
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 30 Public Comments
5~ un>a»v+imwv
'IJ'1. OF, 5111,.\\ I : y i0 th
_ J10 117D p fell m. rY` r ~r✓ °J°,✓.?A r
I` ~fasW~ o' - g r ,a ✓ v' yry, }fix' r ~ •i
11~ p 1fit 3
1963 CKtt E}[
10 1feo: ° crrvOensul.nrco ~
oL4 oraviioenor 11 qam IIOOOD
E ' yRf+a ~ 4rt 0E5N0Y Uvlf St
E
~V':. ZONE
AE 3I
Q X1lei tp~
ROFII 3, I9IB G I f 'C eA
_ e/.SE UnE f 0 ~ 1
cFrtx 1911 fr
`]t° fJ 8 192 ase +bar - '"Ht Q : °I JACKSON
UNINCORPOF
N x v D
415
193) ~ ~'~f lit
I / X939 af.mvwzr I I 1
+ avacec cesrwr `I v.rye c^CE
1953 I ~ L~~,,, r
1i L
' E 1961 J e
S 1001 '
:<ai:n ` 1j I N sI.ZQNafa'
Ji'11'f50' JOINS PANEL n
9330000 FT 196 1216
'
JACKSOB COl)CT1'
• tmlNCOUrou,\•rF:nallens
fl Slay Dry '
i +l
al~f i.) 161,
1
Reference Leyen
❑rub rav br.Enay
t FI000 ft%Areas
Q~MOh n?pea-Fln)my
S Mgt F19:Nea
~LLww~aai~vffi F#pea
Ma.rfU6~~aANw
;j; Wab W0b6fb:ANn
ua~.rehmf+atNea
u i
we e
r+
0
Figures 1 and 2. These maps are from the FEMA Flood Hazard mapping website (msc.fema.gov).Thg top
map shows the boundaries of the area where FEMA completed their detailed study. The bottom map shows
that the areas that were studied all showed up as high and moderate risk for flooding. The areas that were
outside the study boundary were not classified. These maps were accessed 10-7-2013. Of note is that fact
that the Clay St.,develo ment is at moderate to high risk, and is similar to the proposed Normal St.
No al o Plan "between iv e CoI{~mgnts
development.~e mes moderate risk as' between tale limits of 100-year and 500-year 400015.
:r
P
A'
/
1• •'1 1
,
f\
V
Figures 3 and 4. Areas of Lyons Colorado where homes built near local creeks were flooded
in September, 2013. j
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 32 Public Comments
}
4 ~ 4 /i' a r r s+d ~ £4~.rn. ~ ysYr.'.
Ai S v d f~ t 1
4 "
~r tl T etF ^
i y f=x~=Ni, r+ xr~e~ (YYMi■rN I)~r
;'*~•S,a'x'`~'^t,,~.5,~, 3~~ iarW dW!ad ddaq
- a~rerewadq •t~i
gltr+~s J ~ 141 arr aYe )~1. ~ t.
n f x .0 1 -r99''r cpw~s q !~I
•~t ar ca drw y+
r.r dA i$i #x ldu i4~:
FMY In q A dq W
q:g Sr ~ nlq q®r0 ~ ..r'• wy elidgrd~ 'd
Pride a ~ouA ,f - `ui wwd..urq~ Ff'•I
.w
r'rdidq NII■ fTmgd.dm u
ra0r p., FN q.,..~ t 1
yd➢:i wa, IfMr ~t !i"iG rpvfyp if!
...a V~H y~ rdlr dq tl Wlu.,'w:'W cri.
a 'J S' a. rr. aY~ IIE'
.fir s` wb a. btie 0gir[ io
;I) ~ifl41 1~ did ldd ~ ~ i,r
qq d
ial d
.F; } { _ d 2
14
)
n C , dl
1 _
e A Primer 1 Reducing Vulnerabilities to Disasters
NeerajTrasad - Federie;a Ranghieri - Fatima Shah
«Zoe°Trolanis - EarlKessler=.Ravi Sinha
F
FIA%
fiff
4• ~
THE WORLD BANK
are
8/ CLIMATE RESILIENT CITIES A PRIMER
TABLE 1.1 / Possible , c" hop
impacts ts of extreme
climate change relevant
to urban areas (mostly Warmer with fewer.cold days and 110 Heat island effect
adverse in East Asia) ~nlghts, warmer and more freggerit 1;a Increased demand for cooling ,
hot daystand nights,' ^ 1 o Dedlning'alr qualityah cltles'
S,urrc WCC, SynMens&ped t❑ Effects on winter tourism
-s,,,N,u y,i, hfij,,,,iho. (vidtially'cetlaln) + ❑ Reduced energy demand I& heating (a short-term benefit. but
Assessment of biking Croups, not In East Asla)
t, If, and III to ,hc'Ph I n Reduced disruphon'to transport'due to snowJce (a short-term
Assasivam R f
cporr e d mx e - benefit, but net In East As a)
bac,gomnn rcnlal 11!
P,uelonCl,mueCbange ~Warm :spells/heatwaves. n Increased water demand OPCC: clunbndge Unicc(siq Frequency Increases over most' ~~a Water quality problems
P,<.:, 2007). I land.area"s Ila Increased risktof heat related mortality, especially for the
!!I elderly, chronlcallysick very young and socially isolated
(very likely) j~a Reduction in quality of life for people inwarm areas without
, app'ropriateeustng--
Heavy~Pre❑pdation•evenis; I~a A _a sr effects on~qualltyoisurface and groundwater
Frequericy.increases over most., ontaminalion of water supply '
areas ❑ Increased risk of deaths, injuries, and. infectious, respiratory,
f and skin dlseases.
°.likely) ❑ Disruption of settlements„commerce transport; and societies
due te.flooding
~In Large displacement, of-people
111
Pressures on urban and ruralinfrastructures
a ss of. property
~I❑ Wate r ;tie relieved (stiorl-te -folbengfil
- -
Intense tropical cyclone activity I a Power outages j.
increases 1 (3 Distress mlgration'to urban area`s i{
i I ❑ 'DWOption of public water supply
(likely) t ❑ Increased risk ofdeaths, Injuries, water and food-borne
diseases post traumatic stress disorders
II❑ Disruption by flood and high winds.
10 WdlidraWal of risk coverage In vulnerable areas by private.
l ( insurers
1❑ Potential for population migrations
tt❑ Lossof properi.____.. _
' Increased incidence of extreme ❑ Decreased freshwater availability "due to saltwater intrusion
high sea level (excludes tsunamis) + a Increased risk of.deaths and Injuries by drovining in Hoods and
I ll migration-related health effects' -
(likely),, 'a Loss:of property and'livelihood -
a Permanent erosion'and submersion of land'
f Costs of coastal protection versus:costs of
relocation
I ❑ Potential for movement of populations and infrastructure`
I
A supportive institutional and policy environment at the state and national levels can enable local
adaptation. Mainstreaming these issues into policy and practice leads to holistic rather thin sectors)
engagement in climate change. Cities act cross-seclorally; a critical approach for dealing width :climate
change and disaster ❑nanagemeint. In this context, mainstreaming implies integrating awareness of
future climate change impacts into existing and future policies and plans of developing countries, as
i
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 34 Public Comments
I
24 / CLIMATE RESILIENT CITIES: A PRIMER
FIGURE 2.3 / Relationship between the cost of adaptation and climate change
Sours: Stern, N., Slmi Rnieo on
the Economics of CIunate Gnige
(Cambridge: Cimbddge Costs %vlthoul
Unimr city Press, 2006). adaptation
d
flet benefit of
v adaptation Casts cAlh adaptation
E + residual climate
E5 change damage
Grote benefit
a~ I of adaptation
n UCe $ Costs of residual
(e (LG climate change
damage
J
Costs Of climate change
/I after adaptation
Global Mean Temperature
Societies have a long record of managing the impacts of weather- and climate-related events. Never-
theless, additional adaptation measures will be required to reduce the adverse impacts of projected
climate change and variability, regardless. of the scale of mitigation undertaken over the next two to
three decades. Moreover, vulnerability to climate change curbe exacerbated by other stresses. These
arise firm, for example, current climate hazards, poverty and unequal access to resources, food inse-
curity, trends in economic globalization, conflict, and incidence of diseases.
Some planned adaptation to climate change is already occurring on a limited basis. Adaptation can
reduce vulnerability especially when it is embedded within broader sectoral initiatives. There is high
confidence that there are viable adaptation options thatcan be implemented in some sectors at low
cost, and/or Ndth high benefit-cost ratios. However, comprehensive estimates of costs and benefits
of adaptation need to be evaluated for each urban area.
A The. urban poor are typically at the highest risk in the event of natural disasters due to the location
~,{V of low-income settlements. These settlements are often on sites vulnerable to floods and landslides,
infrastructure is weak or tacking, and housing is. substandard.and prone to fire damage or collapse.
The urban pooh thus face threats to their tiles, assets, and future prosperity due to an increase in
risks of storms, floods, landslides, and extreme temperatures. Urban poor are also likely to get un-
equal distribution of scale assets such as water;. energy supply, and urban infrastructure, thereby
increasiug'thcir vulnerability Recovering from disasters is also particularly difficult for the poor as
they do not have resources or adequate safety nets, and public policies often prioritize rebuilding in
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 35 Public Comments
SECTION 02 EXPLAINING CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT / 26
other parts of the ci[y2J Environmental- and climate change-related problems affect the urban poor
disproportionately because of poor quality and overcrowded housing and the inadequacies in provi-
sion of water, sanitation, drainage, health care, and garbage collection.
The adaptive capacity of a society is intimately connected to its social and economic development.
However, the adaptive capacity is unevenly distributed across and within societies. A range of barri-
ers limit both the implementation and effectiveness of adaptive measures. The capacity to adapt is
dynamic and influenced by a society's productive base, including natural and man-made capital as-
sets, social networks and entitlements, human capital and institutions, governance, national income,
health, and technology. Even societies with high adaptive capacity remain vulnerable to climate
change, variability, and extreme events.
Early mitigation of GHG emissions will decrease future adaptation costs. However, even if efforts I he urban.. Moor
to stabilize GHG concentrations are relatively successful, some degree of warming and related im-
pactsnvill continue to occur in,the.future. An effective response to city-level climate change must c(1e o/)larlly (it the
therefore combine both mitigation (to avoid the unmanageable) and adaptation (to manage the.. hlghesl risk 111 the
unavoidable) 2A
event of nalrnrrl
There are synergies between successful climate change adaptation and successful local development. lllSllSt(')'S beG(rr(se
In urban areas, poverty reduction, including the provision of housing upgrading and basic civic
infrastructure and services, is central to adaptation. Successful, well-governed cities greatly reduce the location
climate-related risks for low-income populations. ,
oJ' lotrrtnconlc
All adaptation tcasttres can be categorized into five categories f/ne their combinations'. (a) mobility, SeGUlements.
(b) storage, (c) divers Ca\ti it, (d) communal pboling, and (e) lclrange. The effectiveness of these
strategies is a function of Ilr social and institutional contlitio f of the city and needs to be designed
to be. region specific. i
i
III Mobility is the most common daptation respoo Zes.ch as relocation of a vulnerable popu-
lation away from flood plains. incl, andslide-Jgtone slopes. Alobility, may have extremely ad-
verse social consequences if iris not I hm d as a part of an adaptation strategy due to the
attendant social and political instability ~ r as when people are forceci to relocate.away from
their livelihoods and social supports tent, vhen they are unwanted in their neiv, ncigh-
bor•haod).
to Storage refers to pooling of ri s across lima Stern c strategics are relevant to individual
households and communities f adequate. high-quality `r\ban infrastruchrre is provided to
a community, the need,for storage can be sirbslantially re8 iced. Storage'is most useful to
address food and truer s rcity in the immediate aftermath of a isaster. Several sound pine -
trees for storage exist, ti as the 72-hour self-sustaining food suppl hat is recommended for
each family by the disaster management plans in several cities. I
It Diversification refers to pooling of risks across assets and resources households and
communities. Some good adaptation strategies include mixed land-use urba development
plans so that the community has a rnix of economic background, commercial a ivities, and j
employment opportunities. -
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 36 Public Comments
26 /CLIMATE RESILIENT CITIES: A PRIMER
m Co»:»nuurl yooli. refers to pooling of assets and resources, shin rfg of incomes @om
particular activities acr -s households, or mobilizing the use of res tfrces that are collectively
held during times of scar ' y. Communal pooling spreads risks/`Zss households. It can take
place through better intera ion between the various stakk Kolders or communities that are
likely to be affected by a distu t The most common c rhmunal pooling programs are those
that aim to develop community- \ti;l support group or self-.help groups. Alicro-finance pro-
grams that pool community resour s and puma support on the basis of need are another
example of adaptation' through comm nal p >~g.
® Exchange is (fie most versatile adapt, ti rresponse, and it is extremely inrliortant for urban '
areas. Exchange and market mechan' ms, both formal and informal, are critical for eco-
nomic development of the cities. r arket-ba tl or exchange adaptation includes provision
of access to better and newer in ets by the con nunity. Programs that provide insurance to
cover buildings that may be a/malted due to earl uake or floods are examples of market-
based adaptation practice larket-based approaches • o allow a city to monetize their assets,
which can then be use e o raise resources for undertakin various developmental and disaster
risk management pi grams. This adaptation response therefore enables the community and
the city to share risks with the much wider global'conimtinrity.
An illustrative list of national, regional, and local mitigation policies and insp umentsthat have been
suggested is shown in' able 2.1, wliich also presents some examples of applications in the watt, en-
egy, transport,: building, and industry sectors. it also presents key constraints and key opportunities
(hit these measures, policies and instruments may cause when applied at city level.
TABLE 2A/ Selected
examples of key
sectoral adaptation Water Il6panded rainwater` 1. National water policies . Faranclal, human
opportunities pertaining (e.g, KingCounty/ i~ harvesting; water I-,and Integrated resources, .and physical
to urban areas Seattle. Singapore),, storage and conservation water resources barriers
!techniques; water reuse; management; water Integrated water'
Souse: iecg Clamle Chmge desalination; water-use "'related hazards `resources management;
2007.-.Dn1he hXepox-Smw)my. .,and irrigation efficiency nano a synergies wilhother sectors
f.,Pwiginder. Assessment or
1\biking Groups I, 11, and III Infrastructure Relocabon; seawalls andards and Financial and
to the Third As,essmcm Bepo,t and settlements "and stormsurge barriers; regulations this chnologlcal barriers
of the Intngodrrimcnil Pind (including coastal dune reinforcement; la uitegrate climate Availability of. relocation
on Gou t. Change OPCC: zones) .~.acquisitionand creatlo change considerations sp ce; Integrated policies
Cambridge Unn'crsity Press' (eg Venice.,of marshlands/weilan Into'design; land-use an mana
2007). gement;
London, New York) ; as-buffer against sea- policies; building ` s._ ergies with sustainable
- ' level rise and flooding; codes; insurance ~ evelopment goals
protection of.existing
natbral barriers
O CLrA7d, 6d'y1 sv t 10 Pro C I~L(f~2l S' ri7~l{ e
5c~q
Normal Neighborhood Plan - letters 37 Public Comments
SECTION 02 EXPLAINING CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT / 27
TABLE 2.4/(cant.)
I Human health .kHeat-health action plans,!Public healtkpgIicIes t(') Lirmisfo human
+
(e.g., Singapore emergency medical I'that recognize tolerance (vulnerable
New Yorkl ~I services, Improved, , t clrmate,nsk;; - ;groups),
"r
;(climate-sensitive'disease !strenglhenedhealth 't(-)•Knowledgelimitations,
surveillance and control; ~ ervices; regional Financial capacity
safe water and improved and International Upgraded health
.,sanitation {cooperation-- services,
1 Improved quality of life
- t
-Tourism. iDiversificationof.tourism 'Integrated planning (+)Appeal/marketing'of
(e g Switzedand) attractions & revenues (e.g., carrying capacity; nevi attractions;
shifting ski slopes to .l linkages with other Financial and logistical
higher altitudes and ~sectors);financlal challenges
glaciers ; incentives, e.g., Potentialadverse impact
::subsidies, and tax on other sectors (e:§.,
'credits artificial snow-maklhg may
increase energy use)
Revenues from'n6v'
attractions
Involvement of wider
tgroup'of stakeholders '
'Transport Reallgnment/relocalicn; Integrating climate (-)financial and
(e.g., King - `design standards and "change considerations , technological barriers
County/Seattle, ` planning for roads, rail, into national - Availability of less
Albuquerque, and other infrastructure transport policy; vulnerable routes
Rockville, to cope. with. warming and Investment in R&D Improved technologies
.
Singapore, Tokyo) ::drai'nage' • for iipecial situations, integration with 'key
(e,gpermafrost_areas)~sectors(e;g.,eriergy)
Energy , Strengthening of overhead National energy • Access to viable
(e.g.,King transmission and policies, regulations, alternatives
County/Seattle, distribution Infrastructure,. land fiscal and , (-),Financial and
Albuquerque, underground caliling for financiatincenlives technological barriers.
Rockville; r, utilities, energy efficiency, ito encourage use of ;A-).Acceptance of new
' 11
Singapore; Tokyo) use of reue .a sources, alternative sources; technologies;
reduced dependence on Incorporating climate Stimulation of new
single sources of energy change in design technologies
- standaras Use. of local resources
The Primer now looks at the main consequences of climate change, with a focus on sea-level rise,
temperature change, precipitation change; resilience, and extreme events. The relationship betweeri
consequences and the extent of mean global temperaturer rise is shown in figure 2.4. When glob-
al annual temperature. increases, several effects are likely to occur. The figure shows the potential
impacts of a VC change. in temperature to the water, ecosystems, food,. coasts, and health sectors.
I
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 38 Public Comments
April Lucas
From: Sue D. [suedem@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 5:40 PM
To: spril.lucas@ashland.or.us; tbrowhpc@gmail.com; rpkaplan46@gmail.com; Howard Miller;
sassetta@mind.net; molnarb@ashland.or.us; mike@council.ashland.or.us;
tmpeddicord@gmail.com; carol@council.ashland.or.us; craig.ashland@gmail.com;
davidchapman@ashlandhome.net; faughtm@ashland.or.us; graf@sou.edu;
shawn@polarissurvey.com; corinne@mind.net; dyoung@jeffnet.org
Subject: Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan Concerns
Attachments: Scan0006.jpg; Scan0007.jpg; Scan0008.jpg; Scan0009.jpg
Dear Commissioners,
I am a concerned resident in the Normal Ave. neighborhood of Ashland. My concerns involve 3 categories:
traffic/pedestrian safety, development density, and wetlands preservation.
Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Concerns
Vehicular circulation through the Normal Ave Plan area has shifted dramatically from the original design charrette In
Oct. 2012 which showed a pedestrian/bike path connection for access to the Middle School. The current transportation
Street Network shows a major Connector Road linking the original Normal Ave to the curve of the Ashland Middle School
bus drop off. Attached scans #0008 (8:37am) and #0006 (6;33pm) show how busy this area is with school buses, children
and families during the day. This is exactly where the Collector Road has been designed to empty all the new westward
(heading to downtown) traffic from the neighborhood developments. Scan #0007 shows the limited visibility of the
connection of the Collector Road onto E. Main St. (adjacent to an incoming curve/blindsight on E. Main).
If most of the development density was to be concentrated in the middle of the 94 acre area (as was discussed at the
Charrette Process), then the design for the two new egresses onto E. Main St. (around the Baptist Church property, west
of Clay St.). would serve the new residential development population adequately and without traffic safety concerns for
visibility and pedestrian/student congestion from a Major Connector Road going through to the Ashland Middle
School
Development Densitvl Land Use Zoning Concerns
The housing types within the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan are supposed to be distributed in such a manner as to
locate similar.densities of development across from established neighborhoods, The area along the existing Normal Ave.
has single family detached dwellings, usually with at least one or more acres/homesite. The current staff design does
NOT follow development standards to preserve and promote single-dwelling neighborhood character around the ex/sting
neighborhood with a zone of NA-02 (as defined as multi-family low density) cutting a swath across the north end of
Normal Ave.to the Ashland Middle School. Also, adjacent to the designated wetlands in the Normal Ave Plan area, the
staff design has abutted an NA-02 zoning density, where a reduction in density, possibly NA-01, should be considered to
accommodate the natural hydrologic features and ecosystem (see Wetlands Concerns below). If such non-compatible
zoning density is allowed, It will adversely affect this established community's quality of life, increase noise level wilh traffic
congestion/air pollution, and negatively affect the local natural habitat/environment.
The undeveloped land in the middle of the 94 acres, just west of Cemetary Creek & east of the proposed new Normal
Ave., should be re-designated from NA-02 to NA-03 with multiple compact attached dwellings to easily accommodate the
required 90% maximum density for the entire area to be annexed Into the City. This area currently doesn't have an
established neighborhood to be affected by such increased developmental impact.
Wetlands Concerns
There is a large section of the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan that has been identified and designated by the Oregon
Dept. of State Lands on their City of Ashland 2001 Local Wetlands Inventory Map (scan #0009). This 1.68 acre
Designated Wetland #12 is seasonally saturated with water with no designated outlet for runoff or drainage. It provides a
role in local flood control, groundwater regulation/purification, and replenishment of local aquifers for neighborhood
domestic well water. Additionally, a-distinct ecosystem has developed around this Wetland to support the biodiversily of
the specific plants and animals that depend on it. As a neighboring resident to this natural water feature, I have observed
red tali hawks, quail, doves, owls, as well as families of deer & gray fox.
I
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 39 Public Comments
The original charrette map, as well as the original Normal Neighborhood Master Plan maplPhase 2, have shown this
Wetland to extend from the Ashland Middle School bus turnaround/soccer fields and behind Grace Point Church, and
across almost to the existing Normal Ave. The current zoning map shows a shrunken down version of the Wetland, and a
MAJOR Connector Road going right through the north end of the Wetlandl
As City Commissioners, I would hope that you have reviewed an Environmental Impact Report on this Ashland
Wetland #12 prior to allowing its boundaries to be manipulated for development and transportation plans. Has anyone
requested such a report or information regarding this sensitive significant water feature? Please consider the impact of
changing this Wetland Ecosystem, as well as the potential educational opportunities it could provide (especially adjacent
to the Ashland Middle School) if left intact and buffered by lower density development.
1 would appreciate your inclusion of my concerns in your discussions and decisions regarding the Normal Ave
Neighborhood Plan.
Thank you for you time and service,
Susan DeMarinis
145 Normal Ave.
Ashland, OR 97520
suedempcharter.net .
I
i
i
i
2
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 40 Public Comments
City of Ashland 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory
The primary indicator of future residential land needs is projected population growth.
The BLI, compiled by the City of Ashland, stated that the buildable lands WITHIN the
City Limits could accommodate approximately 1,883 units. With an average household
size of 2.03 people, 1,604 units would be needed over the next 20 years. That's 279
more units available than are needed, already WITHIN City Limits.
Outside the City Limits, yet within the UGB, approximately 97o additional units could
be accommodated. The net buildable lands within the UGB could accommodate up to
5,791 new residents, which according to the City Comprehensive Plan population
projection, is not expected to be reached for approximatelY32 more years
!
I
Potential growth within the UGB, as shown on the zoning densities of the Normal Ave
Neighborhood Plan, is EXCESSIVE to the 20-year supply of needed buildable lands
required by the state.
The housing types according to the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan (Ch.18 code
Amendmts-18.3.x.o1o) are supposed to be distributed in such a manner as to locate
similar densities of development across from established neighborhoods. The area along
the existing Normal Ave. has single family detached dwellings, usually with at least one
or more acres/homesite. The current staff design does NOT follow development
standards to preserve and promote single-dwelling neighborhood character around the
existing neighborhood with a zone of NA-02 (as defined as multi-family low density)
cutting a swath across the north end of Normal Ave. to the Ashland Middle School.
Buildable Land, as defined in City of Ashland's 2011 BLI, means residentially vacant,
partially vacant, & re-developable land within the UGB that is NOT severely constrained
by natural hazards or subject to natural resource protection measures. Residential
annexations ultimately have a required go% max. density UNLESS reduction in total #
of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features e.g. wetlands.
The designated wetland in the Normal Ave Plan area (Wetlands #9 on the City of i
Ashland/DSL Local Wetlands Inventory Map) has been cut down in size. A WETLAND
DELINEATION Site Man, prepared by a natural resource professional, is required for '
activities/uses in a Wet.Protc.Zone(Code 18.63.110).
Since the BLI doesn't require such a high density due to the available buildable lands
within the City Limits, a reduction in density, adjacent to the wetlands (not thru them),
possibly NA-o1 single family dwellings, should be considered to accommodate (see City
of Ashland Wetlands Regulations Code 18.63.070) the natural hydrologic features and
ecosystem, as well as maintaining the single-family dwelling neighborhood character.
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 41 Public Comments
Traffic and Pedestrian Safety
Even if the Designated Wetland #g. is allowed to be manipulated and minimized for
development in the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan, there is still a very real concern
regarding traffic and pedestrian safety.
If a major connector road is allowed to route the new development traffic toward the
Ashland Middle School bus turnaround and subsequently feed out onto E. Main St.,
there will be hazardous conditions for the students and families with the increased
usage. Photos were sent to commissioners showing morning and evening congestion of
students, buses, &cars. There's limited visibility by an incoming blind curve with the
egress to the south. To see to the west, a vehicle must pull almost into the traffic lane.
Public health, safety, and quality of life should be considered when crafting a Master
Plan for an area to be annexed into the City for future development. Among the costs
of growth, infrastructure needs, environmental and social costs, especially to the
residents of the local neighborhood, can produce the following negative impacts:
• Decreased Air Quality
• Decreased Water Quality - possible aquifer depletion j
• Lost Open Space
• Lost Resource Lands : Wetlands, Agricultural Land
• Lost Visual & other amenity values
• Lost Wildlife Habitat
• Traffic congestion/dangers
• Increased noise pollution
• Increased light pollution
• Lost sense of neighborhood community
By Fodor & Assoc., 2002 "Assessmt ofStatetivrde Growth Subsidies in Oregon"
i
The costs of such increased housing densities should be evaluated in a Quality of Life
and Fiscal Impact Analysis. There are hidden costs to the City's taxpayers created by
such unnecessary dense growth. The adequacy of existing fire, ambulance, police,
water, sewer and sewage treatment, street infrastructure, student/teacher ratios and
school facilities will be tested and proportionately need to increase with such growth.
A Fiscal Impact/Cost of Community Services Analysis should show annexation
and development will pay for its own growth! These hidden costs are not
covered by the Systems Development Charges that the developers will pay. Will
Ashland taxpayers be required to "subsidize" these costs of increased housing
densities with new bonds, or increased property taxes? (For example, when
Strawberry Lane had an uphill development that required paving the whole road
and downhill residents were each charged a massive $414o LID tax bill).
Normal mPrn!iEEoo65E ADDRESS THESE CQNgERNS WHEN MAKING YOM..R RoEC15IION!
Nei
-~r-,•-<'~L-~ c-J fir- ,.x: i r~ • -
6 ~ ,R~~`}r (aau .AR t+'vi!ti Tn AFy - r .D~~ ~ ~ ,zL
T~ S `1 r ~l
a ~
z l
mar a ,rr
1 7T ~ Y~' M
t r
rtfi~it( ;~f ~z 3z M1 zr '
( 'Myy~'P{; tLY i ! rzZ
~1Y , t~ t
( J.Y 4 I F I, ~k~~
t ,SKr f~ f ? f i
r '~cu rv J' ~ (
Illitt!! ( t •a j
cc `t P `.P" • t 'sue--'' ~ 1 _7 C`" r
t
y C - - yP r _ s ~L
'Y~ t i (i`'~• v t Y~it~r~
K
4t~y1 I Y
-W
. NA-01 p11~Q!'• NA-033: I!j tt/tr,..( '
s - NAc02: NA-04: Open Space
'0 100 300 500 north
f D V,~CIC. E/jjj// ttNeighborhood Commercial Allowed
~y~~ ,~'~:~~",y~ ~ ~ t - '~~.4 , iG`~`~5 ~i~~-l?ab ~,+z~;J `~,C m{5• t,~.~,
i ay-^ ~ ~ a5. iitgillPSk:a7 i `a"~J'ir .[.a
"4a neighborhood Plan letters 43 Public Comments 3
/ J
7 is I,• /
j~{ 3;{ ~t~ i rr: # as
.1 t
mo 7 k i a 3 ~f7iF9 , I I I„ ~1•: Eg
i~a3 I~} 5393 ti. [ ~
g`ift' iI`
s ! t 2 i .I { i e 41~ i d4 *~I'J!! Q K- ~lt7•~Cdt . , A
~ d ul III !
'wT
t'1 s 1 j yf x fk I
8 g al '+tF
1~ rC. f.! f r
r ~
rz / 11f yy{
n s4L,i4` ] ryis~ IAN <~'f~'I~ (t+-ta ice.
/ S ~ t 1,h c
,~/I~~t .u lx li<r ~v~~/7!{ nth it ~rf .flu. 1
f/ < r~f 4. rl:~.t/ iFrr ti5~`y IS z tl tz I s J..
J~ (q- , ! ~ Bulk ~(r 'I,-: f ~ ~ i II
fir! 1 tl t F., 'i}LO<<i n.4 1qrF a'' l ,
1 ( •`>y~ k 3a
~ . l 11 v I y I~ .a llx:
,f r / . ~ Tw, T'fu ,}J ~E, yl~f/ 1!<„^ r ~ I v~ J/ I •.l , yn
~4 yf.-j~ yy e4la, c e ~v L,2 / r .ua I ir' p I
r f , ` ; J I II Yi c(r - ~
1!
!L ~ •Yil ~f 5 4r r of -I I I I Lz6 ,y T4
r
fit ~ „r _ n
' f! tl°IG } ~+$m ~ I / - t I ~ ya: r°d?@t~xP} S~ `l. ~{f j
t ~r ~II s I { ~~.y r if u I x f ~ '~'b'£~V~~~ti Fk~~ {IV~"`~~J)<~~
.S !'.n z A Tr /N'W f "~-3. n>''z»+,~:.-. 'tE + YY¢u+uEa~~~i
\J, Ef/v !i I i 9,7, C,.'yk`f ~ISAOC.~' ~i-i t y~{1 (('~a`~~yf
y ~ I ` -l 'SC.Lt y~ pI
SK` 'All
§2 s ' .
d, f." NI ~K t FS,$k i
1,4
Normal Neighborhood Plan ~i ~s u I letters 94 611c Comments
City of Ashland
Local Wetlands Inventory
CITY OF
ASHLAND T39S R I E 10
1
._tt.. ~r verve
FDND
! I . . f T39d 1E 10 .POND
W4
I\
I ~
71,
IF;
mil ~ I h• ~f
Lagmd '~`j5hman w .°'m..:wm a".°.L'.
®vknr~e..kn.ei6ef reran
um a .mwa ®oenawmeoa.P
OPaamneeva. --;:t cy uxs ..s.. ~~w.<~.. "
v Pei•nrroaeo+avrarwi w.'~: =n=.
EMMPOm ~mw
WP+M G+rNr okaua sma.e `w,<~
Qb NUbw(W" Yn.Wwt &MW wi w~i. oq. u.mawrr
• 06furr"m PaN _
m
5 Teak m+laMHr~Thfi lM BeirCmkwe:eNiN .s +rv.e.~
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 45 Public Comments
au
r
t rf I
k ;
3
r
t
ti
z
F ky~u t `i
y
t~ k
~I
y
m"
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 46 Public Comments
l'•tF~
r .?c~ tF
f n.
t y
t~ r f -r
%
~fj ~E7}E l
`d r a E°i p: ryy
? 11
RAI
t
t ~.r' I .~r• ~t~
- ;r
~ ~r32
3 ' r" J
}
yi ~D t
• rr. r
yS { p
s r
I a.
a f
t t
s4
3
ff i
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 47 Public Comments
pl
pl'
tlY Y~
S
fi
~i
1
jt
f'.
1
I
2
"~rt t
f {
}
i ~ i ! IMF I t.e~
I k
fey _
[3
\y
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 48 Public Comments
Dear Planning Commissioners,
In discussions about the Normal Avenue Plan, I don't recall if any proposal was made concerning
the possibility of a retirement center on East Main property. That seems to be housing that will be
in more demand in the future, and the advantage of attracting the retired and providing the
opportunity to Ashland home owners to remain local, is wise.
A couple of years ago I donated copies of a book, "13 Ways to Kill Your Community" to the City
office library. To quote:
"Seniors across North America have two important assets, and have them in a greater abundance
than the average citizen within the general population: time and money. These are key factors in
building a successful community." Seniors are the largest group of volunteers, and some
communities even have a volunteer coordinator to identify and recruit volunteers and match them
with the proper organization.
Economically, most seniors have retired and freed themselves from the obligations of daily life.
They are going to do what they want to do, and since many of them have the funds, they are able
and willing to pay for what they want. One of the biggest factors that so many communities, and
business people, forget about when it comes to seniors as consumers, is housing.
I
Please consider approving more senior housing in Ashland, and perhaps the Normal Avenue Plan
would be ideal.
I
Respectfully,
Jan Vidmar
i~
i
I
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 49 Public Comments
From: "Amy and Peter" <andinistal @aol.com>
To: "Brandon Goldman" <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 6:46:36 AM
Subject: comments from June 25 meeting
Dear Mr Goldman and Planning Commission members,
I attended the Planning Commission meeting on June 25 and would like to submit my
comments in writing as they pertain to the New Normal Neighborhood concept plan.
My wife and I reside at 253 Normal Ave with our two young children, ages 4 months and 2
years. We are newcomers to Ashland, having moved here from Bozeman, MT on May 1 of this
year.
We chose Ashland for the whole package of what it offers: progressive politics, the university
and thriving tourism sector, excellent schools, bike-friendly transportation, mellow climate, and
accessible outdoor recreation opportunities including the local ski hill.
Before we purchased our home we became familiar with the term "urban growth boundary" and
studied up on the Normal Neighborhood concept plan. We were intrigued and pleased to
discover that so much time and effort were being spent on the planning process, including
community involvement, far in advance of any development. But, I guess that's one reason why
we moved to Oregon instead of staying in Montana!
Although the rural nature of the current neighborhood is attractive, it is "downtown" compared to
what we are accustomed to. Already I have felt at risk while walking along the single-lane
Normal Ave while my son rides his tricycle, as a steady flow of residents in large SUVs and
service workers in large diesel pickups roar back and forth, causing us to retreat off the road
every few minutes. I look forward optimistically to seeing the rewards of careful planning
revealed as a state of the art modern community with pedestrian-friendly and bike-friendly
transportation connectivity. Certainly, in Ashland, we can expect to set a high bar for creating
comfortable, usable, friendly, beautiful living spaces. Perhaps state and local regulations are
already in place which will not only encourage, but require that the development of this
neighborhood seeks to showcase all that we may have learned about building communities
which support people.
I would encourage the planners to be bold about strongly recommending progressive,
alternative design requirements when presenting the concept plan to the city. Specifically, the
items mentioned in the meeting on tuesday: 1) neighborhood commercial support in the form of
a cluster of small shops within residences, supplying basic needs within the neighborhood; 2)
public parks along the creeks with shade, benches, multi-use trails, and a playground; 3) a
neighborhood shared garden where residents may lease space for growing food and
ornamentals; 4) and most importantly, the priority to make the automobile the least attractive
mode of transportation. The Woonerfs sound great, as do the design elements of the pocket
communities outlined in the recent Daily Tidings article.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the work that you all are doing, and I look
forward to supporting the process as this neighborhood moves into the future.
Best regards,
Peter Carse
253 Normal Ave
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 50 Public Comments
GracePoint
C
Church of Nazarene
A Church for People Like You
Planning Commission
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Re: Ashland Gracepoint Church submission for June 25, 2013 Planning Commission
Hearing Session
To Whom It May Concern:
We have watched the planning process move forward for the Normal Street development
project and are entering into this process somewhat late because we were out of the
communication loop. Nevertheless, we do have several ideas for the future development of
our property at 1760 East Main Street and would ask your consideration in these matters.
One of our tentative ideas is a Senior Living Facility that would probably require a higher
density than much of the envisioned space in your Normal Street development plans. Many
senior living facilities include skilled nursing and possibly medical. Also staffing of a facility
like this may require some form of daycare for their children. These two aspects of this project
make this significantly different than a five unit per acre development.
We have spoken with Brandon Goldman about the proposed connection across our land
between Normal Street and East Main Street. Currently what is proposed in the Phase 2 plan is
a straight-through street. We have the desire to make whatever development we do be as
pleasing as possible. In this regard, moving the eastern entry onto our land to the most
southern corner will allow the road to meander diagonally through the development. This will
calm traffic and make it a nicer place to walk and live.
This proposed road connection would exit onto East Main Street over the easement that we
have granted to the Ashland School District. We assume that the costs of road building would
be shared with the school district unless they make some plan for other bus and traffic access.
Sincerely,
John Colwell and Ray Eddington
for Ashland Gracepoint Church
Ashland GracePoint Church of the Nazarene
1760 East Main Street • Ashland, OR 97520
541-482-1784
www.ashlandgracepoint.com e-mail: office@ashlandgracepoint.com
r
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 51 Public Comments
From : Jan Vidmar <jan_vidmar@yahoo.com> Fri,-Apr-21q,,,2013, 08:16 AM
r~Y
Subject Animal Ordinance and Normal Ave. Plan
z
tbrownpc@gmail.com, rpkaplan46@gmail.com,
To sassetta@mind.net, molnarb@ashland.or.us, ,
mike@counciLash land.or.us, tmpeddicord@gmail.com,
brandongoldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or:us>
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I attended the interesting study session on Tuesday, April 23rd, which addressed the Keeping of
Animals Ordinance Amendment. I was pleased by your openness to the
proposals, which displayed your support for quality lifestyles and choices in Ashland.
Since my house borders the Normal Avenue Plan area, I was struck by the unique opportunity we have
to incorporate this support of animal husbandry and community gardens. We who own homes in the
many developments bordering the proposed plan area are generally on very small lots, and don't have
the opportunity to have animals or large gardens. There was virtually no thought given to community
space for such activities. However, with the eminent development of adjoining, semi-rural land, the
planning commissioners are in a position to decide and advocate for maintaining that rural feeling. Much
of Ashland has already succumbed to higher density housing, with small lots and little open space
around units.
Please consider the approval of a lower density housing plan, perhaps incorporating cottage homes and
townhouses with spaces for animal husbandry and community gardens. The areas to be developed
incorporate the special wetlands of Clay Creek and Cemetery Creek, and are in a prime area to
consider green development plans.
This is a unique opportunity you have to approve plans for a livable, breathable, less congested part of
Ashland. Lower density housing would also greatly alleviate the inevitable future traffic congestion in
this area.
We appreciate your dedication and hard work on the Planning Commission.
Respectfully,
Jan Vidmar
320 Meadow Drive
541-301-3271
Please copy for Michael Dawkins.
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 52 Public Comments
From: michael shore <shrgrp(a)mind.net>
Subject: thank you
Date: April 10, 2013 5:39:40 PM PDT
To: Melanie Mindlin <sassetta(cDmind.net>
Melanie,
I want to thank you for the way you handled the meeting last night. I really appreciated that you
used your prerogative to ask questions when various the public speakers ran themselves out of
time.
I would also like to sympathize and appreciate that your requests to your fellow board members
for details was met with nostalgia, and patronizing admonishments to the public but no attention
to the details of the plan.
I am very much taken by your comments regarding the mindless convenience of putting housing
(of any density) on the area simply because it appears vacant and by your comments regarding
the hydrology of the area.
The disregard of the public comments and the refusal by the rest of the board to address anything
except a vague reference to the benefits of putting a plan in place before the developers start
digging was very disheartening.
Except that there are women both on the commission and in the audience, the new normal plan
so far reminds me of our national creation myth.... grey haired property owners drawing up plans
with regard only for profit, power and "practicality".
If we are talking about providing dwelling spaces at 500 addresses and perhaps 1500 souls, with
their 1200 automobiles and six hundred bicycles and 200 dogs, can't the commission, without
using drinking water as a limiting factor, ponder the cost of providing schools, sanitation, road
maintenance, water treatment and sanitation versus the benefits these new comers would yield?
I agree that exerting control is the purview of the city. If the city must show a certain amount of
housing stock, it makes sense to me that other areas be explored. I would agree that being able to
walk to town should be a preferred criteria. Or the New Normal plan needs to have a business
section along with a meaningful shuttle system.
From my perhaps radical point of view, in light of "the end of oil" and our state's predictions of a
looming monster earthquake, it behooves city planning to seek a less conventional paradigm.
When the 5 freeway goes missing and fuel is $10/gallon (if it can be found) hungry residents
will greatly appreciate the City of Ashland Demonstration Organic Farm and Beef Lot. We could
present the world with a world class demonstration of local food supply.
Finally, I would like to include in these considerations a look at the first order of business at the
meeting last night. What if the New Normal developers run into "funding problems" half way
through their construction plans?
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 53 Public Comments
The country is certainly not out of the woods in terms of how money is being loaned. Will the
wetlands in Normal be last on the to-do list? Will the trucks and dozers start ripping and
exposing until they stop..... and then will developers ask for a 15 year extension? Will the
downstream fish, the hovering birds have a voice at the planning meeting where warm hearted
commissioners who do not live nearby extend permits?
Okay that is my rant and my heartfelt appreciation for your work herding the commission and
including the public.
If you can point me to ways to help the commission understand the hydrology of the area and if
you can point me towards understanding where else the housing reserves could be found, I will
follow your clues.
Thanks again
michael shore
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 54 Public Comments
From: "Stan Druben" <sd96950@hotmail.com>
To: tbrownpc@gmail.com, rpkaplan46@gmail.com, "MillerDeborah" <hmiller@jeffnet.org>,
"Mind linMelanie" <sassetta@mind.net>
Cc: molnarb@ashland.or.us, carol@council.ashland.or.us, mike@council.ashland.or.us,
dennis@council.ashland.or.us, john@council.ashland.or.us, greg@council.ashland.or.us
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:50:19 PM
Subject: Thank you, Commissioners
Dear Planning Commissioners:
wanted to thank you for last night's very useful discussion of the Normal Avenue Plan, your
courtesy to the citizenry and your openness to our concerns.
As I listened, several thoughts came to mind. The most important related to "the box" (or
"framing conditions" [1]) within which decision-making now occurs. It became clear that for the
Commission to serve Ashland best, the framing conditions must be changed to account for a
changed context.
When Oregon's approach to land was put into place, we were a less-populated country placing
fewer demands on our environment (the foundation of all economic activity, not to mention
human existence) and yet we "continue to do the same things over and over again and expect
the same outcome despite the fact of a changed context." A "definition of insanity," as they
say.
There are elements of our land policy that are in obvious and serious conflict with our new
context. Three are:
#1: the ongoing requirement for a 20-year supply of "developable" land (often leading to
slow sprawl)
#2: the exclusion of insufficient water as a reason for not "developing" (I use quotation
marks because "develop" is a biased framing; it implies, for example, that pavement is
somehow superior to wetland.)
#3: the consent to private takings of publicly created value
#s 1 and 2 are clearly there to push the endless replacement of nature with housing, roads, and
such--a boon to those who pressed for inclusion of these restraints in the framework, though not
necessarily to the public. I doubt they need elaboration.
#3 warps the marketplace with unearned profits to landowners, creating a conflict between their
private benefit and their interest (and ours) as members of the public. The point may be made
clear by these January 21 remarks by Guardian (U.K.) columnist George Monbiot:
In 1909 [Winston Churchill] explained the issue thus: "Roads are made, streets are made,
services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a
hundred miles off in the mountains - and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those
improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one
of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by
every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community,
he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 55 Public Comments
his own enrichment is derived [T]he unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land
monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done."
As Churchill, Adam Smith and many others have pointed out, those who own the land skim
wealth from everyone else, without exertion or enterprise. They "levy a toll upon all other forms
of wealth and every form of industry". A land value tax[2] would recoup this toll.
It would have a number of other benefits.... It ensures that the most valuable real estate - in
city centres - is developed first, discouraging urban sprawl. It prevents speculative property
bubbles, of the kind that have recently trashed the economies of Ireland, Spain and other
nations, and that make rents and first homes so hard to afford. Because it does not affect the
supply of land (they stopped making it some time ago), it cannot cause the rents that people
must pay to the landlords to be raised. It is easy to calculate and hard to avoid: you can't hide
your land in London in a secret account in the Cayman Islands....
My hope is that this e-mail exposes for your consideration the normally invisible "box" and that
you are inspired to get Ashland involved in updating Oregon's outdated land policies.
Again, thank you for last night.
Sincerely,
Stan Druben
125 Brooks Lane
Ashland, OR
P.S. Please provide a copy of this e-mail to Commissioner Dawkins.
[1] What are framing conditions?
"At first sight, it seems extraordinary that snowflakes and other crystalline structures are able to
form almost perfect, symmetrical shapes in the complete absence of conscious control or
design. The mechanism by which this occurs can be demonstrated by setting out a flat box-like
framework on a table. By pouring a stream of tiny balls over this frame, we find that we
eventually, and inevitably, end up with a more or less perfect pyramid shape.... No one is
designing the pyramid, or forcing the balls into place; the pyramid is simply an inevitable product
of the framing conditions of round objects falling onto a square wooden frame."-Free to Be
Human, by David Edwards (For more related to framing conditions, see "Chapter 4 The
Parable of the Red Beads," in The Deming Management Method, by Mary Walton.)
[2] Monbiot notes that the "term is a misnomer. It's not really a tax. It's a return to the public of
the benefits we have donated to the landlords. When land rises in value, the government and
the people deliver a great unearned gift to those who happen to own it."
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 56 Public Comments
From: Suzanne Marshall <suzanne.marshal l(abyahoo.com>
Subject: thank you
Date: April 10, 2013 6:38:24 PM PDT
To: Melanie <sassetta(a)mind.net>, R Kaplan <rPkaPlan46ta~.gmail.com>, T
Brown <tbrownPc(dgmail.com>, Carol Voisin <civoisin(a)yahoo.com>
Dear Commissioners,
1 appreciated your time, expertise and courtesy last night at the Planning meeting. I am
impressed that you took the time to listen to concerned citizens and even answer some questions
for those who had never attended such a meeting. It is good to live in a town like Ashland with
our interested, involved citizenry and city officials.
I lived most of my life in the South where little planning has been done in the past with some
horrible results to be sure. Now that I'm fortunate enough to live here, I value good urban/
community planning for Ashland.
I hope that the Normal Avenue plan will be carefully reconsidered. Laws on planning made
thirty years ago may need re- working. New issues, new population patterns, and new
environmental concerns exist in 2013.
I would like to see more balanced dense housing in the city. It seems like most is on the
Southside now with more planned.
Finally, please know that members of our HOA DID attend earlier meetings with the task of
reporting back to others; hence the growing interest and concern. We were not LATE to the
issue. It takes time to get information circulated and digested.
thank you again for your dedicated voluntary work on the Planning commission.
Suzanne Marshall
369 Meadow Drive
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 57 Public Comments
KAREN HORN
140 CLAY STREET • ASHLAND, OR • 97520
PHONE: 541.646.7391 • FAX: 866.653.9706.
EMAIL: KAREN HORN n'M IND.NET
March 4, 2013
Mr. Brandon Goldman
Senior Planner
City of Ashland
By email to brand on. gold man(cbashland. or.us
Re: Normal Avenue Plan
Dear Mr. Goldman:
I attended the Planning Commission Study Group session on February 26, 2013, and I
would like to register my opinion of what is being developed for the Normal Avenue
area.
My concern stems from proximity - I live on Clay Street, across from the field behind the
Mormon Church, so I would be directly impacted by increased traffic on Clay and by a
dense development of that field, or even the one behind it, which apparently has a
developer already attached who favors three-story apartment buildings on that site.
I was disappointed not to be included at the beginning of this process - when
questionnaires were distributed to people living in the proposed planning area. I not only
live across the street from this area, 'I pay for a sewer connection with the City of
Ashland. I found about the charrette by chance after the questionnaire process had
ended by reading the flyer enclosed with the utility bill. My husband attended that
meeting, but I was unable to make it.
I am distressed that the north east corner of the planning area is where the densest
development is slated to go in. During the study session, the reasons for this choice
seemed very arbitrary to me. As I remember it, the presenters said the reasons for
putting the densest development there were two fold: first, the residents of Normal
Avenue, on the south west side of the area, turned out in force at the charrette and
requested no dense development near them, and second, that there is an existing
developer and landowner on part of the north east corner who are ready and willing to
build.
I am also concerned that traffic on Clay Street, which is already very busy, since there is
dense development on both sides of the street up to Ashland Street, will become
oppressive with hundreds more residents close by. And East Main - if there will not be
public transportation added there for all these new residents, you are not following your
own guidelines. Let's not create more sprawl at this time in history.
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 58 Public Comments
I believe planning in general is a good thing, and I am glad the Planning Commission is
attempting to do something new and get ahead of the curve in this process. However,
the way the process is working out is very unsatisfying. If all it takes to change a plan is
a vocal group of citizens, then I think you should be required to start over with proper
notification of ALL neighbors of the area, whether or not they live inside the city limits. I
guarantee you that the neighbors to the east of the planning area do not want dense
development near them any more than the Normal Avenue group does. If you want to
turn this process into a shouting match, at least give us a chance to present our case.
However, my main concerns have to do with the actual best use of the Normal Avenue
area. In my opinion, we are headed into a time of drought, scarcity, and reduced
economic activity. The most important thing Ashland can do to help residents prepare
for the future is to teach and facilitate the process of making our lives here more
sustainable. We grow about 2% of the food we eat here in the Rogue Valley. That must
change if we are to survive what's coming at us.
I propose that the Normal Avenue area be maintained as farm land. It is sunny, and the
ground water that makes it so hard to develop it for housing will be a benefit for growing
plants and pasturing animals. Ideally, it could be divided into allotments, as is done in
London, where citizens who already live here in condos with tiny yards can grow their
own food on a small plot of their own for a nominal rent.
I can already hear the standard objections - I heard some of them the night of the Study
Session. What about all those people who own land there and have been waiting for
years, or decades, for the time when they can cash out big on their land? My answer is:
just because you own land on the edge of town should not guarantee you a right to
become wealthy from selling that land. I lost my savings in the stock market in 2008. 1
may lose some or all of my Social Security benefits due to the dysfunction in
Washington DC. My house on Clay Street is worth less today than when I bought it. And
the landowners in the Normal Avenue area may not get as rich as they thought they
were going to get by building on their land. That is the world we live in today.
Please try to look beyond business as usual when considering this plan.
Sincerely,
Karen Horn
Cc: Troy Brown-Jr, Richard Kaplan, Melanie Mindlin, Michael Dawkins, Bill Molnar,
Michael Morris
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 59 Public Comments
From: "Daemon Filson" <daemonfilson@gmail.com>
To: goldmanb@ashland.or.us
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:28:25 PM
Subject: Normal Planning Comment
Hi Brandon,
Good meeting you last week. As you requested, here is our comment to share at the next
planning meeting (tomorrow night), in case 1 can't attend.
In terms of any and all interface with wet lands/open space/creeks we would prefer a multi-use
path vs. a road. But if it must be a road, request that it be STRICTLY no parking and NO
PARKING signage be subtle and in keeping with the natural beauty of the adjacent open
space/creek/wetlands.
Sincerely,
Daemon & Heidi Filson
318 Meadow Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
541.292.1450
daemonfilsonggmai I.com
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 60 Public Comments
From: "Jan Vidmar" <jan_vidmar@yahoo.com>
To: goldmanb@ashland.or.us
Cc: molnarb@ashland.or.us
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:20:56 PM
Subject: Normal Ave. Plan
Dear Brandon and Bill,
I want to thank you both for the informative presentation on February 19th. The large Phase 1&2 maps are
particularly clarifying. 1 do have some thoughts on the Normal Plan, particularly in light of what is referred to as
significant streams and wetlands in the Greenway and Open Space Framework.
As you pointed out, the stream orientation and flow is from south to north, draining a multitude of water from the
highland areas. When planning any development, the contiguous flow and the potential for blockages and flooding
needs to be taken into account. As I interpret the Phase 1&2 maps, I am concerned by the proposed crossings of
wetland areas by roads.
My first concern is the potential for flooding. Many have witnessed the height to which Cemetery Creek can rise,
although for a short period of time. It never fails to amaze me how fast and dangerous a small wet area or creek can
become. Bill informed some of us that live in Meadowbrook Park Estates that our houses would not have been built
today until current guidelines. Our properties sit within the wetlands buffer zone, and I was not aware of that. In the
past I consulted with the City of Ashland and the current FEMA guidelines, and was told that we on Meadow Drive
do not need flood insurance. The Wingspread neighborhood is in a flood zone of Clay Creek, and it also borders on
Cemetery Creek wetland. The flow of the lower section of Clay Creek needs to be watched, as high density housing
and roads could impact flow, causing a backup. Portions are currently choked by blackberry bushes. What
assurances would be made to neighborhood residents, current and proposed that we would be secure and insured if a
flood occurs?
These comments are not directed toward future neighborhood development, as I haven't heard any objections to the
use of land and future construction. The concerns are directed for planning around the "wet" areas to assure the free
flow and lack of impediment to water. I would ask that road development be restricted from directly crossing the
wetlands. All road surfaces provide for faster run off of water, increasing the flow into the wet areas at a faster pace
than ground. Perhaps a buffer zone such as gravel or grass and then a path would slow run off.
The viewing of creeks/wetlands is important to residents of Ashland, but few appreciate them from a car. The Bear
Creek Greenway and Lithia Park are gems, and no roads ran directly next to the water for viewing. The paths have
high use by walkers and bicyclists, and are considered as enhancements to the quality of life in this area. Any
sections that are private and behind houses unfortunately are blocked to the public. Paths should have been
established in the past to prevent that. The Phase 1 &2 plans are poised to make a great connection between
the current path that passes by Normal Street, through to East Main/Clay Street. It would be wonderful path
following Cemetery Creek.
Other concerns for the creeks/wetlands are as wildlife corridors. The south/north flow orientation is a natural
migration route. An Ashland resident and ornithologist, who could be consulted duririg the development process,
came to my house to document the uncommon species and variety of birds that migrate through the Cemetery Creek
vegetation (particularly willow bushes). These corridors are also important for a rich variety of butterflies, frogs,
reptiles and mammals that are present year round. My personal favorite is our native grey fox that I observe along
Cemetery Creek. With minimal impact from development, this can be appreciated by all the neighborhood residents
in the future.
After years of horse pasture use in part of the Cemetery Creek area, perhaps a restoration project consisting of plant
and tree enhancement would be justified. I've seen the enthusiastic involvement of Ashland residents volunteering
in other wetland enhancement projects. Maybe this could be incorporated into a developer's plans, allowing for such
enhancement.
Respectfully,
Jan Vidmar
320 Meadow Drive
541-301-3271
Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 61 Public Comments
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: .
1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and
2) What is your overall impression of the plan?
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 30, 2014, 10:08 AM
5
a ,
.1.
i"Y;l
~~A~~ 4e '+5tt..
i
As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily
representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As&Apd130,2016, 10:08 AM http://peakdem cy.m"1738
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan:
1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and
2) What is your overall impression of the plan?
Introduction
The City of Ashland is in the final stages of developing a plan for the future neighborhood at the north end of
Normal Avenue and is seeking additional citizen input. The proposed Normal Neighborhood Plan reflects nearly
two years of public participation and neighborhood involvement.
Neighborhood planning is the opportunity to think ahead and determine a vision for the future of the
neighborhood. Having an adopted plan in place will ultimately provide for the coordination of streets, pedestrian
connections, utilities, storm water management and open space. The final plan is intended to provide a clear
expectation and understanding for both developers and neighboring residents regarding future development.
Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan
http://www.ashland.or.us/SIB/files/NormalPlanDocument_20140225.pdf
1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and
2) What is your overall impression of the plan?
City officials will read the statements made on Open City Hall and consider them in their decision making
process. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on March 11th, 2014 in the City
Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street.
If you have questions please contact Brandon Goldman at (541)552-2076 or bra ndon.goldman@ashland.or.us.
Written comments may also be submitted via email or mailed to:
City of Ashland
Community Development Department
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As or Apn130, 2014, 10:08 AM htlpllpeakdemocmcyo MI 8 Page 2 of 18
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan:
1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and .
2) What is your overall impression of the plan?
As of April 30, 2014, 10:08 AM, this forum had:
Attendees: 294
On Forum Statements: 26
All Statements: 39
Hours of Public Comment: 2.0
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 30, 2014.10:08 AM htlpalpeekdemocracy mmll]38 Page 3 of 18
Pleeae rai rew IM est, Normal ranyoul Plan Normal Neighborhood Plan
:
11 Tell us which demands of the ran you tl' dta sagree with and which elements of Ne who We support and
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.
Elizabeth Bishop outside Ashland April 29, 2014, 7:50 AM
Generosity and inclusivity in Ashland was always the norm, and it can be again. Ashland wants to be "even
more family-friendly" as stated on the city's website. It is an on-going goal to encourage diversity by allowing
young families to raise their children here. It was more that way 25 years ago. We should fear becoming a city
of wealthy retirees who have fled the cities and now want to keep a homogeneous look to their new
neighborhood. It's not the Oregon way. Anyone who moved to the Normal area knew it was urban growth area
destined to be developed. The few houses in the area 40 years ago knew it, too. Yes, we all appreciate the
beautiful new homes built in Ashland, but can't we share the area with young families? Let us allow others to
enjoy our city as well. We need to realize that younger people will move to Ashland and their children will
graduate from our schools only if they can buy a home within their budget. So let it be!
nancy boyer inside Ashland April 25, 2014, 11:15 AM
Re; Normal Ave Plan. Recently the City of Ashland announced an increase to 4.3mil to be spent to join TAP,
and to be completed by August. This urgency is related to low water levels, climate change, and drought. My
understanding is that we will only use TAP for emergencies. Along with many concerns (wildlife,wetlands
density and etc.) water has always been a main concern of mine. How much impact will the building of 300-400
or more houses have on our already taxed (no pun intended) water sources ? We, did turn down the chance to
join TAP several years ago for much less money, but we didn"t need the water. However we continued to build
more houses, increasing our needs.Who pays and how much more can this cost all of us? Ironically we have at
the end of Normal, what some may call a" Garden of Eden" and the churches are cutting down huge trees, and
draining wetlands,all to "Pave Paradise" I hope the city council will review these changing plans with a fine
tooth comb!I! Regards,Nancy Boyer Normal Ave
Victor Chang inside Ashland March 13, 2014, 11:55 PM
Overall the planning looks solid and I appreciate the emphasis on these things: affordable housing, multi-
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
Aa of April 30, 2014,10:08 AM hltpalpeakdemocmcy wm11738 Page 4 of 18
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Please rerlax Ne 4211 Noemal Neighborhood Plan'.
t)cell us wni li Jemenls of the Man) euaprae win and wni d eYimenb d Me plan y support aM
density housing, green spaces, multi-use paths, minimizing drive-thru traffic, etc. Concerns: I'm curious as to
the efficacy of shared streets. It may be cool for pedestrians but I'd had to live on one and have to drive around
people every day. Also, I'm not sure what the plan for water and wastewater is- it cites wells and septic tanks,
but surely that would not continue to be the plan. Would have liked to see planning and cost estimates for that.
Lastly, though its very eco-chic to emphasize walkability but besides maybe walking to Walker ES, Ashland MS,
Scienceworks, Hunter Park... people will be driving. I would like to see the traffic impact study of that many
more residents and drivers on the traffic flows on Ashland St, Walker, E. Main, Tolman, etc.
Thanks for considering these comments.
Tanya Way inside Ashland March 12, 2014, 1:06 AM
The increase in population for this area warrants an immediate plan and installation of a public park similar to
the size of Garfield Park in Ashland. The affordable housing being proposed would undoubtedly increase the
number of families with children who would benefit immensely from a large park at this end of town. If quality-of-
life measures such as park size and placement cannot be maintained for residents along the eastern border of
the development, the south end of Ashland will likely see a large drop in property value, recreational activity for
families, and overall satisfaction of residents in this area: Beyond this, building homes on a 100-year flood plain
will put these homes at high risk for irreparable or expensive damages over time, and the natural beauty of this
area would be long gone. This is truly not going to add anything positive to Ashland. This plan needs to be
tabled and re-visited after more research and public works planning is completed.
Marni Koopman inside Ashland March 11, 2014, 5:06 PM
I attended the Charrette and some of the planning meetings. During the Charrette, every group but one
communicated that they did not want to see this new development have serious negative impacts to the
surrounding existing neighborhoods. They asked that it be designed to avoid creating new stressors such as
traffic and safety issues for neighborhoods along Normal Ave., Homes Ave., and Clay Street. These issues
were ignored and the development plan in its current state creates a large volume of traffic, congestion, and
safety issues along Normal Ave., Homes St., Clay St., and East Main St. These will be costly to rectify later, and
the tax payers and home owners on those streets will be the ones to pay the price. Because the corner of
Homes and Normal already has very high traffic from the proximity to ball fields, tennis courts, and schools, this
area will quickly be overwhelmed by traffic if 450 units are built with 2 cars per unit and multiple trips to and
from schools and downtown. I think that the planning for traffic has been inadequate and that the considerations
of the surrounding neighborhoods, their quality of life, safety, and housing values have not been adequately
addressed with this plan. I was also disappointed that the input from the Charrette participants was ignored.
My other comment is completely unrelated to the first one. I have been working for the City of Fort Collins to
help them plan for climate change, and they are currently working with private businesses and residences to
move their infrastructure OUT of the 100-year and 500-year flood plain due to increasing severity of storms with
climate change. This is expensive (the Woodward technology company, for instance, is moving its entire
campus out of the 500-year flood zone), yet the city is taking an active role in protecting its residents and
making businesses secure in their investments.
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 30, 2014, 1 0A8 AM hilpalpeakdemocracy carnll 738 Page 5 of 18
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Pleesa rwiew Ifte Erall Norm al Nelghaad Plan.
1) ieu ue wn'mn aemenra m gre pan you dlaagrea wire and weim.6-r s orue qan yna support end
Severe storms have already increased across the West and are expected to continue to increase. It is
irresponsible to put new development in 50-year and 100-year flood plains (not to mention 500-year) at this
time. Either those developments will need to be moved in the future, at great cost to the owners and tax payers,
or they will be damaged and peoples' livelihoods impacted by severe storms. While I support infill and the
avoidance of sprawl, there is no need to put peoples' investments and their safety at risk. Climate change is
here, it is affecting communities now, and we know better than to continue to do things that put people in
danger from natural disasters.
There is very high agreement among climate models that precipitation is expected to increase in the Pacific
Northwest, with more severe storms in the winter and dryer, hotter summers. This increases the likelihood of
flooding and water shortage. FEMA flood maps do not yet reflect the increasing risk over time, but they are
working to update their information using forward-looking projections rather than historical averages. I am
attaching a short overview of climate trends for the PNW that was produced by the US Global Change
Research Program. A link is provided in that summary for the full report, which provides in depth information on
current and future climate trends for this area. One sentence to note says "An increase in annual mean
precipitation is simulated for the majority of the Northwest U.S., for all future time periods and both emissions
scenarios. The CMIP3 models are mostly in agreement that precipitation will increase."
There is no excuse for excluding climate change considerations from any current planning efforts, as the
science is clear and accessible. Doing so puts people and infrastructure at risk and creates costs for families,
businesses, and local government decades from now. We are in a time of transition where our zoning
ordinances and development standards reflect historical conditions, but we fully understand that future
conditions will be quite different.
At one of the planning meetings, it was obvious that wetlands are not a valued feature and that they are
destroyed without much concern. I happen to value wetlands for their wildlife and aesthetic values, but can
understand that not everyone shares these values. However, I do want to point out that wetlands do provide
very important services to people, including water filtration, flood protection, and nature for kids to enjoy.
Because these wetlands are so close to the schools, they could be an important outdoor classroom for school
children. In fact, kids that spend time outdoors have been shown to do better in school and have fewer
behavioral problems, such as ADHD.
The wetlands also hold water during floods, releasing it slowly and protecting neighboring infrastructure. By
lining streams and channeling flows, we reduce the capacity of this "sponge" to function properly and protect us
during severe storms. This reduces community resilience.
Finally, I want to note that many communities in California, Montana, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Vermont,
Maryland, and many other states are taking proactive steps to protect their communities from climate change
and increase their resilience in the face of natural disasters and other stressors such as water shortage, dam
failure, heat waves, new diseases and disease vectors, etc. Ashland needs to become a leader in community
resilience rather than continue to plan and develop in the same ways as we have in the past. Ashland is a
progressive community, yet this development plan does not reflect our progressive roots and societal values.
Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me for more information.
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of Aunt W. M14,10:08 AM hap:11neakdemocragoorl Page 6 of 18
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Ream wale, Ned211Norr .114Byhholhic Plen,
1) Tall us which elements of
the qan pu disagree with ar-0wnicn elements or Ilse pan yw support arxi
Marni Koopman, Ashland Resident
1 Attachment
https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.c om/production/uploads/attachments/1255sg3yxjkw.3k4/NCA-
NW_Regional_Scenario_Summary_20130517_banner.pdf (1.18 MB)
Alma Alvarez inside Ashland March 10, 2014, 9:06 PM
Like many others that have posted comments, I have also participated in some of the planning sessions. While
understand that the city of Ashland would like to keep its growth within the boundary of the city, I was surprised
to see that the plan, after all of the residents' discussions still listed the possibility of up to 560 dwellings. Most
of the residents at the planning sessions attempted to "bargain down" the number to 450 units. While the plan is
made with an eye towards encouraging walking and biking as alternative modes of transportation, I am
concerned about the amount of traffic we will experience in the neighborhood if we were to have up to 560
units. The reality of modern living is that most households have at least two vehicles. The amount of traffic in
such a densely populated area would mean a lot of cars.
Like other Normal neighbors, I am concerned with maintaining the natural character of the area. I hope that our
city takes good care of preserving the wetlands and the natural life connected with it.
While I am not in support of the plan in terms of the proposed number of units, I do hope that our city makes a
commitment to having some of the units marked as affordable housing units.
Peter Halt outside Ashland March 10, 2014, 12:43 PM
I own one of the parcels on normal Avenue directly abuttiing the wetlands currently slated for development. I
currently have non-develop able wetlands in my back yard. There are several things concerned about this plan.
1. When I went to the planning commission meeting last week, it was apparent that the developers have no
real interest in preserving the rural feel of this neighborhood. While they are careful to talk about preserving the
wetlands, it is fairly clear that they are skeptical that wetlands exist or should exist on their property. Currently
the plan states that the adjoining property with designated wetlands on it will be zoned NN-02, allowing for 10
units per acre. There is a provision in this plan that allows them to increase the density of housing by 1.5 if any
portion of that lot is designated wetlands. That means that what is currently open space and in my backyard will
have housing at the density of 15 units per acre, where there is none right now. Is there a housing shortage so
grave that we need to put high density row houses into what is now unspoiled open land and wetlands? Is this
the only alternative, or are we bowing to pressure from monied developers? I haven't seen this density of
housing anywhere in Ashland. It makes no sense to drop it into the middle of farmland. Where are the studies
demonstrating a need for this type of housing? Even if all the property in question was zoned at NN-01, at 5
units per acre, this is an enormous number of small homes to add to the real estate market in Ashland.
2. 1 have heard concerns about the capacity of Ashland City water and sewer and that there have been
problems with the Clay street development. Has the city thoroughly explored it's capacity to support this huge
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 30, 2014, 10:08 AM http://peakd.mocracy.m/1738 Page 7 of 18
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Phase miaw IMCrzfl Nwnal NeghMNm] Wn:
11 ren ue wn'¢n Yemenis d un pan tau eL agree Mx eM wnvn eVmenm os M. psn yvu auoroH ana
acreage filled with homes?
3. Currently the plan states that Normal Avenue will open to East Main. There was some talk at the planning
commission meeting that this was a bad idea and will change to prevent Normal Ave from becoming a
thoroughfare. I would agree with that and hope that this wisdom prevails. That straight road opened up to East
main would be the most destructive feature of this plan if there is any true desire to preserve the "feel" of this
neighborhood.
4. Do those of us that don't want to be annexed, that moved here for the rural feel, get to keep our TID irrigation,
our horse and farm friendly zoning?
Carol Block / Nicole Lee outside Ashland March 10, 2014, 6:56 AM
would like to draw the Planning Commission and citizens of
Ashland's attention to a comment made by one of the other
posters who noticed that several trenches have appeared in
the southern section of designated Wetlands9 [Roxanne Jones
post of March 7, 2014]. In walking that area the last two days,
that person is absolutely correct in their observation!
These trenches serve only one purpose: to draw rainwater
away from the wetlands into a storm drain at the upper section
of the Ashland Middle School turnaround. It's an obvious, blatant
attempt to dry up the Wetlands of course. Some of these trenches
are new (within the last year based on the lack of vegetation I suspect).
You can even see the tractor marks! Why and who did this I wonder?
There is no doubt that this work was done to minimize and reshape
Wetlands9 in order to allow for higher density zoning allowance
on the property. If the wetlands dried up, the property owners
would have a larger footprint to build upon. If they have to mitigate
wetlands, a smaller parcel would have to be identified
(and not the 5.38 acres this wetland encompasses).
I do believe that a permit is required to do any soil disruption on
designated wetlands and includes a significant financial penalty.
I wonder whether a permit was obtained?
The Normal Neighborhood Plan is clearly the driver to having these
trenches pull water away from the area and the citizens of
Ashland should be up in arms over this. We should be nurturing
these wetlands, not destroying them to make room for homes,
retirement facilities, etc.
This is the second time a pro-development speculative landowner
has tried to minimize the designated wetlands on property they
own. The first report was when someone cut down several
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 30. 2014. 10 '09 AM hllpWoeakdemocreq.ooM1738 Page 8 of 18
a l Normal Neighborhood Plan
Ple:e -in-me d- Norma Neighborhood Nzn:
1l rall an worm alemama M he plan pu dlwone, with and when elements of the plan you suprytl and
Poplars and leveled out a section of their property.
Does the City/County care that this kind of behind the screen
destruction of naturescape is happening? I am sure the
Department of State Land does. And in the earlier case,
the developer was red tagged by DSL.
For those who live and love this area of Ashland, this is an
egregious act and I hope the Planning Commission is as
concerned with this deliberate act and understands the
motivation behind it. I hope these land owners are held
accountable and are required to restore that which they are
trying to destroy. These people should be ashamed of themselves.
https://fbcd n-sphotos-c-a. akamai hd. net/h p hotos-ak-
ash3/t1/p261x260/1488648_664526177532_65466OO52_n.jpg
5 Attachments
https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/l252ykfd8Ofk.4ro/photo.JPG (247 KB)
https:Hpd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/1252ykpnui74.3hn/photo2.JPG (337 KB)
https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/1252yl38l row.6g0/photo3.JPG (329 KB)
https:Hpd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/1252yldh6gds.4n7/photo4.JPG (347 KB)
https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/1252ylt46zls.61l/photo8.JPG (324 KB)
Karen Horn outside Ashland March 9, 2014, 9:53 PM
I live across Clay Street from the Normal. Neighborhood area. We were not brought into the planning process
when it started because, we were told by a city representative, we do not live within the area itself. Since then,
we have gone to many meetings about this plan, made statements at Planning Commission meetings, and
strategized with our neighbors on how to best make our opinions heard.
First, I commend the Planning Commission for even attempting to create a written plan for development rather
than allowing it to happen in the traditional way of waiting for developers to come forward with their own plans
and then saying yea or nay.
That said, I do not feel the finished plan reflects the opinions that I heard voiced in the meetings. Instead, a
group of consultants from out of town seems to have been let loose to do what they thought best, even though
they were missing some key pieces of information about public transportation on E. Main, the extent of the
wetlands on the property, and the latest urban planning ideas about how to create housing without wasted
space for front lawns. Unfortunately there is nothing innovative or interesting about this plan. It does not reflect
the best of what Ashland has to offer. I am not even sure that the people who wrote this pretty plan walked the
property even one time.
We recently spent many thousands of dollars to mitigate water damage in the crawl space of our house. All
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologii
As of April 30, 20141.10:08 AM hltuh/peakdemocrac oldi 738 Page 9 of 18
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Phown Meow the Jrzfl Nwnal NegM1EarMatl Flan:
t f Tell us whkh demems H the pan pu d,sagee with eM whM elements of the plen ou fuPWI eM
three of the housing developments along Clay Street south of us are plagued by water damage and the
constant remediation that is required because they were built over ancient creeks. The Normal Neighborhood is
not development-friendly; anyone who builds there would be wise to make a sale and get out before the next
wet year. Are those the kind of developers we want to encourage?
Another seemingly insurmountable problem with this Plan is that E. Main will never have a bus route. Public
transportation is necessary for a development of the size described in the Plan, and everyone involved repeats
that mantra. However, the county won't put a bus route on E. Main because right now there is not enough
demand for it and because there is no room for a bus to stop without holding up all traffic behind it. Forces
could be aligned to overcome these obstacles IF all parties agreed it was a vital goal to do so, but we are far
from that today.
The best use for the land in the Normal Neighborhood is agricultural. To grow plants, the overabundance of
ground water suddenly becomes a positive thing.
I have heard repeatedly through this planning process that using the land for community gardens is unrealistic
because we need more development here in Ashland. There is no shortage I see of housing for the wealthy, but
it is true that there is not enough low-income housing. The vision of protecting land outside the urban growth
boundary depends on urban infill. But why not do infill on the vacant lots on Ashland Street, just a few blocks
south? There is already a bus route there and lots of stores and restaurants to walk to.
I think protecting farmland by keeping sprawl inside the urban growth boundary is a good idea. But for those
who will live within the urban area, in condos on small lots without garden space, let's set aside parts within the
urban growth area as a place where they can grow food on small allotments, similar to the British system.
Let's face it: the challenge facing us in the future will not be to provide more and more newcomers with housing.
It will be to make our town more self-sufficient for the people who are living here now, in growing our own food,
reducing the miles that our food travels, and strengthening the community bonds that hold us together as we
are drawn forward into an increasingly uncertain future.
John Colwell outside Ashland March 7, 2014, 9:17 PM
Our committee has had opportunity to review Ashland Planning Commission's final draft of the Normal Street
project. This review has been disappointing and we feel that our requests and input were, if not ignored,
minimized and substituted with the planners own ideas of what they would like to see on our property. We were
continually advised to give input and we did.
We asked to have a zoning that would allow for a retirement facility to be included, we asked for the open area
to be based on a real wetland survey rather than an out of date best guess of the extent of the wetland size, we
asked for the required road to be moved and not be a straight through thoroughfare. Of these requests only the
last one was adopted and even with this there was another road, surreptitiously called an "alley", also placed on
our land. If this wasn't adding insult to injury we don't know what is.
Our current opinion is that we will not support this plan and will do anything we can to fight its adoption. We will
be at the Ashland City Council meeting when this is up for a vote and plan to discuss the leading way we were
drawn into this process only to have nothing we said be adopted despite the fact that we are a major land owner
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As pf April 30, 2014, 10:08 AM httpllpeakde.. acy.mmil738 Page 10 of 18
Normal Neighborhood Plan
%eeu mnew IMErefl NomuI NeghWm %an'
1) W m wnkn gemuls a me pan }ou ecegree.n h eM wh10 ekmen60l Pe pHn 1cu wplvn eM
within the boundaries of this project.
At issue first, is planning staff indicating that the wetland designation and the open spaces were to be
compensated by increased density zoning elsewhere in the plan. We were led to believe this meant on our land,
giving us a 15 unit per acre NN-03 zoning which would allow for density close to retirement facility
requirements.
Secondly there was no indication of a second transportation corridor on any plans we saw until the final one.
Now the planning staff think it is their prerogative to pull an alley out of our land also.
We are disappointed in our planning process and the lack of consideration given to property owner's concerns
and also with the promise to participate in a process that seems predetermined from its outset.
Sincerely: John Colwell and Ray Eddington for Gracepoint Church
Roxanne Jones outside Ashland March 7, 2014, 7:06 PM
When a change is instituted within a city it is not always a bad
thing, provided the change is being done for the right reasons. Many
people have asked, who is it that is wanting the Normal Plan? The vast
majority of the property owners who live on Normal Avenue, and the
surrounding neighborhoods, do not want any drastic changes to the
beautiful natural environment that currently exists. It was stated at
a city council meeting that Ashland currently has a surplus of housing
and will not be needing any additional housing in the next twenty
years. So, once again I ask, who is the plan for if it is not for
betterment of the neighborhood or the city Additionally, what's the
rush? Let's do things once, and do it right. It seems that the only
people who are intent on pushing this plan forward are speculators
looking to make a fast return on their investment. To do this, they
will attempt to convince us that high-density, high-impact housing
that replaces the natural beauty of one of the last undeveloped
parcels of county land adjacent to Ashland is required. Some of those
individuals don't even live in Ashland, and they will very likely take
their profit and leave without doing anything to enhance or contribute
to our local economy. Instead, Ashland residents will be left paying
for "improvements" to East Main Street and other areas within the
project site for years to come. I am in favor of developing a plan
that accommodates the city's future needs, but I ask you to stand with
me against a plan that irreparably damages the pristine acreage of
lower Normal Avenue, robbing our community of a great resource. A
successful plan will blend seamlessly with the existing environment.
Ashland is an exceptional town filled with a diverse cross-section of
residents who have chosen to live, work, shop, donate their time and
resources, and educate their children in this uniquely progressive and
open-minded town. Those of us who have lived here for many years have
a high benchmark for what constitutes an improvement. Standards exist
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
A. of Ap6130.2016, 10:08 AM http://peakdem.cy..m/1738 Page 11 of 18
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Pleue waiex IM1e E2fl Narmsl
e thin n WROai Part.
1) cell us wM1icM1 rJemens IX IM1 pu tllsa0me with aM wM1i,h elements of the plan you suppar, and
that make it seem straightforward for a city to pave roads, install
utilities, and designate dwellings here and there. However, Ashland is
not Anytown, U.S.A. We hold ourselves to high standards, and as such
we expect more of ourselves and our neighbors. To that end, our city
council does works tirelessly to protect our interests for our
community today as well as for future generations. There has been a
tremendous amount of work and dialogue invested into the Normal Plan,
but we are still waiting for a version which we can stand behind.
Before that can happen, we will need to address the following
questions:
1. Why is the City of Ashland not more concerned about destroying the
rural nature of the land?
2. Why have we not chosen to celebrate and preserve the excellent soil
in the Normal Plan area and set aside an extensive amount of acreage
to be used as a community garden by the neighborhood that could also
be conveniently accessed by the middle school to provide learning
opportunities?
3. Why must many of the streets be so massively wide, some in excess
of 50 feet, that they will end up looking like Anywhere U.S.A.?
4. What would the cost savings to the project be if the streets had a
smaller footprint?
5. What will happen to the thousands of birds and other wildlife who
currently call this area home?
We are already seeing a lack of respect for nature in the Normal Plan
area. It has been stated by others at city council meetings that one
developer indiscriminately cut down trees and made an attempt to
diminish a creek bed, another developer has blocked the flow of runoff
water so that it now poses a threat to an existing neighborhood, and
it also appears that the largest wetland in Ashland, Wetland 9, has
been extensively altered this past year. Someone used a tractor to dig
a series of lengthy trenches to direct the wetland water away from the
ecosystem it supports and into a storm drain, and then they cleared a
massive area of the wetland of all vegetation. These acts of
environmental destruction are deliberate, on-going, and being carried,
out furtively on multiple properties with the end-goal of diminishing
the wetland area. Smaller wetland, more room to build. This is only
the first taste of the environmental degradation, motivated by
financial gain, that will completely destroy the ecosystem of Wetland
9 and the area surrounding lower Normal Avenue if the current plan is
All On Forum Statements sorted chronolaglcelly
As of April 30. 2014, 10:08 AM hI1p:11peakdemocrary.mmlt 738 Page 12 of 18
Normal Neighborhood Plan
%eeu miaw tae dafl Normal Negelwr Plan:
1)Tallaswnkn memmkWme ri-y d..,- .1h .,d hi. 0 M. 0.1 and
approved.
The Normal Plan represents the largest area that could possibly be
incorporated into the city, so let's continue working on this plan
until a vision that maintains the current beauty and rural feel can be
effectively meshed with the potential for additional housing some
twenty years down the line when the housing is actually needed.
Sue DeMarinis outside Ashland March 6, 2014, 3:20 PM
I have reviewed and participated in every public meeting regarding the Normal Neighborhood Plan (NNP) since
the first Charette in 2012. Every iteration and discussion of the Plan slightly changes the look of the potential
zoning, roads and open spaces.
I agree that there should be open spaces preserved/protected within this area. I commend the planners in their
vision to do so. However, in the latest zoning map (Feb.25, 2014), there appeared an overlay of NN-02 zoning
under the open space designations. Is the plan able to double zone lands within the NNP just in case a private
land owner is able to mitigate their designated natural/wetland area off their land? What happens then to the
overall "green space" as envisioned for the whole NNP? What compensation would be given, and by whom, to
land owners if they must have their land zoned for public use as a green space/park or road? What if a land
owner wanted to preserve their private farming rights where a public park or road is delineated?
The transportation network is currently designed for connections between E. Main and Ashland Street, but the
egresses onto E. Main should follow the density zoned for the eastern half of the NNP. To add another exit on
the western half creates three real concerns regarding safety for the children at the AMS school bus
turnaround, crossing through a State designated wetland, and exiting onto a blind curve of E. Main St. If that
cut-through street doesn't exist, then the new meandering road network within the NNP will truly be for the new
residents. Otherwise, I see this western egress becoming a problem as a regularly used alternative vehicle
route between the major boulevards in order to avoid the congestion and school speed zones on Walker Ave. A
pervious surface (not paved), multi-use path toward AMS would serve the NNP community better, preserve our
wetland resource, and encourage a green lifestyle and safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Also, the transportation map shows paved neighborhood streets, shared streets, and alleyways all going
through planned conservation areas and current State Designated Wetlands. Shouldn't impact studies and
delineations be mandatory with this plan before locating roads through sensitive areas and established wildlife
corridors, as well as for the effect these roads would have on storm water drainage, aquifer recharge and soil
compaction?
My overall impression of the NNP is that it is being driven by consideration for development and not much
concern given to the impact on the existing neighborhood/environment. System development charges are said
will be included in developer's permits, but there will be hidden costs to all the citizens of Ashland for overall
improvements to its sewer, water treatment, roads and RR crossings. And, no one has specifically stated what
the mandatory "local improvements, or neighborhood LID" will cost the current residents already in the Normal
Neighborhood who may not want these "improvements".
Thank you for listening,
Sue DeMarinis
Ashland, OR 97520
Jean Taylor inside Ashland March 5, 2014, 2:41 PM
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of April X 2014. 10'08 AM hm:/1peakdemMMCycom/1738 Page 13 of 18
Normal Neighborhood Plan
RBBSB IBViW IM1B 0211 Normal aeghl,ornaoP Plan
1)Tell oa wM1kM1 elamenlc aI1M1e pan p duaBrea wlh and whi aW-as al W. Man you supprl ena
oppose this development. As with all recent housing developments, Ashland has been attempting to infill as
much as possible, which leads to the most houses possible crammed into a little area. I think this policy causes
unattractive homes with very little space between neighbors.
The proposed "green space" is not enough.
And, as others have mentioned, has anyone asked for this development or is it just a way to spend grant
money?
jonathan seidler inside Ashland March 5, 2014, 9:17 AM
I have attended all the study groups and have come away with a couple of disturbing facts that none here have
alluded to. First is the total size of the proposed annexation. 90+ acres creates a guaranteed scenario of
piecemeal development. This has been addressed as fact during comment time from developers at the study
groups. It is a fact not disputed and over how many years the plan becomes realized is anyones guess. Real
estate being very cyclical and risky in itself provides the scenario of abandoned efforts and a checkerboard
effect of muddy half developed blocks amongst finished efforts. It has been put forth at the meetings that it is
likely development would migrate in a southern direction from E. Main as primary services would begin there as
it is the most cost effective starting point and the lure of the most profitable sales. The next point that has been
made numerous times is the whereabouts of, if any, of wetlands. The developers have made numerous
assertions that there are NO wetlands and that the "creeks" are presently irrigation flows during season and
that their flows can be manipulated as so to make their presence as minimum and as invisible as possible.
I would hope the council will address the fact of how large this annexation is and how little experience it has
with one this size. I hope the council will only annex proposals ready to proceed with a guarantee that
incidentals are in place to incorporate and promote to connecting properties for their future development. I hope
the council does NOT back down on promoting wet land creation and preservation. If a developer then feels
that he/she is losing their economic viability then they can raise their prices accordingly and see if the risk pans
out in the market they've entered. People here need to understand that annexation does not
mean that Ashland owns the land. Creating market gardens,sporting ovals,stomping grounds,etc, are all at the
expense of the developers so it is likely the proposals will attract minimum expense when costs are considered.
Angelina McClean inside Ashland March 3, 2014, 10:07 PM
I appreciate the effort that has been made so far to try to accommodate so many different interests in the
community.
Personally, I would like to see this area as undeveloped as possible. I don't know how realistic that is, but I am
interested to know if considerations and studies have been or will be made concerning the environmental
impacts that more development will have on this area.
Specifically, I am concerned about the wetlands and if the proposed buffer zones are adequate. How did this
area fare after the heavy rains we had recently, and how would that differ once it is developed?
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 30, 2014, 1 0:08 AM hdp://peekdemmmcy.mm/1738 Page 14 of 18
1.7 W he IhP all -.1 -al NPt,hEPTUM Plan Normal Neighborhood Plan
1) Pall uawnlcn ela,,mem a the pan wP elsagree vnm aM wmmh elemenk W me pHn ya nupyan Pip
I am also curious about wildlife impact studies. I have heard there are owls, foxes, and other sensitive wildlife in
the area. Is their habitat and mobility being taken into consideration? Do any species, like birds or waterfowl rely
on this area for migration or overwintering?
However this project plays out, I would like to add my support to the few who have already suggested a
community garden. Natural, open spaces, parks, and community gardens are all things that will increase the
value of our community far into the future. Lately I have seen articles about food forest plans that are cropping
up in places like Seattle and Austin. I tried to paste a photo of the plans for the Austin food forest, but am only
able to link to the webpage. It's worth considering.
The article is at: www.austinchronicle.com
The plans for the food forest are at:
http://festival beachfoodforest.weebly. com/food-forest-pla ns. htm I
Margaret Garrington inside Ashland March 3, 2014, 4:16 PM
Provide multi use path connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians separate from streets. Link East Main bike
path via a multi use path through the Normal neighborhood to the existing bike path to the south, and also
create a western path link to the middle school. Shared streets are inconsistent with safety concerns when you
have the opportunity to create separate transportation byways.
Also designate place holders for public art and require developers to set aside a certain percent of development
costs for multi use paths, parks, and public art.
Jan Vidmar inside Ashland March 3, 2014, 10:31 AM
Jan Vidmar inside Ashland
I support the Normal Plan with two caveats. The proposed development of land adjacent to Cemetery Creek,
just close to the railroad tracks, is currently designated NN-02. It makes more sense to have single family
homes, similar to the homes currently built along Normal. In other words, like facing like and designated NN-
01. Ashland has very few "below the boulevard" neighborhoods with large yards.
My second concern is the flow of Cemetery Creek. Although the creek is not always visible, walking through
the wetland area is a soggy affair. A wetland does not always present itself with lakes, stream flow and ducks.
Cemetery Creek should be considered a pathway for drainage. At times, after a hard rain, the creek flows and
the water has a way to proceed from the hills to the valley floor. Any development that blocks that flow
potentially puts home owners in flood peril. The current Normal Plan has homes and roads that would
potentially impede this water flow.
Michael Shore outside Ashland February 28, 2014, 2:19 PM
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 30, 2014, 1 0:08 AM hit,11peekdemocsacy wnralt]38 Page 15 of 18
I Normal Neighborhood Plan
11Pleasereu .s .miewmh warrants mna dine pan pan WTM Plan:
rou ai.aoma.an ena.nim ammam: of the pan we .uoronand
The process that arrived at this plan was fueled in part by a grant of money from the state.
Part of the motive for this plan was described as finding a way to comply with rules laid out by the state
pertaining to sprawl.
Any plan like this would bump into the freedom of use that property owners would like to assume as rights vs
the ability of either the state or the town to exert some controls on that use.
This is a perfect set up for a turf battle. In an effort to find a middle ground some interested parties were invited
to the "table", some were not.
Certain developers made it clear that they would move forward to get the most value out of the land. I presume
that value would be measured in dollars extracted.
Some factions thought that with the "right amount" of preservation and beautification , controlled density would
be abided....... so long as the density was not in proximity to them.
What ever you believe about the power of special interests in determining policy, in this plan you can find
evidence of owners and developers and government entities striving to get what they want.
I think it is good for citizens to work hard to arrive at compromise. However some citizens represented ideas
without the so called authority of ownership. Are mere residents and neighbors people who have legitimate
claims to voice in the outcome? Are land owners the only legitimate voices in this decision?
During the discussions some important points were raised and important questions went unanswered.
Streets, safety,sewage, water, cost of fire protection, actual connectivity to public transit, cost of maintaining the
proposed "natural" areas, these were all costs and conditions left hanging.
Meanwhile some suggestions regarding the loss of beauty, habitat and ground water recharging area were
received as charming but crank notions un related to the pragmatic business of real estate investment or
satisfaction of State mandates.
The plan arises from a need to control a blight called sprawl. The proponents say that at least there needs to be
a plan because without a plan chaotic growth will be worse.
I believe Ashland should annex the land and create a demonstration farm providing organic food for the local
institutions, training and employment for the local interested citizens and yes some low income housing for
those who choose to work and learn full time in the created facility.
I believe over time we will look back on a plan that decreased Ashland's dependence on imported food,
increased Ashland's influence on food quality with a civic pride in non GMO local seeds and maintained the
beautiful view and free space of the Normal area acres with the pleasure that comes from seeing a secured
and precious conservation plan in action. The Ashland Organic project would be one more reason for tourists,
eco tourists, to visit and be enriched by our embrace of sustainable culture.
Barry Vitcov inside Ashland February 28, 2014, 11:58 AM
I'm happy to see how the latest version of the Normal Neighborhood Plan has changed the area immediately
north of Creek Drive to NN-02. This makes sense as it better blends the Meadowbrook Park Estates community
to whatever might be developed in that area. I'm also pleased with the amount of open space in the plan.
However, the NN-02 designated areas to the land west of Meadowbrook Park Estates and the adjacent open
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 30, 2014, 10:08 AM ptlpalpeakdemocracy comet 738 Page 16 of 18
at NagM1M1OrLCW Plan Normal Neighborhood Plan
Pbasa lice-tae e-h Norm'.
1) Tell us which elements of the Plan you dmagree wan eN which elements of fine Plan Wu support and
space does not seem appropriate. I believe that entire area, with the possible exception of the NN-02
designation that abuts North Main Street, ought to be designated NN-01. It doesn't make sense to me to have a
swathe of higher density housing cut through what is now larger single-family parcels. There are increasingly
fewer opportunities for families to purchase homes with significant yard space in Ashland, and I think it would
be a good idea to reserve some potential for that type of property.
Barbara Comnes inside Ashland February 28, 2014, 10:13 AM
The plan does not directly address possible changes in railroad crossings. I live north of the Railroad District
across the tracks and am very interested in seeing the 4th Street rail crossing be developed at least for
pedestrians, if not for cars. I am concerned that the Normal Neighborhood Plan could remove the possibility of
developing the 4th Street crossing. The distance between safe rail crossings with sidewalks and access to
people with mobility issues in this part of town is one mile, which seems unacceptable for this most central
location that blends housing with commercial activity, promoting a green lifestyle.
Priscilla Hunter inside Ashland February 28, 2014, 7:04 AM
There are a couple of confusing items in your plan that I thought you'd like to know about.
1. In your list of housing types, your second category is a Double Dwelling Residence Unit, which I believe one
would also call a duplex. You describe it as a pair of self-contained living facilities existing in either a side-by-
side or a stacked configuration. I point out first that this housing type also exists in an "L" configuration. (This
category appears to be a form of the Attached Residential Unit, your category 5, which seems to refer to the
triplex or, as suggested by one of your photos, even the quatriplex structure, without reaching the housing
capacity of the Multiple Dwelling Residential Unit, your category 6).
2. The third residential unit type listed in your plan is an Accessory Residential Unit (you describe it as a small
living unit sharing a lot with a Single Dwelling Residential Unit). It is apparently a structure one would call a
cottage, and, although you don't mention that word in your description of it, it does seem to be the same thing
as what you call Cottage later in your report. It is clearly not the same thing as your second category in this list
of housing forms, a Double Dwelling Residential Unit or your fifth category, an Attached Residential Unit. You
have apparently listed the Accessory RU (cottage) as zoned for NN-01, NN-02, and NN-03. Later in your chart
showing target housing density in each zoning district, the Cottage is the second category you have listed.
However it does not appear to be included as a permitted structure in zones 02 and 03, which seems to
contradict what you have said about the Accessory RU in the earlier part of your plan.
I hope you find this helpful information.
Brian Kolodzinski inside Ashland February 27, 2014, 9:44 PM
I support the project overall but was surprised when I got to the end and read there was no city water or sewer
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
A. of April 30, 2014, 10.00 AM htlpl1peakdencral,,ofernli]38 Page 17 of 18
Normal Neighborhood Plan
1) TO.s wiIMC211N I Neg~M4.
1) TeP u w h'.~ Nemenb d d IN qan pu d. Eifa9ree wi111 eM xTkli eNmenb oI1M pbn yw suOryN eM
service. Is this true for all developments in that part of town? I also hope there would not be too many roadways
over streambeds. The natural layout of the area should be incorporated into the design of the neighborhoods as
much as permissible. In addition to the open spaces, it would be nice to see some community gardens for
residents that are residing in the higher density dwellings.
Steve Read inside Ashland February 27, 2014, 7:26 PM
First a question: Who or what is driving this project, ie. what needs does it fulfill. Did the neighborhood request
changes?
Second: The story about the trains blocking emergency vehicles must be a really old one as there have been
almost no trains for 10 years or so. Inserting that scare tactic into the discussion destroys the credibility of the
entire project. If you will use scare tactics to sell your project then I will never support it. Your credibility has
been damaged.
Jim Curty outside Ashland February 27, 2014, 5:15 PM
I stand in opposition to the plan. Roadways have been planned without listening to the owners. The size of
wetland W9 is grossly overstated. As a representative of land that will be procured for roads... we feel that use
of our land is being decided without our future plans being taken into consideration. (Two roads across the
land!) We do not want to stand in the way of progress, but the plan means our land will no longer be able to be
developed in any way that would enhance our mission.
Donald Stone inside Ashland February 27, 2014, 4:00 PM
I have no objection to the plan. However, my concern would be whether or not the residents of the Normal
Neighborhood have been active in wanting and requesting these changes. If not, and they are simply "victims"
of another City Administration pie in the sky "improvement plan" similar to the Plaza renovation, then I would
favor the City just butting out and considering that it likely ain't broke so don't try to fix it.
Don Stone
395 Kearney St
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
Ae of April 30, 2014, 10:08 AM http: lpeakdemoc com/1]38 Page 18 of 18