Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-0901 Council Agenda PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written continents to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permitting, the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to speak, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL September 1, 2015 Council Chambers 1175E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.] 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Study Session of August 17, 2015 2. Business Meeting of August 18, 2015 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Annual presentation by the Conservation Commission 2. Presentation on NOAA's Storm Ready program VII. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum] VIII. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees 2. Award of contract to apparent low bidder for the Oak Street railroad crossing pedestrian improvement IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Public hearings shall COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9, OR ON CHARTER CABLE CHANNEL 180. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council, unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) until up to 10:30.p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda.) 1. Public hearing and reading of ordinances titled, "An ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to add a Normal Neighborhood plan designation to Chapter II [Introduction and Definitions], add the Normal Neighborhood land categories to Chapter IV [Housing Element], 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 supporting document to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan" and ,'An ordinance amending the Street Dedication map, Planned Intersection and Roadway Improvement map, and the Planned Bikeway Network map of the Ashland Transportation System plan for the Normal Neighborhood plan area and amending street design standards within the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 18.4.6 to add a new shared street classification" and "An ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code creating a new Chapter 18.3.4 Normal Neighborhood District, amending Chapter 18.2.1.020 to add a Normal Neighborhood zoning classification, and amending Chapter 18.2.1.040 to add a Normal Neighborhood Special District." X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. 8t" Quarterly Financial Report of the 2013-15 Biennium XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS None XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIV. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9, OR ON CHARTER CABLE CHANNEL 180. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US City Council Study Session August 17, 2015 Pagel of 3 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 17, 2015 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Council Chair Marsh called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Councilor Voisin, Morris, Seffinger, and Lemhouse were present. Mayor Stromberg and Councilor Rosenthal were absent. 1. Public Input Louise Shawkat/870 Cambridge/Explained Council could individually endorse the Our Critical Climate: Trends, Impacts & Solutions - a Rogue Basin Summit occurring in October. Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Stated that the baseline for greenhouse gas emissions was one third housing, one third cars, one third factories and defined the energy signature. He asked that the City measure and inventory emissions to establish targets. 2. Look Ahead review City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead. 3. Discussion of parking regulations, penalties, and enforcement City Attorney Dave Lohman explained Council was responsible for setting and monitoring policy. The Municipal Court Judge took the policies the City had and adjudicated cases. The Downtown Parking Management and Circulation ad Hoc Advisory Committee initially questioned if it was feasible for the City to make changes to better maximize parking capacity in the downtown area. They also questioned whether parking fines were too low. The current parking was $7 with a $4 surcharge. A prior judge actually set the $7 fine that was unprecedented because judges did not normally set fines. Staff developed an ordinance that made it clear Council had the authority to set fines and have amounts addressed during the annual miscellaneous fees review. Other issues staff wanted Council to address were whether penalties were overly complicated, how to do enforcement and the cost associated with enforcement. Mr. Lohman updated the 2015 Ashland Municipal Court Ticket Processing Statistics from Diamond Parking document explaining 2015 went through April. Total Citations for 2015 were currently 7,770 with 247 appealed, 74 upheld in full, 136 reduced to zero and not dismissed and 37 dismissed. Operations Manager Linda Fait from Diamond Parking added more citations occurred during the tourist season, Christmas, and when it snowed. Mr. Lohman explained there were two types of dismissals, Administrative and Judicial. Administrative dismissals occurred when Diamond Parking issued a ticket then determined it was not appropriate. They would recommend a dismissal to the judge. In 2014, there were 104 judicial dismissals and 130 administrative dismissals. Diamond Parking also produced a scofflaw report and in 2015 to date, there were 51 different vehicles with more than 4 parking citations in a calendar year and I 1 1 with four tickets. Revenues from violations were small at approximately $135,000 a year. In 2014, the Court judicially appealed 3.75% citations. Municipal Court Judge Pamela Turner explained parking appeals were a small part of the process. The 419 appeals she dismissed resulted in approximately $6,285 not paid in fines. The remaining citations were paid, sent to collections, or booted. All parking revenue went into the General Fund. She distributed a Citation Disposition form and submitted into the record. The form came to her attached to City Council Study Session August 17, 2015 Page 2 of 3 an appeals packet that contained a copy of the citation, photos, past parking history and notes from Diamond Parking. She reviewed each packet, sometimes driving to the scene for further research. Judge Turner focused on education, prevention, and prevention through education, compassion, and being firm when needed. Often she dismissed fines for people with no prior parking citations. Although dismissed, the ticket remained on record as dismissed with Diamond Parking. Dismissing fines for no prior tickets occurred only for people who appealed the citation, not those that paid their ticket directly. Reducing a fine to zero was a gesture of good will for the court. Often the Judge would write a note to the individual for educational purposes. Ms. Fait explained appeals regarding financial hardship were rare and usually came from individuals who received several tickets and accrued penalties. Diamond Parking notified owners of delinquent parking tickets and the need to contact them regarding payment or a payment plan. Judge Turner noted issues with 15-minute parking zones and California drivers with disabled placards. In California, drivers with disabled placards could legally park in 15-minute parking spaces for extended periods and loading zones. The Court worked with the Oregon Shakespeare Festival who now displayed parking rules in their pamphlets. She recommended creating a guide on parking in Ashland. Another area of confusion for drivers was head in only parking. In 2014, 74 people received enhanced penalty tickets and only four appealed. The remaining people paid the fines, it went collections, or they had their vehicle booted. If fines increased, tickets might increase temporarily but would most likely remain the same. The initial fine in the City of Medford was $25 that went to $50 after thirty days and did not incur additional surcharges. The block phase rule pertained to one side of the street between two intersecting streets. If a person moved their vehicle 1-2 stalls forward, Diamond Parking will issue them a warning notice explaining once a vehicle parked on a block, the time continued to run. The block phase warning lasted two years. The second time they received a ticket. This also applied to timed parking lots. The surcharge was not difficult for Diamond Parking to administer on a one-time basis. It could become time consuming if an individual appealed the same citation multiple times. Receiving penalties on the fourth and fifth tickets did not deter a person from parking downtown. The majority of people paid their tickets. Parking studies indicated one two-hour parking spot equated to an average of $20 spent in retail and could generate $32,000 annually for that retail business. Names on the scofflaw list were not public information. Diamond Parking tracked license plates, not individuals. A person's vehicle became eligible for booting when the owner accrued over $250 in unpaid fines. Individuals received notification prior to booting. If the individual had multiple cars, they could put all of them on one payment plan. However, the agreement stated failure to make payments could result in collecting the whole amount on one vehicle and booting that car. It remained car specific until an individual signed the payment plan agreement. Council supported a comprehensive revision of the current ordinance and possibly combining Ashland Municipal Code 11.24 and 11.28. They were interested in making the code consistent with the City of Medford, and possibly having vehicles booted when fines reached $150 versus $250. Council majority agreed to drop the surcharge and increase the base fee. Comments suggested a comparison with the City of Medford's ordinance. City Council Study Session August 17, 2015 Page 3 of 3 Ms. Fait explained the block rule replaced the downtown employee parking rule. This prevented employees from shuffling parking spaces in the downtown area instead of finding long-term parking for their workday. Council would come back to the block phase rule once the parking study was complete. Council was not in favor of eliminating financial hardship, and supported reducing the fine to zero, and keeping the ticket on the record. Council also wanted the authority to set parking fines through resolution. Ms. Fait clarified people could pay fines with a credit card. There was no indication on the ticket itself and when they reordered stock, they would include verbiage that Diamond Parking accepted credit cards. Meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder Ashland City Council Meeting August 18, 2015 Page 1 of 9 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 18, 2015 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Forest Lands, Public Arts, Health and Human Services, and Transportation Commissions and the Bee City USA subcommittee. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilor Rosenthal amended the minutes of the Study Session of August 3, 2015 to clarify his remarks on page 3, last paragraph, and second sentence to read as follows, "Councilor Rosenthal didn't remember the question of additional staffing put forward to Council. There may have been an add-package that was not recommended. Council needs to consider staffing considerations early in the budget process, not on the last night of the budget deliberations." An additional correction added Councilor Morris to the attendance section of the meeting. The Study Session minutes were approved as amended. The minutes of the Executive Session of August 3, 2015 and Business Meeting of August 4, 2015 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Forest Lands Commission Chair Frank Betlejewski provided the annual presentation on the Forest Lands Commission. Current projects included looking into rerouting trails, and the 2016 Ashland Forest Plan revision timeline currently under a first tier review. Second tier review would begin December 2015, final formatting March 2016 and a presentation to City Council April 2016. He described a Geographic Information System on the city website that enabled the multiple departments to share information and collaborate. The current focus for the Commission was the social chapter that involved education, history, surveys, and watershed art. Councilor Lemhouse thanked Mayor Stromberg for his efforts with the Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) and noted a recent award the Mayor received from Washington DC for his dedication and work with the community to improve and sustain conditions in the Ashland watershed and ensure finding for the AFR project. Councilor Seffinger commented on the Forestlands Commission's hard work, expertise, and dedication. PUBLIC FORUM Madeline Hill/857 Mountain Meadows Drive/Wanted Council to add repeat violations of the fire code to the nuisance ordinance in the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 9.18 and wanted the City to review Will Dodge Way. Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Explained smart grids, micro grids, and micro regions and described how they worked. Rich Miller/507 Tucker Street/Thanked the Public Works Director and City officials for turning the Talent Irrigation District (TID) water back on in their area. Ashland City Council Meeting August 18, 2015 Page 2 of 9 Joseph Kauth/482 Walker Street/The Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) project could contribute to global warming and climate change. There was a connection to increased lightening strikes and plastic covered flash piles from the AFR project. He recommended drug tests for politicians. Mayor Stromberg moved the Downtown Beautification project update before the Consent Agenda with permission from Council. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Downtown Beautification project update Engineering Services Manager Scott Fleury explained Council approved a list of projects for staff to proceed with design and construction. The projects selected for this phase included the corner on Winburn Way, the Plaza, the corner of Lithia Way and Pioneer Street, and the Pioneer Street parking lot. Staff recommended rejecting two formal bids and Council agreed. An informal process resulted in selecting KenCairn Landscape Architects and Covey Pardee Landscape Architects for the projects. Due to concern regarding tree removal at the Pioneer Street Parking lot, staff wanted to postpone that discussion to the September 1, 2015 meeting and focus on the corner of Winburn Way, the Plaza, and the corner of Pioneer Street and Lithia Way instead. Mr. Fleury was aware of the request by the Historic Commission to delay the Plaza improvements pending their review of the proposal. City Administrator Dave Kanner clarified there was no explicit basis for the Historic Commission to review the proposal in the code. It was within Council's discretion to postpone an item at the request of a commission. Councilor Voisin relayed the Historic Commission's concern they were not given the opportunity to review the plans for the Plaza for the second time. They wanted to review the plan during their September meeting. Council agreed to let the Historic Commission review the plan as well as Council comments from the present meeting. Alan Pardee from Covey Pardee Landscape Architects explained the proposed Plaza improvements included a low railing, replacing trampled plants, and adding three planter pots. People walked through the central planters regularly. The City could remove the rail and possibly use it in other areas. The planter pots were sturdy and used in shopping centers, 4-feet in diameter with rocks in the bottom for drainage. Council expressed concern people would use the planter pots as ashtrays. Other Council comments liked the planter pots, were interested in different sizes but had concerns regarding the low railing and wanted it to be temporary. The Plaza was a gathering place with plantings. Replacing the plants were a cost of doing business. Alternately, the low railing could cause public safety issues for large crowds. Councilor Lemhouse raised a point of order on whether Council needed a motion to forward the Plaza plan to the Historic Commission and if the motion would include Council comments. Mayor Stromberg explained he was trying to move a project forward that had incurred delays and bring it to resolution and not trying to stifle comments. A motion would allow Council to add specific comments during the discussion. Councilor Voisin raised a point of order that Council had agreed to forward the plan to the Historic Commission and to make a motion would ignore the fact they may have important input. Council comments were in the minutes and the Commission could read those. Mayor Stromberg sustained Councilor Voisin's point of order. Councilor Lemhouse/Voisin m/s to refer Council comments and discussions regarding the Plaza to Historic Commission for review and comments. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Kerry KenCairn from KenCairn Landscape Architects addressed the improvements to the corner of Pioneer Street and Lithia Way. The issue for Council and the community was removing the trees. To her, the corner Ashland City Council Meeting August 18, 2015 Page 3 of 9 appeared blighted and the hardscape was falling apart and dangerous. There was no way to upgrade the hardscape without removing the trees already there. The trees were Red Maples and not the right tree for the space. She considered the area an urban site that had perpetuity. The current landscape was brick walls holding up depleted soil and people were kicking the bricks over. People were also sitting in, on, and parking their bikes inside the planter areas. Accessibility was poor for a prominent public corner. Her design would improve functionality. People could sit on the walls without destroying the landscape. It would make it difficult to get bicycles and other things into the landscape itself and make the area accessible. Red maples were not urban trees and would eventually start lifting the sidewalks. She spoke to an arborist who thought the trees would start falling apart soon. The recommendation was remove the trees, rebuild the corner, and plant suitable trees for an urban environment and create a hardscape that was safe and functional. The owner of the building did not want the extra access removed. The plan would replace two of the three trees removed. There was a sequence of the same trees lining Pioneer Street. They would remove one and replace it with a different variety that would have better conditions to grow. The current tree was root bound and there was no way to Lmdo existing damage. There was a way to create a situation with structural soil, increased soil volume and a wider collar in the sidewalk that would create a healthier growing situation for the tree. Ms. KenCairn could revise the plan to retain the trees but the only kind of walls that could go in there without footings would be the same stack block walls. If they retained one of the trees, no other plants could go in that area and it would be difficult to invigorate the depleted soil. She was not sure it was the right way to go. Retaining the tree and digging footings for the wall would cut major roots and kill the tree. Currently, there were little signs of the sidewalk lifting due to the tree roots. Ms. KenCairn had designed a method using rubber sidewalks that allowed tree roots to grow and made the sidewalk malleable. However, this was a highly urban corner where a quarter inch of pavement rising could create accessibility issues. The seat walls allowed the upper and lower sidewalk to co-exist. People were already sitting around the public art piece. A seat wall around the sculpture created a better situation for sitting. She discussed paver color with Council and recommended neutral tones. The seat wall would be lower on one side and people would not be able to sit there. Councilor Marsh/Voisin m/s to ask the project to go back to see if one or three trees could be saved in this rendition. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh had high regard for Ms. KenCairn's design skills but Ashland was experiencing an elevated concern about saving trees. Projects were coming forward and the response regarding tree removal was the species was wrong and the existing tree was not doing well. That applied to almost 80% of the street trees in Ashland. At some point, the City needed to make the trees thrive instead of removing them. Other influences compounded the issue making saving trees a high priority. Councilor Voisin wanted to save all three trees. It connected with the rest of downtown and was important to respect the people who originally planted the trees. They might not be the right kind now but at some point, there was consent it was the right way to go. Councilor Lemhouse agreed with Councilor Marsh. Some of the concerns brought forward were valid enough to ask the experts to go back and look at other options. Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to amend the main motion that Council approve in concept the rest of the plan outside of the tree removal. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh added some of the concepts would not work if they retained the trees. Councilor Rosenthal questioned the availability of funds for the additional contract design. Mr. Fleury responded staff would require additional funding past the original contract's amount that will need Council approval. Change orders were acceptable up to 25%, anything above that Council needed to approve. Councilor Seffinger was concerned the amendment restricted the ability to save the trees. Councilor Morris disagreed with the amendment. Asking the architect to save the trees would change the design drastically. Councilor Voisin thought Council needed to be clear on what the priority was and thought the amendment Ashland City Council Meeting August 18, 2015 Page 4 of 9 confused the clarity. She would not support the amendment. Councilor Lemhouse clarified the concept was good. Any possible changes needed to save the trees would come forward. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Marsh, and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Voisin, Seffinger, and Morris, NO. Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a YES vote. Motion passed 4-3. Continued discussion on amended motion: Councilor Morris explained Ms. KenCairn was trying to give Council the best possible project. The boxes the City planted trees in were too small and substandard. Enlarging the box might help but it would take away part of the required sidewalk width and he doubted they could retain the tree on Pioneer Street. He would like to retain the trees but did not want issues with the sidewalk and wall that resulted in their removal 4-5 years from now. Councilor Voisin thought there might be another way of looking at the project that could save the trees. She would support the motion. Councilor Seffinger would support the motion. Trees in the downtown were important for a variety of reasons and it would take years for new trees to provide benefits. Councilor Rosenthal thought the motion was asking for another option that incorporated the existing trees. It would come back to Council and might not be a feasible option for the long-term. Roll Call Vote on amended Main Motion: Councilor Voisin, Rosenthal, Seffinger, Marsh, and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Morris, NO. Motion approved 5-1. Ms. KenCairn noted James Urban developed a structural soil method currently required in the City of Medford for all new street trees. This technique provided enough oxygen so tree roots would not lift sidewalks and produced trees that thrived. Mr. Pardee recommended the City do an aggressive inventory of the trees downtown. From his experience structural soil was working. There were some instances where natural soil worked but most did not. Ms. KenCairn explained getting oxygen and water down into the root zone of current street trees would help strengthen the existing canopy. There were strategies that would work except for trees already root bound. Mr. Pardee added tree roots developed root memory and as they started to circle a tree, even if they had more room, would continue to circle. Ms. KenCairn went on to address the project at Winburn Way and Main Street. The footing for the seat wall would go under the sidewalk instead of towards the existing tree. The City was expanding the landscape area, moving the curb further into the street that would provide more water and oxygen for the tree. The boulder would remain because it had integrated into the tree. She explained her role regarding protection measures for the tree during the project. Councilor Rosenthal/Marsh m/s approval of the Winburn Way beautification project. DISCUSSION: Councilor Rosenthal noted the project was straightforward and looked forward to seeing the results. Councilor Marsh thought the corner would become a popular place to sit. Councilor Lemhouse supported the motion, appreciated Ms. KenCairn's effort, and patience. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Rosenthal, Seffinger, Marsh, Lemhouse, and Morris, YES. Motion approved. Councilor Marsh requested a Study Session to review funding for the next biennium due to recommendations made by the Downtown Beautification Improvement ad hoc Committee, discuss an urban tree plan, and designate funding. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees 2. Class-special procurement with Portland Engineering 3. Approval of an intergovernmental agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation for accessible ramp improvements 4. Approval of an intergovernmental agreement with Rogue Valley Council of Governments and the designated management agencies 5. Approval of an intergovernmental agreement with United States Department of the Interior - Ashland City Council Meeting August 18, 2015 Page 5 of 9 Bureau of Reclamation, Talent Irrigation District, and the City of Ashland 6. Special procurement for the purchase of a Volvo Model PF4410 Asphalt Paver 7. Appointment of Sherman Lucas to the Airport Commission 8. Appointment of Douglas Kay to the Wildfire Commission Councilor Lemhouse/Rosenthal m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS (None) NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Appointments to Ad-Hoc Climate Action and Energy Committee Councilor Lemhouse/Seffinger m/s to accept Mayor Stromberg's appointments to the Ad-Hoc Climate Action and Energy Committee. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin raised a point of clarification and asked when the other members would be appointed. Mayor Stromberg wanted to appoint a nucleus of 7-8 members with the possibility of it growing to 10-12. Councilor Rosenthal had a question regarding the draft scope of work. Councilor Voisin raised a point of order on Councilor Rosenthal's inquiry. Mayor Stromberg ruled in favor of the point of order and explained they would discuss scope after Council voted on the motion. Councilor Lemhouse supported the council liaison appointment, member appointments, and the committee. Councilor Voisin noted it was important to fill the entire committee. Councilor Seffinger also supported the Mayor's appointment choices. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, Marsh, and Voisin, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Rosenthal suggested changing language in the draft scope of work, page 2 of 2 in the Council Communication, first sentence of the third paragraph from "...however the activities of consultants hired by the City to work on the plan or technical reports associated with the plan shall be directed by the City and not by the ad hoc committee," to "...committee should advise the city staff regarding activities of consultants on the project." Council consensus agreed with the change. Councilor Marsh expressed concern regarding language in the draft scope of work prohibiting the committee to create and appoint subcommittees without prior consent of Council and suggested deleting the sentence. Councilor Lemhouse clarified it would still allow the committee to create a subcommittee of its own members. City Administrator Dave Kanner did support removing the sentence. Subcommittees created by commissions or ad hoc committees were public meetings that required staff time, public noticing, and minutes. A couple of the appointees had made it clear they wanted eight or more subcommittees. It would create an inordinate amount of staff time and he did not believe an ad hoc committee should be able to make that type of decision without some form of prior approval. Councilor Marsh understood the drain on City staff time and noted the council liaison would guide the committee and remain sensitive to staff time. She was open to another form of approval other than City Council. City Recorder Barbara Christensen explained a subcommittee consisted of members on the committee and could be one to two people. The subcommittee could create their own minutes and it was easy to notice meetings. The main thing to ensure was that no new people joined a subcommittee, only current committee members. They could do a presentation or public hearing as long as they met public meeting guidelines. The committee could meet with the City Recorder and City Attorney for clarification on what they could or could not do. Councilor Rosenthal would actively serve as Council Liaison and Chair for the ad hoc committee. i Councilor Marsh/Rosenthal m/s to remove the sentence with the caveat that Chair Rosenthal will keep the committee in check. Voice Vote: Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, and Seffinger, NO; Ashland City Council Meeting August 18, 2015 Page 6 of 9 Councilor Rosenthal and Marsh, YES. Motion failed 4-2. Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to appoint Councilor Rosenthal as Chair of the ad hoc committee and that he would come back to Council with a plan regarding the potential subcommittees being formed. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Marsh, YES. Motion approved. 2. Annual renewal of liquor licenses City Recorder Barbara Christensen explained the Oregon Liquor License Commission (OLCQ sent the City a notice in July listing all the establishments within city limits with a current liquor license for annual liquor license renewal. Ms. Christensen forwarded the list to the Utility Billing department to determine if business licenses were current and not in arrears for the previous year's renewal fee. She also sent a copy of the list to the Chief of Police. Due to prior discussions regarding two establishments that have been problematic, Ms. Christensen wanted to ensure her office was following the process for liquor licenses appropriately. The Ashland Municipal Code stated if a license met the criteria for an unfavorable recommendation according to the code and OLCC guidelines, she would report to the City Council regarding the filing, prepare sufficient documentation or findings that supported an unfavorable recommendation, and mail a letter to the applicant on the unfavorable recommendation. The recommendation would go on the next Council meeting agenda for approval. She recently met with OLCC Investigator Amy Nevine from the Medford OLCC and Sarah Morgan, the supervisor with the License Servicing Division in Salem regarding reasons for liquor license denials. Ms. Christensen referenced a document that listed the reasons a city could deny or restrict a license and reasons a city could not consider denying a license. The City needed to document violations and situations that occurred at these establishments and the court proceedings that followed in order for OLCC to consider denying a liquor license. The City needed to better document violations and instances and maintain a running file on these establishments. Ms. Morgan informed them OLCC could not deny the renewal of a liquor license based on the information the City had on the Vinyl Club or the Granite Tap House. The denial process was time consuming and could take up to a year for OLCC to make a determination. During that time, the establishment in question retained their liquor license. Once the City had enough documentation to support a denial they could contact OLCC and recommend revocation prior to the annual renewal process. Since the City did not have sufficient documentation to request liquor license denials on the two businesses, Council could approve the renewal of all the liquor licenses and convey wording within a motion or recommendation that put the owners of the Vinyl club and the Granite Tap House on notice. This action would help a potential denial in the future if needed. Police Chief Tighe O'Meara addressed documentation needs and that the Vinyl Club was closer to a negative recommendation than the Granite Tap House. The Chief included the Granite Tab House because of the incidents that occurred there posed a significant security risk at the time. One of the owners contacted him the day before expressing a sincere interest in mitigating access issues with their establishment. The arrest report of one of the Granite Tap House owners did not include whether alcohol was a factor in the assault that occurred at another bar. That was a failing on the Police Department reporting. The Vinyl Club demonstrated more alarming behavior and there was an ongoing feud between the venue and some of the residential neighbors. The City recently determined that AMC Chapter 9.18 Chronic Nuisance Property was applicable to any part of town and that included businesses. The ordinance stated that if any property had three or more qualifying violations or crimes committed on it in a thirty-day period and if the City Attorney's office made a motion with the Municipal Court Judge to do this, the Judge had tremendous power to affect the business and property that included shuttering the business LIP to 180 days. The City was also considering adding fire Ashland City Council Meeting August 18, 2015 Page 7 of 9 code violations due to occupancy to the ordinance, expanding the qualifying violations, and extending the time from 30 days to 60 days. Council noted the incident of first responders unable to open the door at the Granite Tap House from the outside. The documentation received did not seem show a real effort to remedy that issue by the bar owners. Chief O'Meara explained the efforts made by the owner were not adequate for an emergency. Recently, the owner contacted the Chief that they were no longer using the elevator and staffing the stairway exit so there was always someone there for first responders. It was a step in the right direction but not the final resolution to the situation. Division Chief Fire Marshal Margueritte Hickman met with one of the owners of the Granite Tap House and learned the door opening mechanism was not operating properly. She addressed overcrowding and blocking exits. In the nation's catastrophic events that occurred in nightclubs where many people died, two of the common characteristics in all of the events were overcrowding and blocked exits. The Granite Tap House received two citations on Halloween 2014. The Vinyl Club incurred three citations, one from the Fire Department and two from the Police Department since new ownership. Michael Leslie/Vinyl Club Owner/Confirmed that had received two violations regarding over capacity on separate occasions. In the last three years, police calls for the Will Dodge Area had declined. The majority of the calls came from two people. The owners were striving to create a safe environment for students, young adults, and the community. The Vinyl Club was trying to give back in any way. Mr. Leslie explained the steps taken to address noises issues ad overcrowding included closing their doors between 11:00 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. and keeping the music down when the doors were open. For over capacity, he did a head count every five minutes and had a state certified security person at the front door and one inside. Ryan Bottano/Granite Tap House Owner/23 North Main Street/Agreed the majority of what was brought up was correct. The Granite Tap House was cited on Halloween and New Year's Eve. This was two of the busiest days of the year. They were working as diligently as possible to correct any infractions and problems with ingress and egress situations. They were incorporating an Allen key that will unlock the door and no one will be able to lock it without the proper tools. They would install a sprinkler system and wanted to ensure they complied with everything the Fire Department suggested. He was certified as an executive manager by the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST). Using the stairwell instead of the elevator enabled them to control capacity better and they were constantly upgrading their systems to ensure everyone was safe. They anticipated the door would be fixed soon. The sprinkler system would be installed by winter. Councilor Lemhouse motioned that Council recommend approval of liquor licenses for the listed establishments with exception of the Granite Tap House and the Vinyl Club. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Rosenthal/Marsh m/s to approve the OLCC renewal list for liquor licenses in Ashland and to direct staff to pay particular attention to the Vinyl Club and Granite Tap House and document issues. DISCUSSION: Councilor Rosenthal explained this was the suggested motion from the City Recorder. He preferred Councilor Lemhouse's motion. He thought the Vinyl Club had more of a problem and listed violations they had incurred since November 2014. Councilor Voisin appreciated staff going to OLCC to learn what was required. It was now clear what needed to happen. Councilor Lemhouse would support the motion. He supported going forward with what OLCC recommended and noted there definitely needed to be some changes. It was important to have a vital downtown and the businesses that Mr. Leslie and Mr. Bottano owned contributed to that vitality. It was up Ashland City Council Meeting August 18, 2015 Page 8 of 9 to the business owners to deal with challenges they had with their buildings, not their neighbors. It was Council's job to represent the citizenry and people were not happy with what they were seeing. Councilor Lemhouse/Rosenthal m/s to amend the main motion to state a review period spanning from August 18, 2015 to February 2, 2016 of the Vinyl Club and Granite Tap House will be instituted and during that period, each establishment will meet with City officials to come up with a plan to immediately remedy concerns brought forth to the Council. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse thought the situation required more than a verbal commitment from the business owners. The time stipulated would cover holidays. Councilor Rosenthal concurred with the additional clarity Councilor Lemhouse provided. Councilor Marsh was not sure Council could compel a business owner to meet with them. Councilor Lemhouse further clarified his intention was giving them an opportunity to meet, not compelling them to meet with Council and explained City staff involvement. Councilor Voisin questioned if the amendment asked staff to come up with a plan. Councilor Lemhouse explained during the review period staff would come up with a plan to help mitigate these issues. Councilor Voisin did not think it was a good use of staff time and preferred the business owners coming to the City with a plan instead. Councilor Mortis noted the owners would have to meet with staff when they addressed fire safety issues and were responsible to remedy any of the other issues without staff involvement. He could not support the motion. Councilor Marsh/Lemhouse m/s to separate the motion. The first part of the motion was the six- month review and the second part to require the owner to come forward and work with staff. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh thought the six-month review was a good idea. Councilor Morris would support a six-month review but preferred a three-month review. Councilor Lemhouse wanted to encapsulate the holidays and see how the business owners worked with the new plan. Mayor Stromberg clarified the vote was separating the motion. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Lemhouse, Rosenthal, Marsh, Voisin, and Seffinger, YES. Motion passed. DISCUSSION on the six-month review: Councilor Lemhouse commented establishing a review period kept the businesses accountable. Councilor Marsh agreed a six-month review was good. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. DISCUSSION on requiring the owners to come forward and work with staff: Councilor Lemhouse explained it was not his intention to require the business owners to meet with the City. He intended the motion to direct staff to put together a plan with the owners should they choose to participate. Councilor Lemhouse withdrew the second part of his motion. Councilor Lemhouse motioned for staff to meet with business owners of both establishments to formulate a plan to mitigate concerns brought forward by staff. Motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Christensen restated the amended motion would have Council approve the OLCC renewal list for liquor licenses in Ashland and directed staff to pay particular attention to the Vinyl Club and Granite Tap House and was amended to include a review period from August 18, 2015 to February 2, 2016. DISCUSSION on amended main motion: Councilor Seffinger would have been more comfortable if the motion stated in compliance with OLCC documentation. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Marsh, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Lemhouse/Rosenthal m/s direct staff to update the chronic nuisance ordinance to include applicable codes as mentioned in the staff report. Ashland City Council Meeting August 18, 2015 Page 9 of 9 Councilor Voisin raised a point of order and questioned whether a motion could be made on something that had not been noticed. Mayor Stromberg clarified the motion was staff direction and when it came back to a Council meeting it would be noticed. DISCUSSION on motion: Councilor Lemhouse thought the chronic nuisance ordinance needed review and potential updating especially regarding fire code issues. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Lemhouse, Rosenthal, Marsh, Voisin, and Seffinger, YES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS (None) OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS Councilor Voisin announced Laura Lippert, Mildred Schwendener, and Robert Cox from the Senior Center received the President's Volunteer Service Award. Each received a presidential certificate from the White House, a letter from President Obama, and a presidential insignia pen. She went on to note two veterinarians would provide rabies shots and other health benefits for dogs and cats at the United Methodist Church September 28, 2015. Councilor Lemhouse relayed a concern the Wildfire Mitigation Commission had regarding work on the wildfire hazard zone. Apparently it was lowered on the priority list. This was a public safety issue and the Commission wanted it higher on the priority list. He went on to announce the recent passing of Craig Hooper, a former long-term police officer with the Ashland Police Department. He honored Mr. Cooper, his hard work, efforts, and shared a personal interaction he had with him when Councilor Lemhouse worked for the Ashland Police. Councilor Marsh announced August 26, 2015 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. the Ashland Community Resource Center would hold the second annual Family Fest. The Food Bank and other agencies would be present to provide services. The Food Bank would also be open for evening shopping. City Administrator Dave Kanner described a recent and dangerous code violation related to a renter in a house who had incorrectly redone the wiring system in the house to grow marijuana. He suggested the City put together an educational program for people interested in growing marijuana safely to mitigate potential hazards. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING Meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee July 27, 2015 Page 1 of 5 MINUTES FOR THE ad hoc AFN GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE COMMITTEE Monday, July 27, 2015 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Call to Order Chairperson Marsh called the meeting to order at 3:00pm. Attendees: Susan Alderson, Bryan Almquist, Matthew Beers, Vicki Griesinger, Dave Kanner, Pam Marsh, Dennis Slattery and Jim Teece. Not present: Rich Rosenthal Staff present: Mary McClary, Administrative Assistant Chairperson Marsh welcomed the committee, presented a basic outline for the meeting, and asked each person present to re-introduce themselves to the group. Public Input David Hand, 739 Welch Drive, was present and had no comment at that time. Chairperson March explained David was not a member of the Committee, and he could have input as long as no other public members were in attendance. Approval of Minutes Bryan Almquist moved to approve the minutes of June 18, 2015 and the motion was seconded by Dennis Slattery.. Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Review of Revised AFN Mission Statement Rich Rosenthal Rich Rosenthal submitted to the Committee AFN mission states from the 2010 Strategic Plan; the 2014 Strategic Plan and the proposed 2014 ad hoc Committee. • 2010 Strategic Plan: Provide Ashland with a public telecommunications facility that creates opportunities and enables our citizens, businesses, and municipal government to thrive as a connected community. • 2014 Strategic Plan: Ashland Fiber Network (AFN) is a Municipal Telecommunications Utility providing community based solutions and services to enhance the quality of life and economic growth of the community by eliminating the constraints of location, distance and time. • Proposed 2014 ad hoc Committee AFN mission statement. Ashland Fiber Network (AFN) enhances quality of life, economic opportunity and community vitality by enabling citizens and businesses to receive affordable, reliable telecommunications services. Chairperson Marsh set it aside for now, stating she was sure they would implement it into their materials. Each member received a copy of the revised Mission statement and the revised copy of the draft evaluation criteria. Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee July 27, 2015 Page 2 of 5 Review of Initial Round of Organizational Analysis Chairperson March introduced and passed out a new draft Evaluation Criteria for the Committee: Any option considered must: 1) Provide high-quality, reliable and customer-focused services. 2) Enable AFN to make timely adjustments in a competitive marketplace. 3) Be governed by stable, focused and knowledgeable leadership. 4) Be financially viable, with ability to pay off debts, and to justify new investment. 5) Provide competitive products committed to community connectivity, digital technology, education and economic development. 6) Be resistant to political change. The Committee reviewed the models with the new criteria. (1-5, l=low 5=high) Status quo Model Criteria Ranking Comments No Issues: procurement; rate setting; contractual relationships ;product development and actual 1 2-4 performance may be different than perception of performance. 2 1 Confidentiality, expansion, budget process, rules, lack of flexibility city council elected body in charge; not able to provide daily leadership or hands on guidance, 3 1-2 there is an intent to be good 4 3 debt payment for next two years: $409,000 5 1-2 creates competitive environment, cutting edge 6 1 no comments The Committee reviewed the other models and then went on to analyze other models. Analysis of Additional Organizational Models: Franchise- Looked at as a model that could be leased, not sold. Contractor model without commission. Council directly contracts with provider; city retains ownership of facility. Criteria Ranking Comments No 1 ? striving for a 5. I ligh quality contractor, financially stable Depends on the contract. 2 4-5 Okvned by the city and expecting lessee to make improvements, city retaining ownership of all im rovements. the governance minimal, because contract based. Daily knowledge potentially pretty trong 3 3+ 4 no comments 5 3+ take the local voice out, write in community involvement 6 4 depends on the length of the contract, if longer than terms of city council. Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee July 27, 2015 Page 3 of 5 Utility- l,ec assessed to all electric accounts for basic service, if desire more, pay more. City runs AFN. 2006 Council thought this model to be high risk; requires legal analysis; doesn't depend on sales. Criteria Ranking Comments No 1 ? Strive for a 5 Public utility is public record; competition impossible; political issues; everyone paying for AFN 2 1 already 3 4 Already successfully running by stable, dedicated and knowledgeable leadership 4 4-5 Doesn't depend on sales 5 1 Ilit in short term, advantage in long term 6 1 no comment Spin-Off City own infrastructure and lease out Criteria Ranking Comments No Strive for a 5, create Board; self sustaining; independent entity; city sole member of corporation; same I ? rights of any member of corporation 2 4-5 Board is not subject to public exposure, or law 3 4-5 Strong and qualified leadership 4 3+ Financially viable benefits 5 3++ positive competition 6 4-5 not much impact Hybrid (AFN Wholesaler) Multiple ISP, not direct AFN, ISP carry all customer contact, responsible for marketing, and add commission The Committee talked about this model similar to status quo with light changes. AFN would be wholesaler only, allowing ISPs control. Dave Kanner reminded the Committee AFN is doing this model now and it is not working. They would sell to ISP's for less then what AFN retails. The only portion of AFN that is effectively growing are the "direct connect" sales, without any sort of marketing, or advertisement. Criteria Ranking Comments No 1 ? Strive for a 5 2 3 ISP responsible for business, AFN sets wholesale price 3 1 no comments 4 3+ There was a suggestion of having fewer ISPs 5 4 competitive environment _ 6 1-2 no comments City Owned Only- No 1SPs Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee July 27, 2015 Page 4 of 5 Criteria Ranking Comments No 1 ? Strive for a 5 2 3 not transparent 3 1-2 need to depend on job, not employee filling job 4 3 initial investment, long tern potential 5 3+ maintain infrastructure for long tern viability 6 1 City Council, public information The Committee discussed the pros and cons of some of the different models. One contractor: implications in the city, impact on staff, and shared resources. Utility: could be set up like the Water Commission, separate from the city. Susan Alderson would research independent contractors and how they are structured and operated. The Committee wanted to see actual cost of operating AFN, because the budget was too general. Contract model: implications of pulling city services out, who decides about investment. Dennis Slattery asked about what the reasonable market potential of Ashland, how many people would subscribe under the different ideas. The Committee would like to see where AFN is serviceable and Dave Kanner remarked it would be easier to report where they were not serviceable. The city does not have a map outlining services. David Hand would like to know where the fiber is located. Vickie suggested a survey to see what the customer's really want, residential and commercial. Jim Tease asked for a small summary below each model to distinguish between them all. Summary of Models Criteria Status Sold Public Public Franchise utility Hybrid City Quo Entirely w/advisory w/advisory Owned comm. and comm. no Only independent contractor contractor 1 2-4 ? ? 2-4 ? ? ? ? 2 1 ? 3 2-3 4-5 1 3 3 3 1-2 5 4-5 3-5 3+ 4 1 1-2 4 3 ? 3+ 3+ 3+ 4-5 3+ 3 5 1-2 ? 3 3+ 3+ 1 4 3+ 6 1 5 3 3 4 1 1-2 1 Total (average) 11 10 17 18.5 19 8.5 13 12 The highest rankings were: Public Model-Status Quo with Advisory Commission (no independent contractor) "The advantage to this model rather than just status quo is the ability to appoint people who are more knowledgeable than Council may be. This model may be more nimble than status quo but not more agile. " (from prior minutes) Franchise-- A model that could be leased, not sold; contractor model without commission; Council directly contracts with provider; city retains ownership of facility. Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee July 27, 2015 Page 5 of 5 Next Steps/Meeting Schedule • Susan Alderson research independent contractors • Actual cost of operating AFN The next meeting would be held on August 24, from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Adiournment Meeting adjourned at 5:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary McClary Administrative Assistant Electric, AFN, and IT Departments ASHLAND CONSERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes June 24, 2015 Community Development Building, Siskiyou Room 51 Winburn Way Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Beigel-Coryell. Commissioners Buck, Hartman, Silverberg, McGinnis and Cruickshank were present. Commissioners Koopman and Weir arrived at 6:10. Commissioner Sohl was absent, as was Council Liaison Rosenthal. Councilor Marsh arrived at 6:30. Staff liaison Hanks was also present. Consent Agenda / Reports The meeting minutes of the May 27, 2015 Commission meeting were approved unanimously after motion/second of Buck/Hartman. Announcements began with an introduction of new Commissioner Cara Cruickshank, who provided some personal and professional background for the group. After individual introductions around the room, the Commission welcomed Commissioner Cruickshank to the Commission. Beigel-Coryell announced the August regular meeting for the Commission is July 22 and the Climate and Energy sub-committee is planning to meet at their regularly scheduled first and third Wednesday (July 1st and 15th). Weir acknowledged the Mayor and Council for having the Earth Bowl winners recognized at a recent Council meeting. Koopman mentioned that the upcoming Climate Action kick off event is still being finalized but is likely either November 1't or 1 lth at the Old Armory. Public Forum Huelz Guetchen announced an educational class that he is working on creating on energy for July 6th at Pioneer Hall and provided the Commissioners with a handout. Reports / Presentations/Updates City Conservation & Operations - Hanks mentioned that the Energy Conservation Division is currently working with SOU staff on additional energy efficiency projects for the Rogue River Room and finalizing the documentation and measurement calculations for the SOU Dorms project to qualify the project for BPA incentive funds. Council Update - Councilor Marsh, filling in for Councilor Rosenthal, updated the Commission on the status of the letter from the Mayor to the State legislature regarding House Bill 3470 and recognized the Commissions effort and involvement in making that happen. Marsh also noted that the Climate Action and Energy plan project funding was approved in the recently adopted biennial budget for BN2015-17. Marsh provided a brief summary of the discussion and status regarding the solar farm proposal, stating that the Council decided to continue to reserve the property for its original purchased intent, which is for issues relating to the wastewater treatment plant, but that the proposal did CITY Of -ASH LAN D lead to a desire for further conversations regarding the role of a large scale solar generation facility within the City's electric utility. Marsh announced that the Council intends to have a study session in late summer or fall regarding the current operations and future operations and strategy for the Electric Utility. Hanks noted that the date has not yet been identified for that study session, but that he would inform the Commission when it is set. Marsh also updated the Commission on the recent presentation requesting the City Council's support for the expansion of the Cascade Monument. The Commission was appreciative of the Council for supporting the expansion and asked about a timeline for ultimate approval. Marsh stated that it was likely still several years out to get through the various steps in the federal process. SOU - Quarterly Update - Beigel-Coryell gave an update on the recent activities at SOU including several energy efficiency projects mentioned by Hanks earlier. An annual significant event is student move out week at the end of the school year. Efforts are made each year to divert miscellaneous non-standard trash items from the landfill trash stream (furniture, storage bins, mattresses, etc) noting that over 8,900 pounds of material was able to be diverted this year. Beige]-Coryell noted that the campus farm on Walker Av was continuing to expand and volunteer opportunities were available. Also noted was the food grown at the farm are available to students on campus each Thursday at a stand at the SU. Old Business Commission Monthly Column in Sneak Preview 1) July - SOU Sustainability/Conservation on campus Beige]-Coryell handed out a draft letter from the Facilities Department regarding water conservation. She stated that it wasn't the type of article she originally intended and wanted the Commission's feedback on how best to proceed. After discussion on the tone, the intended audience and its connection to the Commission, McGinnis motioned that the Conservation Corner space be provided in July to SOU for this letter, but it not be connected with the Commission. The motion passed unanimously. It was then noted by several Commissioners that the goal is to be one to two months ahead of the submittal deadline for articles. 2) August - School District Conservation Hartman noted that he is working on it and will have a draft to email to the Commission well prior to the next Commission meeting. 3) September - Leaf Removal/Storm drains - Buck/Hanks -Noted as on track for next meeting 4) October - Climate/Energy Plan - xoopman -Noted as on track for July or August meeting 5) November - Energy Efficiency/Weatherization - Hanks-Noted as on track for August or September meeting Climate/Energy Presentation/Council - Re-cap & Next Steps Koopman summarized the recent presentation to Council regarding the Climate Action and Energy plan and noted that she felt there was a breakdown of communication between the Commission and the Council regarding the intended content of the presentation which caused some confusion with all involved. Koopman suggested the Commission schedule individual Councilor meetings to convey the messages on the Commission's plans for the project. McGinnis gave a quick summary of the sub-committee work noting that in the recent past the committee worked on research and development for the STAR framework for sustainability but that didn't carry forward and wants to know what the Commission can do to be effective on this topic. Councilor Marsh responded that it may be useful for a pre-meeting with the Mayor and a few key Councilors so everyone is on the same page. Marsh suggested that the Commission ensure that the August deadline for the appointment of the ad-hoc committee members happens so the project can formally get going. As to funding, Marsh noted that the allocation of the $120,000 has yet to occur and that will come as the project unfolds. Weir noted that he felt the ad-hoc committee shouldn't be too all inclusive and mentioned the recent water master plan as an example that he felt didn't work as well as it could have and prefers the committee to be primarily technical experts in the fields being addressed. Silverberg noted a desire for business leaders who may be impacted by the result and implementation of the plan as well as to address potential job impacts. The Commission noted their appreciation for Councilor Marsh's push on the topic and relayed their desire to assist in pushing the project forward. Carbon Pricing - Council Request Recap The Commission again noted appreciation to Marsh for the Mayor and Council's action on this topic. New Business Leaf Blowers /Air Quality Hanks noted that this item is from a citizen request from a recent conversation and provided the citizen email in the meeting packet. Weir noted that he felt this would be a good topic for the Commission and would be willing to lead some sort of discussion for research and recommendations on how to address the issue. Buck noted that best practices need to somehow be included in whatever comes out of the discussion. The Commission asked Marsh's opinion and she reminded them to pick their battles. Buck again noted the potential for education vs a regulatory ordinance approach. Weir made a motion to form a sub-committee, Silverberg second passed unanimously with Commissioners Weir, Buck and Silverberg being members of the sub-committee. 8. Wrap Up Calendar/Budget Review Following up on discussions from last month's meeting, Weir made a motion for the Commission to recommend allocation of $1,000 toward the 2016 Earth Bowl event. McGinnis noted that there are several similar events that may require Commission recommendations on funding and was hesitant to lock in one without talking about all of them. The Commission agreed to discuss the budget, the Bear Creek Salmon Festival and the concept of a water sub-committee at the next meeting. Beigel-Coryell adjourned the meeting at 8:05. Minutes for the Conservation Commission July 22, 2015 Page I of 4 MINUTES FOR THE ASHLAND CONSERVATION COMMISSION Wednesday, July 22, 2015 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way 1. Call to Order Roxane Beigel-Coryell called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Commissioners Risa Buck, Jim Hartman, Shel Silverberg, Mark Weir, Bryan Sohl, James McGinnis, and Councilor Rich Rosenthal were present. Commissioner Koopman arrived late. Staff member Adam Hanks and Commissioner Cara Cruickshank were absent. 2. Consent Agenda None. 3. Announcements The next commission meeting will be held on August 27, 2015. The climate and energy subcommittee are scheduled to meet on August 5 and 19, 2015. Sohl stated that they may need to cancel or reschedule the subcommittee meetings due to busy schedules. The next compost class will be held on August 15. Commissioner Marni Koopman arrived at 6:06 p.m. 4. Public Forum Louise Shawkat - stated the show, "Future of Energy" can now be streamed on-line. She also has a copy if any commission member would like to borrow it. Huelz - gave handouts regarding energy use and typical amounts of wasted energy. Stated that the information on the handout is old and that wasted energy is now 60%, not the 53.2% shown. He gave details on how energy is typically used and wasted in households. He stated we frequently don't recognize all energy used because we are not billed for it such as greenhouse gases. Estimated 30,000 lbs per year per household in greenhouse gases is put into the atmosphere. Additionally, we need to add in daily uses for things like production of the food we eat, and the activities we enjoy. Stated that California is working to have all new residential homes built to net zero by 2020. Previously there was a goal to have all cars electric by 2050 but the new estimates he's found believe it will be more like 10 years from now. 5. Reports/ Presentations/ Updates Downtown Recycling - Hartman introduced Vanston Shaw. He is a Parks and Recreation Commissioner but is not here in that capacity. He is here as a resident of Ashland. Stated he would like the Commission to encourage the Council to create a recycling program in downtown Ashland. He wondered why no downtown recycling is available on a daily basis even though it is for special events. When he previously approached Council for recycling to be added downtown he was informed that it is too expensive a program to run. He believes there must be a method for doing downtown recycling which won't cost too much. He gave history of how the recycling baskets in Lithia Park were introduced and how they are currently being used and maintained. Mr. Shaw would like to have a program similar to the Lithia Park baskets in downtown and Minutes for the Conservation Commission July 22, 2015 Page 2 of 4 suggested that the Commission could encourage businesses to take responsibility for the maintenance of baskets outside of their businesses. Biegel-Coryell recommended that if the Commission is interested in pursuing this a subcommittee be formed to consider options. Group discussed how many cans were downtown and how much, per can, the Parks Department spends on this program, including the purchasing of the baskets and staff time in maintaining them. Buck stated that she has a long history with recycling programs in the downtown area. She loves how these baskets are being used in the park and would love if they could work in the downtown area. She stated that there are limitations and challenges to recycling programs in Ashland which other communities with similar basket programs don't have to face. The biggest challenge is that we have no sorting facility and so any recycling which is contaminated with garbage can't be recycled. The Clear Stream recycling program previously tried was a massive failure due to this contamination. Additionally, Recology trash drivers can only pick up trash and so this would require a separate pick-up. She feels the concept is good but wants everyone to understand that it is more complicated than it first appears. Group agreed that recycling in the downtown is important. Hartman, Buck, Weir, and Biegel- Coryell agreed to be a subcommittee and work on possible options. They will bring suggestions back to the group. The group can then determine if forwarding any options to Council is appropriate. Council Update - Councilor Rosenthal gave an update on the proposed use of the Imperatrice Property as a solar farm. Staff and Council determined that Public Works likely has need of the property for cooling effluent and as this was the reason the property was purchased in the first place we can't at this time agree to using the property as a solar farm. The overall idea of a solar farm is not dead but Council will not move forward at that location. He informed the group that the Mayor is just starting on the process for appointing people to the Climate and Energy Action Plan group. He also reminded the group that the commissioner appreciation BBQ will be on August 30. He encouraged the commissioners to attend. City Conservation & Operations Ship] et handed out the 10-cent Bag Ban cards which will be given to retailers to help inform shoppers of the ban and the 10 cent charge. Fourth of July - Buck stated that Recology added extra trash cans to each city can. This was not a great way to encourage recycling but it did prevent cans from overflowing. Hartman stated he noticed a difference in how clean the streets were after the parade. Salmon Festival - Buck stated that the event organizers are reaching out to the Mount Ashland Association in order to connect the dots between upstream and downstream. This connection might not happen this year but it is a good long-term goal. Organizers are hoping to do a safe carwash demonstration with the Public Works Department kit. Ashland School District Quarterly Update - Hartman stated the school garden on Morris Street is going great. He informed the group that after many years of service, August will be his last Minutes for the Conservation Commission July 22, 2015 Page 3 of 4 meeting. He is looking for a replacement to suggest to the superintendent. The group thanked him for his service and offered a few suggestions for replacements. 6. Old Business Sneak Preview Column - Buck/Koopman m/s to approve the August column as written. Discussion: McGinnis wanted to make sure Hartman had received the edits he e-mailed. Hartman confirmed that he had. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion Passes. Group discussed the draft of the September article regarding leaf removal and storm drains. They felt it was overall okay but was missing key elements such as dog waste, oil from oil changes, and car wash runoff. Group debated whether or not to include the quiz in the final article, but did not come to a consensus. Koopman/Weir m/s to approve the September column, so long as the final draft includes information on proper disposal of dog waste, car wash runoff, and oil change drippings. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion Passes. Group discussed upcoming topics and would like the following: October - Climate and Energy Workshops written by Koopman and or McGinnis November - Energy report written by Hanks December - Holiday conservation written by Silverberg They would also like an article regarding the school efficiency report previously given to the commission by Jeff Sharp. Hartman will consider if he can write it. Group did not schedule it for a particular month. Climate and Energy Sub-committee - Koopman informed the group that she and commissioner Sohl have a meeting scheduled with Mayor Stromberg, Councilors Marsh and Rosenthal, and City Administrator Kanner to determine who plays what role in the process. They hope to have lots of commissioners participate in the process. She was informed by City Attorney Lohman that she cannot be on the committee due to her job. She gave an overview of the proposed process that will be discussed at the upcoming meeting. They are still planning to have the Geos Institute lead a kick-off event on November 15t" and all the information gathered at that event will be given to the Mayor-appointed committee. McGinnis suggested that the Commission should extend a specific thank you to the Historic Armory for providing their building for free for the kick-off event. 7. New Business Leaf Blower/Air Quality Best Practices - No update about this as there has not been a meeting of the subcommittee. Commission Budget Discussion - Weir would like to set aside $1,000 for next year's Earth Bowl. Weir/Silverberg m/s to earmark $1,000 of the commission budget for the 2016 Earth Bowl. Minutes for the Conservation Commission July 22, 2015 Page 4 of 4 Discussion: Weir stated that of all the activities this commission has participated in, this year's Earth Bowl had the most impact. He wants to see it continue and so is requesting that funds be set aside now. Group agreed the event was successful and they would like to see it continued. Rosenthal questioned whether the Commission had pursued sponsorship for the event. They had confusion about what types of sponsorship were allowed for events. Group asked Weir how he came up with $1,000 as a request. He stated he had assumed the following: • Four $50 gift certificates for winning team = $200 • Twelve $25 gift certificates for team coaches = $300 • engraving of trophy = $50 • advertising (print work or tee shirts) $150 • food & drink at the event = $300 TOTAL = $1,000 Group discussed the possibility of asking the Ashland Schools Foundation for sponsorship or financial assistance. They are hesitant to do so until the event is more well-established. Group discussed possibility of altering the motion to agree to support the event but not include specific detail of amount to use. They determined that having set a specific amount aside might be easier when other budget issues arise. Roll call vote: Buck, Hartman, Sohl, McGinnis, Weir, Silverberg: YES, Koopman: No. Motion Passes. Group requested that staff come back with clarification on the requirements and limits of outside sponsorship for events. 8. Wrap Up Group agreed to move the November and December commission meetings to the third Wednesday of those months to avoid the holidays. Those meeting will now take place on November 18 and December 16. The 2016 Earth Bowl date will be determined in September in order to better match up with the School District's calendar. Meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diana Shiplet Executive Assistant CITY OF -AS H LA N D Council Communication September 1, 2015, Business Meeting Award of Contract to Apparent Low Bidder for the Oak St. Railroad Pedestrian Crossing Improvement FROM: Scott A. Fleury, Engineering Services Manager, Public Works/Engineering, fieur y s c),ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Council is asked to approve award of a construction contract for the Oak St. Railroad Crossing Pedestrian Improvement project. On August 20, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. bids submitted for the Oak St. Railroad Project were opened and publicly read. Bids were received from four contractors with KOGAP Enterprises Inc. providing the low bid. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Bidding Procedure: The Oak St. Railroad Crossing Pedestrian Improvement Project was publicly bid on July 30, 2015. The project was advertised in the Mail Tribune and the Daily Journal of Commerce. In addition, project plans and specifications were sent to several plan centers and were also posted on the City's website. Bids were opened on August 20, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., with four contractors responding. All four bids were valid and contained the required bonds, documentation, and acknowledgements. Bidding information is shown on the attached proposal summary form. Project Description: In 2007, the City entered into a rail agreement with the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP) to jointly improve the railroad crossing at Oak St. The City portion of the project includes construction of sidewalks on both sides of Oak St. across the railroad, paving and installation of appropriate signs and striping. CORP will install new concrete crossing panels, remove old warning signs and install new crossing arms. In order for CORP to perform the necessary work, Oak St. will need to be closed at the railroad crossing and an appropriate traffic detour installed. The railroad estimates the closure dates for their portion of the project will be September 19 and 20. Once CORP finishes their portion of the project, KOGAP will proceed with the City's required work per the railroads order. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The Oak St. Railroad Crossing Pedestrian Improvement Project is funded directly by the City as a capital improvement project (CIP). The established biennium CIP project budget for engineering and construction is $150,000. OBEC engineers were previously awarded the engineering in the amount of $33,917, leaving $116,083 of available funds to complete the construction phase. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends the Council accept the bid and authorize the award of contract with KOGAP Page 1 of 2 RE CITY OF -AS H LAN D Enterprises Inc. in the amount of $71,347.50 for the Oak St. Railroad Crossing Pedestrian Improvement Project. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve the bid and award of contract to KOGAP Enterprises Inc. in the amount of $71,347.50 for the Oak St. Railroad Crossing Pedestrian Improvement Project. ATTACHMENTS: Bid Summary Construction Drawing Set Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND - ENGINEERING DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS Project: Oak Street Railroad Crossing Project No.: 2007-13 Date of Bid Opening: August 20, 2015,2:00 p.m., Siskiyou Conference Room No of Addendum: One 2 3 Name of Bidder Kogap Enterprises, Inc. Knife River Materials Pilot Rock Excavation. Inc. Sum of Bid $71,347.50 $80,553.53 $85,635.00 Name of Bonding Travelers Casualty and Surety International Fidelitv Liberty Mutual Insurance Company Co. Company of America Insurance Company Amount of Bid 10% 10% 10% Bond Addendum Yes Yes Yes Acknowledged Notes - - 4 5 6 Name of Bidder Rory Ann Rock, Inc. Sum of Bid $107,995.00 Name of Bonding Old republic Surety Company Co. Amount of Bid 10% Bond Addendum Yes Acknowledged Notes - - G:Apub-wrks\eng\07-13 Oak St RR Xing\A_Admin\Cons Pre Contract\07-13 Bid Summary 08-20-15.docx CITY OF ASHLAND ll Ill kV[i A~~ alga ~ftKAEip'I ° ' INDEX OF SHEETS PUBLIC WORDS D EPART MENS C`9 ~•,aa 14 NEl( 1t e.°yim <i IN((RVNSE SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION a ~'znta `l taxra 1 Title Sheet PLANS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT Data ~ asa " cww x ¢nR ear 2 Typical Sections ~~'6 uu n ' 2A Details GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING & SIGNING' ea'r 3 Alignment And General Construction n a4 p Erasion Control Plan U 3A Profile GA STREET RAILROAD CROSSING ccoalE Ea. 7e 42 wR,i~ n rt~4G5 6 B°m Y.l ODT Std. Ding. Nos. ASHLAND Aw m0 m Grp N[N44J 'w (Ms IW rvKN ➢ulm TM200 - Sign Installation Details a°°k, N~ is w, M<, Pa JACKSON COUNTY Overall Length Of Project - 0.02 Miles TH500 - Pavement Marking Standard Detail Blocks AUGUST 2015 TM503 - Pavement Marking Standard Detail Blocks TM670 - Wood Post Sign Supports CHERRY GAEENBRIAR b OfNrR9( FFT / TM671 - 3 Second Gust Wind Speed Map WILEY Sr PL. i ens F ST. C/ l 5 TM676 - Sign Attachments 3 0 0 MAPLE Sr. TH800 - Tables, Abrupt Edge And PCMS Details < 1o d ; a ; ~0 N EEPY RD. - f 3 r- ASHLAND e 5' ° o t OLLO TH821 - Temporary Sign Supports 3 S F cOMM. Hose ° cooupcE S- oR N 3 a 2 DR. W y TH841 - Intersection Work Zone Details w + r sr, o °vF 4j+cF w a` j NEPENTHE C ' TM850 - 2-LGne, 2-Way Roadways NURSERY' z $T v " a i 0jV+0 VISTA I NFgs r`' V`~ ) RD759 -Truncated Dome Detectable Warning wIMER S T. ST. er h sr J j1 k JESSICA LN. Surface Details & Locations o o/+NrDN BR+sGOe \ HEANW000 OP SUSAN = a 4++oey I • CRISPIN/y PL sS 801015 -Inlet Protection Type 4 GRANDVIEw A app °R9 y~y• E s, PA77EA5GN NST. ST. PROJECT LOCATION RD1035 - Sediment Barrier (Type 3) g c ~yfti Wes? ST.. 1 .1 Si ,e 4Hf 5 Hl' z p BENJAMIN u MANZANITA BAISCOE HERSEY a i ~t15 z y 57. 1 City Of Ashland Std. Drg. Nos. cr, a 5 cnP = EscNoo cf'+'qa/ 5 ~rf9 y a m 55• y' ~W R ~ 00 ORCHARD r 4y WILLIAMSON S Zs CD115 - Monument Base Detail $ ° oy Rc~ y F i creek Qo' y `pJ 5 9 4 CREEK OR. CD302 -Standard Pipe Trench NYLA w. = 005? N o y 4 RusaLL Sr Z A z CD374 - Area Catch Basin Detail r~ 00 0K 5 ? i, f D pcE ° 5 GREEN o < MUN50N `GG rye y,~ N n F OR, SEENA LN. CD700 - Curb & Gutter Detail oR ° 02 + ° m m t a` WILL < °~icw - ROMEO ATTENTION, CD720 - Sidewalk Details o i , ct 5' f , DODGE sr, w p C0745 - Driveway Apron On Street With Sidewalk wr, qc+F Oregon Law Requires You To Follow Rules w equA F i ° " o I " Adopted By The Oregon Utility Notification Adjacent To Curb a sr urNIA h N KIRK EN EVAN zA~ Center. Those Rules Are Set Forth In a PARK -c, MLL?° OAR 952-001-0010 Through OAR 952-001-0090, CD750 - Handicap Romp - Sidewalk Adjacent To Curb r W o h4q Z ST. ° You Ma Otain CD755 - Handicap Romp With Parking Strip BF c h / DgDVW` ftiD F CACND ST. 3 Q The Center. (Note. i The TelephoneeN mberalFor p p I NurLEr m f gfyfgS s? f p r sr. ? < gosf a Q The Oregon Utility Center Is (503)232-1987.) } St. DV t H ti EUREKA y (k Sb SJq 9qA ST. A S. o - e'M w00 BEAC SS. H' MAIN w RR ~i '>3~ ~e+,ts'~sfipP4iF' Fs~4 R~~A~` C, ,o GLENVfEW pA, Sj 0 AVE. 4 F u yP LET'S ALL d ? MONTVIEW N. ST. 4sD+ 3 WORK TOGETHER y L ~ ~I 41 N s'Sq W 1 0 0 TO MAKE THIS PEARL F 'ro ° a JOB SAFE z S~? 5T, qIq`/f Sl p D BLAME 57. JO < 41-1" 1 I~ 3 " Q'9~'M'~9iF SEC. S, T. 9 5., R. E.. W. M. COWSULTPtG CORPORA 0 COU OFFICE f' ENOIMEERS L +RY CWB ROgO. SUllE IX 6 EUG Nt OREGON 4740F6' AP RE CLUB REGIO PROF 9XEOSU SWEGU; O, SALEM, ~ F~ ~ wwWObeccan Lf!(EO+dEDf0R0, OREGON UANCCWEk WASHINGTON G I IN FOAK STREET RAILROAD CROSSING 6549 t ASHLAND JACKSON COUNTY O R E G 0• Designed By -Jaime Jordan L Checked By - Stoo Petroff 9f RY Iw 2 Q Drafted By - Serhan Din- L E t SHEET NO. EXPIRES: 0613011-1 T I T L E S H E E T pw:A\PWCSOIE.obec.corn:PWOBEC01\Documenfs\CBEC\Projecfs\()649\0645-0015.00\CAD\Roadway\Plans\649015f_l.dgn Default 7/8/2015 12.29:48 PIV j+ilman I Asphalt conc. pvmt. t - 5' min. 4'-3" min. 77 .o: '.o; • '.o; 0: - .o. - ..o. - See typ. Rock mulch , 0 , 0 roadway 0' section Egg, Roadway subgrode crossing 0 ' .0 signal Aggregate subbase Sidewalk location If-► -Var.-- \ Subgrade geotextile Weed control Curb & gutter Typ, geotextile 12" SUBGRADE STABILIZATION LANDSCAPE STRIP DETAIL NOTES: 1. Subgrade stabilization to be directed by Engineer. 2. Depth of subgrode stabilization to be determined per field conditions, by Engineer. 3. At the discretion of the Engineer subgrode geogrid may be added. "Railroad" 7" CURB EXPOSURE DISTANCE 1.5' X 10' Location Distance (ft) NE corner y Toper Railroad crossing NW corner 3,8 to match SE corner 3.8 sidewalk SW corner - 5' Varies Curb Curb & D toper gutter Extg.conc. J CONSULT11VG CORPOaarEOFFICE panel PROF ; ENGINEERS REGIONAL ovFCCese Ro a, su EIrDe CENE, OREGON snaoi nea w,ur[obeccom W(£OSWEGO SALEM, MEUFURO. OREGON MNCOUVER. WASHINGTON CURB EXPOSURE DETAIL c [N,- - o g F,P 9 OAK STREET RAILROAD CROSSING *Measured perpendicular to railroad centerline. 65498PE ASHLAND JACKSON COUNTY RE N Designed By - Jc7me Jordan NOTES: v Q~ = cneckad By - Stcn Petroff 1. Curb exposure shall be 7" at rail signal locations. 9f qRY 1o, T P Orcfted By Sencan Dmcc HEET . 2. No curb exposure (Above the level of track) is L EE 30~o sNO allowed within 10'-0" of the track centerline. At railroad panels transition gutter pan to EXPIRES: 06/30/ D E T A I L S 2 A match flush with crossing panel. pw:A\PWCSOIE.obec.com:PWCB=C01\Clocumenis\OBPC\Projects\064°\0699-0015.00\CAD\Roaaway\Plans\649015f_2A.dgn Default 7/8/2015 12.29:57 PM jtilrren a P.C. conc. sidewalk 5 Nom. thkn. - 4" Curb & Sawcut gutter o.. Aggregate base Nom. cramp. thkn. - 4" 5'(9± @ driveway) Pvmt. removal, depth var. I STA. "0" 8+07 To STA. 110" 8+75 I I I I - 60' R/W ~ I 20' 18' Var. T5' 0.5' 0.5' F5'--Var.- X19.5' +20.5' - 2" round rock ACP wearing course Profile ACP base course 21, round rock P.C. conc. sidewalk (Rock mulch) Level 3, %z" dense ' grade Level 3, dense (Rock mulch) Nom.thkn. - 4" Nom. thkn - 4" Nom.thkn. - 3" Nom.thkn. - 3" Nom. thkn - 4" (See drg. no. CD720) 13 Sl. match extg. S1. match extg. S/ 1• 21 Aggregate base Q: Weed control Nom. camp. thkn. - 4" 1 geotextile Extg. Weed control -Curb & Aggregate base Subgrade Curb & gutter geotextile gutter Nom. comp. thkn. - 12" geotextile (See drg. no. ground CD700) STA. "0" 7+53 To STA. "0" 7+71 "0" 7+71 To "0" 7+81 (RR panels) "0" 7+81 To "0" 8+8A "0" 7+84 To "0" 7+94 (RR panels) *"0" 7+94 To "0" 8+18 NOTE: Side slopes are shown as vert. to horiz. CONSULTQJG COPVGRATGERCE 1 ~NGINEL-RS 920 CON Y CLUB ROAD, SUITE 1008 EUGENE, OREGON 874018089 ?Eo PROAF a REGGNA oIGEE onzotec.can UNEOSWEGO;SALEM, MEOEORO. OREGON; VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON \•"r G IQ FF~ OAK STREET RAILROAD CROSSING 6549 E ASHLAND 1 JACKSON COUNTY Q R E W ` Designed By - dcime JordEA Checked By -Stan Pefro9f qRY 10, 2 RQP Dref+ed By - Berea Dm~~~ EXPIRES:06/30/ TYPICAL SECTIONS gw:A\PNICS01E.cbec.com:PWOBECOI\Documents\OBEC\ Projects\0649\0649-0015.00\CAD\Rocdway\P1ans\649015f_2.dgn Defcu't 7/9/2015 8:58:35 AV jtilmcn Sec. 4, T. 39 S., R. 1 E., W.M. O Remove extg. curb/gutter D,7 Const. conc. curb & gutter (See drg. no.CD700) O2 Remove extg. asph. conc. (for details, see sht, 2A) 03 Remove extg. crossbuck and stop sign D,8 Const. 5' wide P.C. conc. sidewalk /20 60'RR R/W (By others) (See drg. no.CD720) 04 Protect extg. curb Og Const. handicap ramp, type B with truncated dome l~ m C I III I LL/ I 05 Protect extg. utilities (See drg. no. CD750) R 6D, Conc, railroad panel 0 Canst conc. driveway a p o I (Placed by railroad) Match extg. curb flares D 99 I (See dry. no. CD745) Protect extg. z o I I 11 Inst. rock mulch "Stop" sign z W Place around crossing signal l~ p M U (for details, see sht2) (A cA 6 'ST 17 Protect extg. - J _J D "Stop Ahead" sign 12 Connect extg. path to sidewalk, + i g 4" thick decomposed granite 4 M O 7 16 12 11 3 x*~~ O z 17 I - Q CW SC 3 Relocate utility pedestals Q M g i6 pp` ¢ ~~av (By others) j 8 5 61 R o ! I5 7 O QQ 4 Sta. "0" 8+32.12, 27.76' Rt. k / Inst,24"x24" "No Left Turn" (R3-2) O R-2o.1' a Protect extg.- d sign on wood post support O n . o - 0 t, - pia-R 203 "RR_" sign (See dr .nos.TM200, TM670, Match extg. g V Paving limits sidewalk p v TM671,TM616) F 1R Rj v °o Fl°_ a S v _ ~0 _ 5 Sta. "0" 7+51,30, 23.5' Rt. C~o i ~Im - 1 0 R/W Inst. area drain ° i ss; over extg. storm sew. k % a I - S q m g, no. CD374) (See dr O O m I ,Lo f5rv ss w _ O - Paving limes- „E m f dZ3°1139 ! _„s,Es 6 Inst.s~gnoland crossing arm CAT 6 F (By others) _SS a o ` _ a 17 Const. truncated domes (See dr no. RD759) "/0'/'/ ~ q o 18 4 3 ~ fc"r - N OA g LINE p v - K ST " RE~r Protect extg. 18 Remove and reinstall exty. "RR" D I I - CA, m Match extg. `"rV-~ rail markings m sidewalk II 17 10 sign of wood post 18 y B t5 7 17 P Match extg. s+ppar to Sta. R R Protect ext . 5 78.37, 21.65' Rt. g ND 14 sidewalk RIW Protect ext . "Stop Ahead" sign rail markings "0" II~ 19 R 1 Sfa "0" 6+49.80,127.5'Rf. _ 16 11 13 sroP ~ 57°1T44..881 1" C.R. -t 5 2 8 Inst.24"x24" "Railroad Grassing N p 22°10'58.29" I Sta. "0" and Cross Road Intersection 8+18.5,23'wide. ~;HEADJ O Advance Warning" (WIO-2) sign T 19:60' Asph. conc. LEGEND on wood post support .H. o (100' from extg. sign) I I Ook Street - Sta. "0" 7+82.5, 0.0' Rt. Remove asph. conc. g Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad (CORP) 20 Sta 110" 6+91.93,144.15'Lt. I ODOT Crossing No. C-429.40 Inst. 24"x24" "Railroad Crossing a I Roadway reconstruction US DOT No.756217C,RX 1392 and Cross Road Intersection Advance Warning" (W10-2) sig Inst. rock mulch on wood post support O (100'from extg. sign) Connect to extg. trail CONSULTING CORPORATEOMCE FNGINffRS P20 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SPITE 100E EUGENE. OREGON 974016189 REGIONAL OFFICES PAVEMENT MARKING & SIGNING NOTES: ~~EC PROF~Css , W aceo." LAMEOSWEGO SALEM, MEDFORD. OREGON VANCOUVER WASHINGTON 1. Dimensions are approximate. All pavement markings and sign locations ~ G i N eF~r~~ OAK STREET RAILROAD CROSSING shall be approved in the field by the Engineer prior to installation. Staggered continental crosswalk 6549E ASHLAND 2. All material and workmanship shall conform to the requirements of the CW SC Type B bars shown thus: ( I I JACKSON COUNTY MUT CD latest edition adopted by ODOT, the Oregon Standard Drawings, R E G 0 the Oregon Standard Specifications For Construction and the Special O Narrow double no-pass two v 9 0 Checked Designed da,ma da'da^ Provisions of this project. ND q p0 checke ey - s+cn Pet off 4" yellow lines shown thus: f QRy 10, P D-af+ad By - S-ban 01- 3. All wood post supports shall be 4"x4", 12' length (Must be field 12" stop bar type B ~F LEE SHEET NO. verified) and a minimum footing depth of 4'unless otherwise noted. O shown thus: A L I G N M E N T A N D 4. All new sign substrate shall be sheet aluminum. See drg. nos. TM500 & TM503. EXPIRES; 061301 GENERAL C 0 N S T R U C T I 0 N 3 pw:A\PWCSOIE.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documerrts\OBEC\Projec=s\0649\0649-0015.00\CAD\Roadway\Pians\649015f-3.dgn Default 71812015 12:30:0'• PM jtilman //0// LINE -1I 8 98 9 i 94 94 ( _ - - _ - 90 90 86 - - 86 ; 82, 82 ; 78 - - - - 74 78 74 I 70 Tracks 70 N ro 66 66 W No m file gra e r 62 _ (Match ext . 0.96% ` -0.17% 2,_4 0 @ 62 Extg. gr and awcut Moltch ex~ @ 58 ubgrade ti Sdwcul - - 58 i w 0 0 I 54 54 Propose conc. ra road panels f laced by railroad) 50 - I - 50 Geh. exc. ' - Ge .exc. 1¢ C.Y. en. exc. 51I C.Y. U 0 C.Y. 1 46 46 - - - 42 42 9 00 10-00 38 I CONSULT1116 cORPOPoIIEO"FIce It, ENGINEERS ' couvrai cLue aoaO surrE 100e EUGENE aaECON anal eesu REGIONAL OfFO .4 L4KE PROFF MEDFORD, OREGON W"'wotec.ccm OAK STREETEGRAILROAD CROSSING VANCOYIER. uaswcra 34 ' ~ ' ~ 1 I G ` h' E Sr0 - 1- - - 65498PE ASHLAND JACKSON COUNTY 30 - _ - - - - - _ O R E G N Designed By - Jcire Jordcr, 6~ ~ Checked By - Stcn Petroff 9I~~ qRY 10' ~ ~QP Dreffed By - Sertan W-c 26 _ _ _ I _ SHEET E NO. EXPIRES: 061301 P R O F I L E 3A 5 00 6 00 7 00 8 00 Pw:A\P'ACS01E.obec.com:P'NOSEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0699\(,649-0015.00\CAD\Roadwey\Pians\649015f_3A.dgn Default 7/9/2015 8:10;18 AM jtiimen Sec. 4, T. 39 S., R.1 E., W.M. 0 Inst. inlet protection (fype 4) (See drg. no. RD1015) cc 'i 0 Inst. sediment barrier 1 y Cc (Type 3) or Straw wattle (See drg. no. RD1035) ° p ' z ~ O m a- L/I Nw N ~I o 2 z Go- CD 0 i OD 'v n S`A : I ^0 o I. ~ _ Flo e /fro _ i ay a f/0~ 12 I l ` \5~ Flo 0 ' p O i N -T 0 CQ1- „0„ LINE \ 76CArV-- a4' oaK S % Cart TREE LrO ES CAT, 62- - ~-A o ao I I a I LEGEND STANDARD DRAWINGS Q Inlet protection ❑ RD1000 Construction Entrances Sediment barrier (Type 3J ❑ RD1005 Check Dams Type 1, 3 and 4 straw wattle ❑ RD1006 Check Dams Type 2 and 6 GENERAL NOTES: ❑ RD1010 Inlet Protection Type 2, 3, 6 and 7 ■ RD1015 Inlet Protection Type 4 CONSULT/tJG coRPawrEOrrrce The construction, adjustment, maintenance, and upgrading of these Erosion and Sediment Control measures is the E] RD1030 Sediment Barrier Type 2, 3 and 4 PROF 1 ENGIMSERS s2o couvrRrcrue RoAO, sure 1003 EUGENE. OREGON 97,101-6089 responsibility of the Contractor for the duration of the project to comply with Section 00280 of the Oregon El RD1031 Temporary Barrier (Aggregate or Brush) E vmwotieccsm uKEESUEeosALEM; n,EDFORD.OREGON, VAN000IERWASHINGTON Standard Specifications for construction and the NPDES 1200-CA permit. S ❑ RD1032 Sediment Barrier Type 8 G I N E r0 ❑ RD1033 Compost Filter Berm Sediment Barrier Type 9 OAK STREET RAILROAD CROSSING Erosion and Sediment Control measures shown on this plan are for anticipated site conditions. Adjust or upgrade these measures for unexpected storm events to ensure that sediment and sediment-laden water does not leave ■ RD1035 Sediment Barrier Type 3 65 °8PE ASHLAND the site. ❑ RD1040 Sediment Fence JACKSON COUNTY El RD1045 Temporary Slope Drain With Energy Dissipator Develop a revised plan of the Erosion and Sediment Control measures shown as required by Section 00280, Oregon ❑ RD1050 Temporary Scour Basin v ORE AN Das s~oe By - a me a ca Standard Specifications for applicable to each staging phase sCoonstructinpt suchta h matil er so as l to clearing that sediment and activities sediment-ladenn segments El RD1055 Slope and ChannelMotting 9t qRy 10,T P D-ft e By -S--. ,Dined water does not enter the roadway or drainage system, or violate applicable water standards. ❑ RD1060 Tire Wash Facility Type 1 and 2 ~O ❑ RD1065 Temporary Sediment Trap SHEET E No. Install measures within the right-of-way unless directed otherwise. ❑ RD1070 Concrete Truck Washout E R O S I O N C O N T R O L PLAN EXPIRES: 061301 GA punV\PWCSOIc.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Docu~Tenrs\OEEC\Projects\0649\064.9-0015.00\CAC\Roadway\Plans\649015f_GA.dgn Default 7/8/2015 12:30:10 PM tilman CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication September 1, 2015, Business Meeting First Reading of three separate ordinances amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Maps, Transportation System Plan, and Land Use Ordinance (Chapter 18) to adopt the Normal Neighborhood Plan FROM: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner, Community Development Department Brandon. Goldman@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The three ordinances presented for consideration amend the Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan, and Municipal Code Chapter 18 (Land Use Ordinance) to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan. The Normal Neighborhood Plan area includes 94 acres that is presently outside the city limits, yet within the established Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The existing Comprehensive Plan designations for the area anticipate the future urbanization of this area with single family (SFR) and suburban residential developments. The housing density expected for SFR lands would range from 4.5 to six units per acre on average. Suburban residential lands typically accommodate attached housing options with densities between 7.2 and nine units per acre The Normal Neighborhood Plan will guide future development associated with approximately 94 acres of unincorporated lands within Ashland's Urban Growth Boundary. Upon annexation of properties in the Normal Neighborhood district, the plan establishes land use policies, standards, and guidelines 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. The neighborhood plan includes detailed maps and graphics illustrating key objectives while providing flexibility and encouraging innovative development alternatives. 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. A detailed scope of work highlighting the key objectives of the plan was produced and the City of Ashland was awarded a TGM grant in May 2012. An extensive public involvement process was undertaken to understand existing conditions, and to develop and refine the plan. In total there have been 50 public meetings over the course of three and a half years where the viewpoints of a variety of participants including the general public, property owners and neighboring residents have affected the plan's evolution. Page 1 of 9 Imo, CITY OF -AS H LAN D The City Council held public hearings on a draft Normal Neighborhood Plan on May _6, 2014, May 20, 2014, and continued public testimony and deliberations to a special meeting on May 29, 2014. During the May 29"' meeting, the Council directed the establishment of an ad-hoc working group to examine the fundamental objectives that were addressed in developing the plan, as well as conduct a more in depth review of a number of plan elements. The appointed working group included two Planning Commissioners (Richard Kaplan, Michael Dawkins), two City Councilors (Pam Marsh, Mike Morris), and Mayor Stromberg. Over the course of twelve public meetings, held between June 2014 and May 2015, the working group explored each of the specific areas identified by Council. A series of meetings specifically focused on housing and land use, open space and natural resources, transportation and infrastructure, and included an exercise where working group members conceptualized alternative neighborhood plans independent of the original draft proposal. Additionally, a special round table meeting was held (September 18, 2014) where a panel was brought together to provide feedback on what they liked and disliked about the draft plan, identified barriers to agreement, and explored how the plan could be amended to work from their perspective. In consideration of public input provided, and a review of the Planning Commission's recommendations as presented in the Planning Commission Report dated 4/22/2014, the working group drafted a general vision for the neighborhood and formulated a summary list of recommended plan amendments (Working Group memo dated December 2_,_2014) for Council's consideration. The City Council directed the working group to work with staff to amend the plan to incorporate the amendments to land use classifications, allowable housing densities, and internal transportation network layout, thus altering the initial draft of the plan the Planning Commission had based the April 22, 2014, Planning Commission report upon. The working group did concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation that the open space areas are a neighborhood defining characteristic and should remain as presented in the original draft plan, however changed the amendment process for potential reductions of open space areas to correlate with approved wetland delineations. Upon review of this open space amendment process change the Planning Commission has provided specific recommendations as outlined within the Commission Recommendations section below. The Council further requested staff obtain cost estimates regarding needed Capital Improvements to East Main Street and the future Railroad crossing at Normal Avenue, and that the working group examine City's potential role in making such off-site improvements. The working group determined that a public railroad crossing and improvements to East Main St., are integral and should proceed in concert with development and recognized that the city may need to play a role in the financing/ implementation of these projects. The Public Works Department and Hardy Engineering completed a general cost analysis for improvements to public rail crossing and East Main Street and further evaluated the role of private and public financing. which was presented to the Working Group on April 15, 2015. Upon review of the Hardy Engineering Executive Summary the working group amended the plan framework to include a new section, Advance Financing and Phasing of Public Improvements (p30), that acknowledged that a phased approach to East Main Street improvements may be an option to consider with future annexation proposals, and that the City would consider the participation in an advance financing district to assist in acquiring full street improvements at the initiation of development within the area. Page 2 of 9 WAR 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. 18.3.4). 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 are 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 (PL-2013-01858) Staff Report dated July 28, 2015, and Staff Report Addendum dated August 11, 2015. 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 on September 15, 2015. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: Goal 7. Keep Ashland a family friendly community: 7.3 Support land-use plans and policies that encourage family-friendly neighborhoods. Goal 13. Develop and support land use and transportation policies to achieve sustainable development. 13.1 Create incentives and ordinances for energy-efficient buildings. 13.2 Develop infill and compact urban form policies. 13.3 Support alternative transportation choices. Goal 14. Encourage and/or develop public spaces that build community and promote interaction. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS Transportation Commission To evaluate the changes made by the Working Group to the Normal Neighborhood Plan's transportation elements, the Transportation Commission held a public hearing on April 23, 2015. The Transportation Commission approved a motion (5-0) to recommend approval of the amendments to the Transportation System Plan, and Shared Street classification as follows: Accept the presented revised plan as an amendment of the TSP with the following conditions: I ) Should the development occur along East Main, at a minimum, a sidewalk is to be developed between Walker and Clay Street. 2) Should the development occur along the railroad tracks, at a minimum, the railroad crossing needs to be completed. These recommendations have already been incorporated into the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework's Mobility section (pg 30) as is presented to the City Council for consideration. Housing and Human Services Commission The Housing and Human Services Commission did not hold a public hearing regarding the draft plan Page 3 of 9 CITY OF -ASHLAND 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 they emphasized the value of integrating affordable housing throughout the plan area consistent with the existing 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 Land Use Ordinance (Ch. 18.3.4) with the following specific recommended amendments to Ordinances 1, 2, and 3, as outlined below. These recommendations have not been incorporated into the Normal Neighborhood Plan pending City Council direction at First Reading. Ordinance #1 - Comprehensive Plan amendments o Elimination of a sentence within the framework document (pg 28):that indicates the use of alleys and rear lanes reduces pavement: ■ "the narrow street section of rear lanes reduces the extent of impervious surfaces in the Normal Neighborhood and supports wetland and stream health o Amend the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework housing types description for Pedestrian- Oriented Clustered Residential Units (pg.8) to newly include NN-1-5 as a zoning classification that permits such units. ■ This change pre-supposes a related change to the Land Use Ordinance (43) to include Pedestrian Cluster Housing as a permitted use within the Single-Family zoning designation ( NN-1-5). Ordinance #2 - Transportation System Plan o Broaden the Shared Street description to allow this new street type to be applied in areas other than those that are physically constrained. If directed by Council to amend the description staff would revise the proposed language to read as follows: ■ Provides access to residential uses in an area in which right-of-way is constrained by natural features, topography or historically significant structures. The Shared streets may additionally be used in circumstances where a slower speed street, collectively shared by pedestrians, bicycles, and autos, is a functional and preferred design alternative. The design of the street should emphasize a slower speed environment and provide clear physical and visual indications the space is shared across modes. Ordinance #3 - Land Use Ordinance o Amend Table 18.3.4.040 Land Use Descriptions to list the "Pedestrian Clustered Housing" as a "Permitted" (P) use within the NN-1-5 zone o Amend the Major and Minor amendment sections (18.34.030c) to require any reductions in open space obtain a major plan amendment, and only alterations that do not reduce the size of a designated open space be permitted through the minor amendment process. ■ Should the Council elect to maintain the minor amendment process for open space reductions due to approved wetland delineations, as was recommended by the Working Group, the Planning Commission recommend the revisions to 18.3.4.060 presented below to clarify the criteria to be evaluated in granting such a minor amendment. ■ Staff supports the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the Normal Neighborhood District Site Development and Design Standards to incorporate the proposed Page 4 of 9 P", CITY OF ASHLAND section 18.3.4.060.A as presented below, which would codify the "stated purpose" of open space. Staff believes this newly proposed section should be added to the Normal Neighborhood District standards independent of the decision to require either a minor or major amendment process for reductions in open space areas. Amend the Normal Neighborhood District Site Development and Design Standards (18.3.4.060) to directly reference the language in the framework document, and to include a stated purpose for open space within a new section as follows: 18.3.4.060 A 5. Conformance with Open Space Network Plan New developments must provide open space consistent with the design concepts within the Greenwa and nd Open Space chapter of the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework and in con ormance with the Normal Neighborhood Plan Open Space Network Map. The open space network will be des~gned to support the neighborhood's distinctive character and provide passive recreational importunities where people can connect with nature where water resources are protected and where riparian corridors and wetlands are preserved and enhanced a The application demonstrates that equal or better protection for identified resources will be ensured through restoration enhancement, and mitigation measures. b. The application demonstrates that connections between open spaces are created and maintained providing for an interlinked system ot'greenways. c The application demonstrates that open spaces function to provide habitat for wildlife, promote environmental duality by absorbing storing and releasing stormwater, and protect future development from flood hazards, d The application demonstrates that scenic views considered important to the community are protected and community character and duality of life are preserved by buffering areas of development from one another. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff believes the revisions that have been made by the Working Group refined and improved the neighborhood plan, and are largely consistent with the original goals and objectives (see attached) for the planning project. Staff recommends Council approve first reading of the ordinances amending the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, Transportation System Plan, and Land Use Ordinance as presented below: Council approval of Ordinance #1 (as presented, incorporating the Planning Commission recommendations, or with specific recommended changes) would affect the following: • Amend the Comprehensive Plan Map creating a plan designation for the Normal Neighborhood Plan District • Amend the Introduction and Definitions, and Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Normal Neighborhood district and land use classifications as proposed. • Adopt the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework as a Comprehensive Plan supporting document . Council approval of Ordinance 42 (as presented, incorporating the Planning Commission recommendations, or with specific recommended changes) would affect the following: Page 5 of 9 IA, CITY OF ASHLAND • Amend the Transportation System Plan to incorporate the Normal Neighborhood Street network as proposed: 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 (TSP Figure 8-1) to incorporate the planned multi-use trails within the Normal Neighborhood Plan. • Amend the Street Design Standards (Chapter 18.4.6) to incorporate the new Shared Street classification. Council approval of Ordinance #3 (as presented, incorporating the Planning Commission recommendations, or with specific recommended changes) would affect the following: • Amend the Land Use ordinance to include the Normal Neighborhood District Chapter (18.3.4) including the Normal Neighborhood Plan Zoning Classification map, and Site Development and Design Standards. SUGGESTED MOTION(S): Individual motions are required to address each of the three proposed ordinances separately: Ordinance I 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 II [INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS], ADD THE NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD LAND CATEGORIES TO CHAPTER IV [HOUSING ELEMENT], 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," [with the following changes...] and move the ordinance on to second reading. Ordinance 2 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 ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.4.6 TO ADD A NEW SHARED STREET CLASSIFICATION", [with the following changes ]and move the ordinance on to second reading. Ordinance 3 I move to approve the first reading by title only of an ordinance titled: "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 18.3.4 NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.2.1.020 TO ADD A NORMAL Page 6 of 9 P", CITY OF ASHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING CLASSIFICATION, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 18.2.1.040 TO ADD A NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT. [with the following changes ...]and move the ordinance on to second reading. ATTACHMENTS: • Staff Report Addendum dated August 11, 2015. • Staff Report dated July 28, 2015, • Ordinance #1- Comprehensive Plan amendments o Exhibit A (introduction amendment) o Exhibit B (framework document) o Exhibit C (map) • Ordinance #2 - Transportation System Plan and Street Design Standards amendments o Exhibit A (Street Network Map) o Exhibit B (Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Map) • Ordinance #3 - Land Use Ordinance (Ch 18) amendments o Exhibit A • Planning Commission Report (4/22/2014) • Working Group memo dated (12/2/2014) • Normal Neizhborhood Plan Goals and Objectives • Hardy En ink eering Executive Summary East Main Street & Railroad crossing infrastructure costs and financing assessment. Electronic links • Working Group Meeting Minutes: 0 5/21/2015 o 11/20/2014 o 9/18/2014 o 7/24/2014 0 5/7/2015 o 10/23/2014 o 9/4/2014 o 7/10/2014 0 4/15/2015 o 10/09/2014 o 8/21/2014 o 6/19/2014 • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 0 7/28/2015 0 8/11/2015 (Draft Minutes, pending Planning Commission review) • Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes o 4/23/2015 • Housing and Human Services Commission Meeting Minutes o 3/27/2014 • Letters Public letters submitted relating to Planning Action PL-2013-01858 , including prior iterations of the draft plan (pre-July 2015), are not physically attached to this Council Communication, however they remain available online at www.ashland.or.us/normalplan, which includes the following electronically linked letters: 2015 2014 2013 All 2015 letters combined All 2014 letters combined - All 2013 letters combined - -PDF PDF PDF o Vidmar letter (7/13/2015) o Jones/MaharHomes letter o DeMarinis letter and exhibits o Vidmar letter (3/31/2015) (11/20/2014) (10/3112013) Page 7 of 9 CITY OF ASHLAND o Miller letter (3/23/2015) o Vidmar letter (11/15/2014) o DeMarinis letter and o Alvarez letter 8/20/2015 o ACCESS Inc. letter exhibits (10/8/2013) o Hoffman letter 8/11/2015 (11/12/2014) o Meadowbrook Home Owners o Lutz letter 7/28/2015 o Vidmar letter (10/27/2014) (Anderson) letter and exhibits o Anderson letter 7/28/2015 o Miller letter (9/29/2014) (10/8/2013) o Hoffman letter 7/27/2015 o Mahar Homes Concept Plan c Ashland Meadows o DeMarinis letter 8/25/2015 (9/18/2014) (Skuratowicz) letter (10/8/2013) o Lutz letter (9/17/2014) o Koopman letter and exhibits o Miller letter (9/12/2014 (10/8/2013) o Miller letter (9/03/2014) o Lutz letter (9/26/2013) o Boyer letter (8120/2014) o Vidmar letter (7/29/2013) o DeMarinis letter (8/06/2014) o Carse letter (6/27/2013) o Boyer Letter (8/06/2014) o Gracepoint letter (6/12/2013) o Vidmar letter (7/30/2014) o Vidmar letter (4/26/2013) o Breon letter (7/22/2014) o Shore letter (4/10/2013) o DeMarinis letter (7/22/2014) o Marshall letter (4/1012013) o Vidmar letter (7/2112014) o Horn letter (3/05/2013) o DeMarinis letter (7/15/2014) o Filson letter (2/25/2013) o DeMarinis letter (5/19/2014) o Vidmar letter (2/25/2013) o Anderson letter (4/08/2014) o Grace Point letter (5/06/2014) o Livni letter (4/29/2014) o Mandell letter (5/05/2014) o Marshall Letter (04/30/2014) o Miller Letter (4/30/2014) o Neher letter (5/02/2014) o Quiett letter (5/1/2014) o Wallace letter (5/01/2014) o Seidler letter (4/30/2014) o Sharp letter (4/29/2014) o Jacobson letter (4/27/2014) o Arsac letter (4/29/2014) o Brannan letter (5/04/2014) o Gerschler letter (510412014) o Open City Hall public comments (3/5/14) o GracePoint letter (3/11/2014) o Anderson Letter (3/11/2014) o Skuratowicz letter (3/11/2014) o Hunter letter ( 2/25/14) Additional background information To inform the neighborhood planning process a number of studies were completed and previously presented to the Planning Commission and City Council (2014 public hearing) in support of this project including: • Normal Neiihborhood Existing Traffic Conditions technical memorandum (dated September 5, 2012) • Normal Neiyhborhood Future Traffic Analysis (dated November 19, 2013) Page 8 of 9 CITY OF ASHLAND • Buildable Lands Inventory (approved November 15, 2011- ordinance #3055) provided a basis for evaluation of the amount of available land within the City Limits and Urban Growth Boundary. • 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. • Normal Neighborhood Executive Summary of Existing Conditions to provide background information for the Normal plan area including the results of a resident sury_~y 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 o Sustainability Framework o Mobility Framework o Greenway and Open space Framework o Housing and Land Use Framework Page 9 of 9 11VALAR CITY OF -ASHLAND Staff Report Addendum DATE: August 11, 2015 TO: Ashland Planning Commission FROM: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner RE: Continuation of the July 28, 2015 Planning Commission Public Hearing regarding the Normal Neighborhood Plan. At the July 28, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, Transportation System Plan, and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan. The Commission deferred action to the Commission's next available meeting in order to continue deliberations and forward recommendations to the City Council. The Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on September 1, 2015. Please refer to the July 28, 2015 Staff Report for the project background, description of site and proposal, and discussion of project impact. There have been no changes to the Normal Neighborhood Plan following the July 28, 2015 meeting. At the prior meeting Staff presented changes to the plan that were made by the Normal Neighborhood Plan Working Group following the City Council's update on December 2, 2014. The City Council directed staff to amend the Normal Neighborhood Plan's implementing ordinances to incorporate the selected recommendations of the Normal Neighborhood Working Group, and to present the updated plan to the Planning Commission, Transportation Commission, and Parks Department for comment. The City Council is seeking comments regarding the changes that were made to the plan by the Working Group subsequent to the Planning Commission's original review and public hearing (4/08/2014). The modifications to the Plan that were incorporated by the Working Group include the following: • Modifications to the proposed zoning • Modifications to the street dedication map • Modifications to the mobility section of the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework to address timing of East Main Street and RR Crossing improvements • Modifications to the Land Use Ordinance to allow a minor amendment process for for non- resource open space adjustments • Modifications to the Housing and Land Use section of the Normal Neighborhood Plan to include conceptual illustrations of preferred site planning elements and a summary of characteristics that future developments should address (pgs 9-11). The first three items in the bulleted list above were presented to the Planning Commission at a study session on March 31, 2015 and are outlined below in greater detail. The last two items listed above were incorporated into the Plan and implementing ordinances based on the Working Group's direction during their May, 2015 meetings and had not been previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. -2- Land Use Framework In the final plan and proposed land use ordinance these recommendations of the working group have been incorporated which include the following: • Changing the originally proposed land zoning designations to be more consistent with the zoning of adjacent land within the City Limits • Using zoning labels and housing densities that are comparable to those used in the rest of the city while recognizing the Normal Neighborhood (NN) district • Maintain the option for neighborhood serving businesses and services close to East Main St near the northeast corner of the plan area (NN- 1 -3.5 -C). • Locating higher density development (NN-2) near the railroad tracks and within a relatively short distance to local businesses, transit stops along Ashland St., parks and community facilities. • Locating lower density development along East Main Street to protect the existing viewshed and maintain a gradual transition between rural and urban areas. i -I Zoning h :.0 yNN-1-5 NN-1-35 t 14N 1-3 5-C Previously Proposed Land Use Designations (4/2014) Revised Land Use Designations (7/2015) Zone Density Zone Density NN-01 5 units per acre NN-1-5 4.5 units per acre NN-02 10 units per acre NN-1-3.5 7.2 units per acre NN-03 15 units per acre NN-1 -3.5-C 7.2 units per acre + mixed-use NN-03C 15 units per acre + mixed-use NN-2 13.5 units per acre DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Ashland, Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Oregon 97520 TTY: 800 800-7355-2900 www.ashland.or.us -3- Transportation Framework The Normal Neighborhood Plan Working Group had a number of specific recommendations relating to the future transportation system which have been incorporated into the neighborhood plan as follows: The internal transportation system's local street network should incorporate multiple connections with East Main Street as shown, and maintain the Normal Collector as designated in the draft plan. Additional connections to East Main Street or Clay Street, which are not shown in the proposed Street Framework, should require a major amendment to the Plan. Internal local streets should be aligned to provide a more standardized grid pattern, including a reduction in offset intersections and straight east-west connections. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways are critical, especially as a means to connect residents with the middle school and the existing bike path. External transportation improvements, including the railroad crossing and improvements to East Main Street are integral and should proceed in concert with development. The mobility section of the Plan Framework newly includes narrative stating that the City could consider a phased improvement approach and the formation of an Advanced Financing District as part of future annexation proposals. ■ The extent of improvements needed along East Main Street would ultimately be determined by a Transportation Impact Analysis submitted with a proposed development application. With a phased approach it is anticipated that when the first new intersection with East Main is created at least 250' on either side of that intersection should be fully improved to include a sidewalk, parkrow, bike lanes and a center turn lane. The plan stipulates a pedestrian and bicycle path connecting to the Middle School should also be improved at that initial phase. a~ •bq~ 5 t bi~ _ M fdh _ r e . 9 ` P L 'q t i t i y ~ r t :z7 TL R L _ r , Road Classifications -neigborhood collector local street Y r i_ ` S shared street mtilti-use path N Previously proposed Transportation Network (4/2014) Revised Transportation Network (3/2015) DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www,ashland.orms -4- Open space The Planning Commission's report dated April 22, 2014 expressed that the provision of open space within the plan area has environmental, recreational, and aesthetic value to the neighborhood. The Normal Neighborhood working group concurred with this sentiment and as such the Planning Commission's originally proposed recommendation to amend the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework's Greenway and Open Space chapter to further emphasize the community value of open space retention has been included in the framework document with the following introductory statement (page 13). 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, protecl future development_from flood hazards, and preserve community character and quality of life by buffering areas of development fi•orn 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. The neighborhood areas designated as future open space are largely consistent in shape, size and locations of previously designated floodplains, riparian corridors, wetlands, and wetland buffer areas within the plan area. Further as the plan envisions the use of these open spaces for habitat preservation, passive recreation, and preservation of scenic views the boundaries of these spaces address the proposed street pattern to retain accessibility by the neighborhood residents. fi . r r-Ft, - r j l t ' l t c r e i ~ , I tiOpen Space ' • 4 ':1..4 A ~~i~' - - _ --~r = '.•'a J ] natural area - titivpacket park ~---green sireet . _ - . Shared street • I - 'L ~rr*.~i.d,. tf ~~w:...i' .multi-use path C. E LYl 64.1 ii. central dike path Previously proposed Open Space Network (4/2014) Revised Open Space Network(7/2015) DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 P1 www.ashland.orms -5- As proposed in the draft Land Use Ordinance as recommended by the Working Group, in the future event that a Department of State Lands (DSL) approved wetland delineation differs from the boundaries presented in the 2007 Local Wetland Inventory an applicant could apply for a minor plan amendment to alter the Open Space Network Map to reflect the then current delineation. As such, a revised delineation showing a decrease in a regulated wetland area could result in a reduction in designated open space area within the district. Planning Commission July 28th items for further discussion In addition to the revisions to the plan that were made by the Working Group as described above, the Planning Commission identified the following issues during discussions on July 28, 2015 that they would like to further address in formulating final recommendations to be presented to the City Council. Housing • Commissioners discussed allowing greater flexibility for "clustered housing" within the proposed single family zone (NN-1-5). The City's current performance standards options for subdivisions within R-1 zones, and the NN-1-5 zone as proposed, would presently allow single family units to be clustered around a common green consistent with the general concept for clustered housing as presented in the plan. However such a NN-1-5 development approved through the Performance Standards subdivision process would retain the lower residential base density than typical pocket neighborhoods, and would have individual household parking located adjacent to each home unless an exception to parking standards was requested and approved • Allowing Pedestrian Cluster Housing as a permitted use within the Single-Family zoning designation ( NN-1-5) would newly allow such developments to utilize provisions for consolidated parking, however the density of the development would remain consistent with the NN-1-5 zone. If recommended by the Planning Commission such a change would require the following amendments: o Amending Table 18.3.4.040 Land Use Descriptions to list this use as "Permitted" (P) under NN-1-5 o Amending the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework housing types description for Pedestrian-Oriented Clustered Residential Units (pg.8) to newly include NN-1-5 as a zoning classification that permits such units. Transportation • Broaden the Shared Street description to allow this new street type to be applied in areas other than those that are physically constrained . o The existing description reads as follows: Shared Street Provides access to residential in an area in which right-qf--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. o To broaden the applicability of this street type the Planning Commission could recommend amendments to this section: Provides access to residential in an area in which right-of-way is constrained by natural features, topography or historically significant structures. 'We-Shared streets may additionally be used in DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Ashland, Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Oregon 97520 TTY: 800 800-7355-2900 www.ashland.or.us -6- circumstances where . , a slower speed street, collectively shared by pedestrians bicycles and autos is a functional and preferred design alternative, Thei-eeve, one . The design of the street should emphasize a slower speed environment and provide clear physical and visual indications the space is shared across modes. • Elimination of wording that indicates the use of alleys and rear lanes reduces pavement: o The only current reference to the impact of alleys upon reduced pavement in the presently proposed framework document is located in the mobility section of the framework within the description of alleys (pg 28): "the narrow street section of rear lanes reduces the extent of impervious surfaces in the Normal Neighborhood and supports wetland and stream health If recommended by the Planning Commission, and approved by Council, this section could be revised to eliminate that specific sentence within the alley description. o In a prior version of the framework (2/25/2014) it additionally stated on page 16 of the mobility section "The use of rear lanes helps to reduce the extent ofpaved areas, and will support a complete grid offinely-grained urban blocks. " In subsequent versions of the framework, including the version currently proposed, this language was modified as follows: "The use of rear lanes helps to support a complete grid of finely-grained urban blocks, and provide access to garages and backyards. " Open Space - Wetland Delineations • The proposed Land Use Ordinance (LUO ch.18.3.4) would allow an applicant to apply for a minor amendment to the plan in order to alter the Open Space Network Map to reflect the DSL approved wetland delineation. The early drafts of the proposed LUO previously reviewed by the Planning Commission had required a major amendment to the plan to reduce the area of a designated Open Space. The Planning Commission could forward a recommendation to reinstate the major amendment provision, and only allow for minor amendments when the area of open space provided is not reduced, or alternatively could recommend additional ordinance language to clarify the factors to be considered in approving a minor amendment to reduce open space. • The current land use code (18.5.2.050) permits an exception to standards through a minor amendment if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable ,ficully meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, bill granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. • Should the commission elect to recommend modifying the minor amendment process staff would recommend the following revisions: DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 IF www.ashland.or.us VMS -7- o Amend the Normal Neighborhood District Site Development and Design Standards(I8.3.4.060) to directly reference the language in the framework document, and to include a stated purpose for open space within a new section as follows: 18.3.4.060 A 5. Conformance with Open Space Network Plan New developments must provide open space consistent with the design concepts within the Greenway and Open Space chapter of the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework and in conformance with the Normal Neighborhood Plan Open Space Network Map The open space network will be designed to support the neighborhood's distinctive character and provide passive recreational opportunities where people can connect with nature, where water resources are protected and where riparian corridors and wetlands are preserved and enhanced. a The application demonstrates that equal or better protection for identified resources will be ensured through restoration, enhancement, and mitigation measures. b The application demonstrates that connections between open spaces are created and maintained providing for an interlinked system of greenways. c The application demonstrates that open spaces function toprovide habitat for wildlife promote environmental quality by absorbing, storing and releasing stormwater, and protect future development from flood hazards, d. The application demonstrates that scenic views considered important to the community are protected and community character and quality of life are preserved by buffering areas of development from one another. Recommendations A Planning Commission recommendation for approval of Ordinance #I (as presented, or with specific recommended changes) would affect the following: • Recommend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map be amended to create a designation for the Normal Neighborhood Plan District • Recommend the Introduction and Definitions, and Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan be amended to incorporate the Normal Neighborhood district and land use classifications as proposed. • Recommend the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework document be included as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan, with recommended changes to the mobility and open space chapters as incorporated by the Working Group, or as amended by the Planning Commission recommendation. A Planning Commission recommendation for approval of Ordinance #2(as presented, or with specific recommended changes) would affect the following: • Recommend the Transportation System Plan be amended to incorporate the Normal Neighborhood Street network as proposed: 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. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 OW www.ashland.or.us via -s- • 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 to incorporate the Shared Street classification. A Planning Commission recommendation for approval of Ordinance 93 (as presented, or with specific recommended changes) would affect the following: • Recommend the Land Use ordinance be amended to include the Normal Neighborhood District Chapter (18.3.4) including the Normal Neighborhood Plan Zoning Classification map, and Site Development and Design Standards as proposed, or as amended by the Planning Commission recommendation. The Planning Commission's recommendations relating to the revisions to the neighborhood plan's proposed land use designations, conservation and open space designations, street network, and draft land use ordinance will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration on September 1, 2015. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT July 28, 2015 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 18.3.4 Normal Neighborhood District (proposed) 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 -vvell 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 Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 16 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 a joint 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 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, t, 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. The issues and opportunities identified during the first public workshop and key participants meetings, held when the project was initiated back in October 2012, 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. • 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; Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 16 • 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. 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. A draft Normal Neighborhood Plan, and draft implementing ordinances, were presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing on March H, , 2014 and April 8, 2014. Following the Planning Commission's public hearings their formal recommendations on the neighborhood plan were forwarded to the City Council (Planning Commission Report dated 4/22/2014). The City Council held public hearings on the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan on May 6, 2014, May 20`", 2014, and continued public testimony and deliberations to a special meeting on May 29, 2014. At the final May 29"' meeting the Council directed the establishment of an ad-hoc working group to examine the fundamental assumptions that were used in developing the plan, as well as conduct a more in depth review of a number of plan elements. The appointed working group included two Planning Commissioners (Richard Kaplan, Michael Dawkins); two City Councilors (Pam Marsh, Mike Morris), and Mayor Stromberg. The Council directed the working group to specifically examine the following: Housing Concentrations and Type • Regional Problem Solving (RPS) assumptions on density • The need for NN zoning; Density (units per acre) • Building height limitations (2.5 or 3-story) Transportation • General transportation and connectivity issues; Transportation to the schools; East-west transportation issues; Public transportation; Traffic reduction (elimination); Improvements to East Main St.; Railroad crossing Open space • Wetland protection & delineations. Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 16 • 25% open space Infrastructure water, sewer, and electric; developer driven costs Public Input Incorporate public input and respond accordingly Over the course of twelve public meetings, held between June 2014 and May 2015, the working group explored each of the specific items identified by Council. A series of meetings specifically focused on housing and land use, open space and natural resources, transportation and infrastructure, and included an exercise where working group members aimed to conceptualize an alternative neighborhood plan independent of the original draft proposal. Additionally a special round table meeting was held (September 18, 2014) where a panel was brought together to provide feedback on what they liked and disliked about the draft plan, identified barriers to agreement, and explored how the plan could be amended to work from their perspective. Panelists included a selected neighborhood representative from within the Normal Neighborhood Plan area (Susan DeMarinis), a representative from the adjacent development's Home Owners Associations (Bryce Anderson), a developer who represented a number of property owners (Randy Jones), and two outside experts familiar with Land Use and housing development (Alan Harper and Tom Giordano) who each had an opportunity to present their concerns and suggestions and participate in an open discussion about the draft plan. In consideration of public input provided, and a review of the draft plan's elements, the working group discussed a general vision for the neighborhood and formulated a summary list of recommended plan amendments (Working Group memo dated December 2, 2014) for Council's consideration. In formulating their recommendations the Normal Neighborhood Plan working group reviewed each of the Planning Commission's recommendations as presented in the Planning Commission Report dated 4/22/2014. The working group's recommended amendments alter the land use classifications, allowable housing densities, internal transportation network, thus differing from the plan the Planning Commission originally reviewed and had based the Commission report upon. The working group did concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation that the conservation/open space boundaries are a neighborhood defining characteristic and should remain as presented in the original draft plan, however changed the amendment process for potential reductions of open space areas to correlate with designated wetlands. The working group recommended that the existing maximum building height of 35ft, or two and one-half stories, should be retained and to not allow an increase to 40ft, or three-stories, through a conditional use permit process as was initially recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 16 Background Studies To inform the neighborhood planning process a number of studies were completed and previously presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in support of this project including: • A Buildable Lands Inventory (approved November 15, 201 1- ordinance 93055) 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 83085), 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 o Sustainability Framework o Mobility Framework o Greenway and Open space Framework o Housing and Land Use Framework • The traffic engineering firm SO Alliance completed an Existing Traffic Conditions technical memorandum (dated September 5, 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 Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 5 of 16 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 (\A/'9,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. During the course of this project property owners have completed new wetland delineations for two of the three significant wetlands within the project area (W12 & W4). These new delineations for W4 and W12 were recently approved by DSL (WD-2014-0255 & WD-2014-0269) effectively reducing the areas that are regulated as wetlands at this point in time. The last remaining large wetland (W9) within the project area is located on multiple properties adjacent to Ashland Middle School. Staff understands that one of the property owners (Grace Point Church) has recently conducted a study of the W9 wetland on their property. This delineation has been submitted to DSL for review but has yet to be approved. Approved wetland delineations are only valid for five years from the date of DSL's approval. Therefore, with any annexation proposal the City of Ashland will require demonstration that DSL has approved a formal delineation within 5 years of the application. The Normal Neighborhood Plan is comprised of Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework document, official Normal Neighborhood Plan maps, amendments to the Transportation System Plan and street standards, and the proposed Normal Neighborhood District land use ordinance amendments (Ch. 18-3.4). Collectively these documents provide the underlying conceptual and regulatory structure for 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. 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: Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 6 of 16 • Adopting the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework document as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan and designation of the Normal Neighborhood District within the Comprehensive Plan map. • Adoption of official Normal Neighborhood Plan maps: o Land Use Designations Map (NN-1-5, NN-1-3.5, NN-l -3.5-C, NN-2) o Street Network o Pedestrian and Bicycle Network o Street network: Green Streets o Open Space Network • 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 (18.4.6) to add a new Shared Street classification. • Amending the Land Use Ordinance to include a new Chapter 18.3.4 Normal Neighborhood District, to guide and direct both public and private improvements. Additionally, amendments to Chapter 18.2.1.020 and 18.2.1.040 are proposed to provide reference to, and consistency with, the Normal Neighborhood District. 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 Land Use Ordinance 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 (July 28, 2015) and City Council public hearing (September 1, 2015). A notice was published in the newspaper on July 8, 2015, and a meeting announcement was emailed to residents and interested parties on July 13, 2015. Meeting announcements and plan materials are posted on the project web page www.ashland.or.us/normalplan Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 7 of 16 B. Proposal Impact Planned Housing Types and Land Use Designations The proposed Normal Neighborhood District will contain four residential zones, NN- 1-5, NN-1-3.5, NN-1-3.5-C, NN-2. The use regulations and development standards set forth in the proposed land use ordinance (Ch. 18.3.4) for these zones are intended to be largely consistent with existing zoning standards within the City, while providing 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-1-5: The Land Use designation NN-1-5 is intended to provide single family dwellings, accessory residential units, and cottage housing with a base density of 4.5 units per acre. The draft ordinance includes a reserved section for the "cottage housing" type to be consistent with standards to be proposed under a separate legislative planning action for all single family zones within the city. NN-1-3.5 The NN-1-3.5 designation provides housing opportunities for individual households through development of a mix of single-dwelling housing, apartments, townhomes, accessory residential units, and pedestrian oriented clustered housing with a base density of 7.2 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 open space. The Normal Neighborhood Plan, and draft land use ordinance amendments, include example illustrations primarily intended to assist those involved in conceptualizing a development to better address the principle objectives outlined within the Normal Neighborhood Plan. 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. Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 8 of 16 NN-2 The NN-2 land use designation is intended to address Ashland's housing needs through development of multi-dwelling housing with a base density of 13.5 units per acre. NN-1-3.5-C The NN-1 -3.5-C zone is a residential designation consistent with NN-1-3.5 (above), however it would additionally allow for limited neighborhood serving commercial uses, such as a coffee shop, on the ground floor. Upon review of the initial draft of the plan on March 27, 2014, The Housing and Human Services Commission expressed that they felt strongly that this area is a major source of future growth in the City. The Commission specifically noted that affordable housing is an important component of our City, and will be integral to future development of this neighborhood. This plan and code maintain the City's existing density bonuses and annexation requirements for the provision of affordable housing units. In addition, the Neighborhood Plan, and proposed Land Use Ordinance, encourage more diversity in housing and increased intensity of development in those areas where the context and capacity for density is most appropriate. The result should be increases in housing supply, housing options, and housing affordability. The various land use designations, and flexibility in housing types permitted, create a complete neighborhood, accessible to a full range of ages and abilities. There will be units for sale or rent; small, and large; and attached and detached units. Greenway and Open Space The plan's approach to the greenway and open space framework is establish designated open space areas to include both water resource protection areas and recreational open space. 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 (LWI), 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 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 could additionally provide recreational amenities to the districts residents. In the future event that a Department of State Lands approved wetland delineation differs from the boundaries presented in the 2007 LWI, and Normal Neighborhood Plan Open Space map, an applicant could apply for a minor plan amendment to alter the boundary to reflect the then current delineation. Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 9 of 16 Clay Creek and Cemetery Creek are contained within designated open spaces which include all areas within the FEMA 100 year floodplain, City of Ashland Floodplain, and regulated riparian areas. 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 mobility section or the Normal Neighborhood Plan 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 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 (Figure 10-1) for 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 (Figure 8-1) for 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 Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 10 of 16 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 safely occupy the street surface by yielding to the slowest and most vulnerable present at a given moment. The proposed amendments to the Street Design Standards within the Ashland Municipal Code (18.4.6) codify the new shared street classification. 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 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, including the installation of a center turn lane at designated intersections. 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 according to the report. The Planning Commission, Transportation Commission, and Working Gorup have each spent considerable time discussing the needed street improvements along East Main Street from Walker Ave. to Clay Street. The Planning Commission had previously recommended that "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. The Transportation Commissions most recent recommendation was that a partial improvement of East Main Street (such as full improvements 250' on either side of a proposed intersection) could be considered to address traffic impacts demonstrated in a Traffic Impact Analysis provided "...at a minimum, a sidewalk is to be developed between Walker and Clay Street. " to address pedestrian and bicycle demand in the Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 11 of 16 • Inclusion of mandatory standards relating to storm water management. • Alignment of streets and zoning to provide direct East-west connections with a more grid-like street pattern while aiming to locate new streets along existing property lines. • The inclusion of "neighborhood module" illustrations within the plan framework to provide general examples of characteristics that would help make a neighborhood module successful including a diversity of housing types accessible to a range of ages, family sizes, and income levels, common center greens and community gardens, and alley accessed parking areas. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof 18.5 Application Review Procedures and Approval Criteria 18.5.9.010 Purpose This chapter contains the procedure for amending the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, and Land Use Ordinance. 18.5.9.020 Applicability and Review Procedure Applications for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are as follows: A. Type II. The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. 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. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 5. 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's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, 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. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. B. Type W. It may be necessary from time to time to make legislative amendments in order to conform with the Comprehensive Plan or to meet other changes in circumstances or conditions. The Type III procedure applies to the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy requiring City Council approval and enactment of an ordinance; this includes adoption of regulations, zone changes for large areas, zone changes requiring comprehensive plan amendment, comprehensive plan map or text amendment, annexations (see chapter 18.5.8 for annexation information), and urban growth boundary amendments. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III procedure. Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 13 of 16 1. Zone changes or amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except where minor amendments or corrections may be processed through the Type II procedure pursuant to subsection 18.5.9.020.A, above. 2. Comprehensive Plan changes, including text and map changes or changes to other official maps. 3. Land Use Ordinance amendments. 4. Urban Growth Boundary amendments. 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 2 years have refined and improved the neighborhood plan, and are largely consistent with the original plan goals and objectives. Staff recommends the Transportation System Plan be amended to incorporate the Normal Neighborhood Street network as proposed. Upon review of the Normal Neighborhood Plan on April 23, 2015 the Transportation Commission recommended approval of the Street Network and Pedestrian and Bicycle Network as follows: Accept the presented revised plan as an amendment of the TSP with the following conditions: 1) Should the development occur along East Main, at a minimum, a sidewalk is to be developed between Walker and Clay Street. 2) Should the development occur along the railroad tracks, at a minimum, the railroad crossing needs to be completed. 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 approval of the Land Use Ordinance amendments as presented. Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 14 of 16 • Letters Public letters submitted relating to Planning Action PL-2013-01858 , including prior iterations of the draft plan (pre-July 2015), are not physically attached to this Staff Report, however they remain available online at www.ashland.or.us/normalplan, which includes the following electronically linked letters: 2015 2014 2013 All 2013 letters combined - PDF All 2014 letters combined - PDF All 2015 letters combined - PDF Vidmar letter (7/13/2015) Jones/MaharHomes letter DeMarinis letter and exhibits Vidmar letter (3/31/2015) (11/20/2014) (10/31/2013) Miller Letter (3/23/2015) Vidmar letter (11/15/2014) DeMarinis letter and ACCESS Inc. letter (11/12/2014) exhibits (1018/2013) Vidmar letter (10/27/2014) Meadowbrook Home Owners Miller letter (9/29/2014) (Anderson) letter and exhibits Mahar Homes Concept Plan (10/8/2013) (9/18/2014) Ashland Meadows Lutz letter (9/17/2014) (Skuratowicz) letter Miller letter (9/12/2014 (10/8/2013) Miller letter (9/03/2014) Koopman letter and exhibits Boyer letter (8/20/2014) (10/8/2013) DeMarinis letter (8/06/2014) Lutz letter (9/26/2013) Boyer Letter (8/06/2014) Vidmar letter (7/29/2013) Vidmar letter (7/30/2014) Carse letter (6/27/2013) Breon letter (7/22/2014) Gracepoint letter (6/12/2013) DeMarinis letter (7/22/2014) Vidmar letter (4/26/2013) Vidmar letter (7/21/2014) Shore letter (4/10/2013) DeMarinis letter (7/15/2014) Marshall letter (4/10/2013) DeMarinis letter (5/19/2014) Horn letter (3/05/2013) Anderson letter (4/08/2014) Filson letter (2/25/2013) Grace Point letter (5/06/2014) Vidmar letter (2/25/2013) Livni letter (4/2912014) Mandell letter (5/05/2014) Marshall Letter (04/30/2014) Miller Letter (4/30/2014) Neher letter (5/02/2014) Quiett letter (5/1/2014) Wallace letter (5/01/2014) Seidler letter (4/30/2014) Sharp letter (4/29/2014) Jacobson letter (4/27/2014) Arsac letter (4/2912014) Brannan letter (5/04/2014) Gerschler letter (5/04/2014) Open City Hall public comments 3/5/14 GracePoint letter (3/11/2014) Anderson Letter (3/11/2014) Skuratowicz letter (3/11/2014) Hunter letter ( 2/25/14) Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 16 of 16 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADD A NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DESIGNATION TO CHAPTER II [INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS], ADD THE NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD LAND CATEGORIES TO CHAPTER IV [HOUSING ELEMENT], 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 dd°',,s and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined thr-o ugb and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section I 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 July 28, 2015 and, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of_-_; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on September 1, 2015, and on [subsequent public hearing continuance dates]; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing Page I of 3 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 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 11, [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 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. 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 base housinp- densities ran2in2 from 4.5 to 13.5 units per acre. This area implements the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework (2015) to accommodate future housing, neip-hborhood scaled business, create a system of p-reenways, 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 (2015)," 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 If [PLAN MAP 2.03.04] 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 Page 2 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 2 Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework (2015) by Ordinance on 2015. 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 VI, Housing Element The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VI, Housing Element. 1) City of Ashland: Housing Needs Analysis (2012) by Ordinance 3085 on September 3, 2013 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, Chapter XII, Urbanization. 1. City of Ashland: Buildable Lands Inventory (2011) by Ordinance 3055 on November 16, 2011. LOm N }J N Ln ti r ~ s... N co O X 2 W U_ d C - E E O U a~ c 0 c co O 0 s F. r k O s yd ~ as n ' n ~i Y 0 3 a~ E LL x x x r m '0 O m o rV Z O v L = N O = > N Z T O a~ a Z c ° 0 E x E 0 rn ~ O ~ T C N z LM 6 Y C r O 0 N a U 0 c v (D O O c 0 -0 t N 7 O O h a O _ 0 O C J 0 n m c N 0 r C ..C 0 ° C C C d ca - 0 ca E ..fl u1 v L L N O O 0/ ..C cS Y m o m V) U) Z ° m 0 N a 1 ) O > O '1 -p C c m 2 'c m m m 0 75 E 0 a a ) N U a cu U o U U ° m g ¢ ° a a C~ U 0Y 0 z 0 c ~ y O Q ~ 0.5' N 0 U N L U Q O E O -o m E C r m m U N C m m C C Y 07 - C) O O T C (O U O S -0 ° ° T - ° C T C Q _ O C m N N C: 6 0 O 0 m N m C C 7 m m > m > 0 O .O N O O_ C 0 U - - m o~ o U c c o v o ° m - -0 Q U a c o ° x m •Y a5 N C m 0 CO a, Ln -0 '6 O C - U7 -O 0) C m C C C 'U O N 75 8 F- T •C C co O c m m 07 v -0 v m r- m -j (D Q d a (D H d m Ln w o E c`p o o O` (n o ° c y c c O s v N E N o m c N ~ 3 F°- C7 ~ ° o ~ D -0 ° ° a5 m a o o > u o a co 3 I- o y o "x ° U a (CO O Y ~ O O_ O O " _0 ° m C (n m .C V' Z j l7 0 CO (Z O U O C N (v LO a) W M cm -C 0 "a a Q v > s c m c Ec~ ° J p o £ m ° v = c c o 0 Q m v x u s t m Q v m m o ° o c> a vi p c Y 0 0) 0 ° a5 U a5 a r ¢ c m ? O oc ¢ v Z c o ° 1 O a>5 °Q Q Q m co o v 0 CL 0- c cn -C a) c m m o 0 0 v a 0 m a` u O a Ln , d .i z l7 F - o m cn w cca v N N N N POA = a w m c R t Y 3 0 l7 c 0 m Y 0 G N A 0 N W T w H V LU w cc Q Q cc I z ir z o Q LL < z N Ln V) N r r N M N U) ~O ON 0\ N N in ui I'D r, r, 00 C r r G1 Y c O V c r- 0 Q y J ~ O w ~ N_ H Ir Q m Q O o U LO Z a w O o O Z ~ ° Ln m V tin H w Q V cn LL W N d V Z O V) V1 Z O Q Q d V) l7 0 W a w 0 U) Z CL C) LU 0 > p a N Q Q O F°C 0 co Y J ~ Y vi w L Z Er N z N m O w } z O 90 0 Q z ya Z J Q z;: Z z z u m0 0- Q in F m Q w Q J O V w D H l7 a Q C7 vw) l7 a Q Q _1 Z Q Q Z H z w z U Z ~ w OJ = z ~ J w j w z 1 z Li- V1 m O > > w O W ¢ m v m x Q ~ E z a w V LL O Q J S O C) Q OC z 0 H vi Q V) O F- O _ 2 l7 r2' z r N M -b a bb ~ a v E C cw, _ o v a v o ° b v C O u w C j v v C w v l7 I O -71 -r CL -It in, Ln C „ -C by -d u o L C N o o u C: a a[ CL -7~ N c U C ~ ~ ti C,' C A, c.F, ° u v v U cd ~ ~ O 7 .L' is O v Ct. v v ° C cad v O C Cl. C v OC bA ^A "d trl 7j bD o r~ c 'o c c ° u ° o o v h bA C N 7b QK cR-, cd d ° ° C C C ^ v O V1 C GCp ~.1 'O O ca Lam',? bA v v y ca v x C G c C 3 [ L 4.5 G o °A a b c 'S c ° a v a o o 'v o 'on O a ? 0 3 ° o o o ° c o 3 c u t o a E t V n L o :n b ti p° U ° C- C) ~ z • ate.., '2 LL co cF t 'i. d fff t 0 L - L Y O1 t l~ 0 a~ E LL c m 0 z 0 7 o 0 > -0 (3) -C z 0) Z - z m lu 11 t co v Q C v c o O v F- u u z a~u 0 U o b 4 a o c ° op It o o v v 0 UU c = v ° a u a ° ° E o G a C U O U C,' U C Qj t) tL 7j r_ I O U t° -c7 en LL ro O C U ca 4-. s.a C u cd V U CL cc ate" O, U C u 3 O O _ 77 C C TJ Q y c~O a i "C7 ~ r3 c`" . h v d T Q 4 N C C 3 v: O C C „ 3 O h C Z2 U X U •u O ..C G up U 06 U ❑ v U "b N CL .-C Q" N 73 u o °J Llr v u U O cUd -0 O -S d y a° 3 d ° 'o 0 3 v It d U O u cU•s -rJ C a~ v aui N v V V _ It lu~ o It a; cry ~ cn 2 0 4 g Cd a a n n° v 3 b v 3 CL r- C), v ~ v d v ° U a b ° d c G G n u a u ~A x O O. O ..C C p >u c~3 i 'p O im, '14 ti m `a3 ~ ~ U a~ h a u X ° " 3 3 0 °Q, v o C u m 3 Cl _C vii ~ ~ ~ 'n > [ U~ a~ O U u N O ~ V CL O s., ~ cV c7 .-4 0 ~ N t6 z ANA d ° LA c u r ° o u op r °-un b Q O.r ~y Q a O v -Q5 u Q GL u O O v: U U a Q. O C O - u ai v C r I- ''E Z d 'v n S v .o o U) m v o o U e on c > o p v° a> Q) o m lu Q) -E5 Q) n t7 a V n Q h C Q C! V raiaalu~rlrcngn~a ~ . j E L 7i r ' ~ 0 mrrr~er m 0 CL N Ln N a+ N L l .11R1~tl1Mq~~~~{1RW~p1~f1RfR$~4iA~1~F1Ft • ~ cc t1J 7,E v v v ° 3 v u u a v v o o o d ° a v as v c ar [ aj o- o o Q v <C a b ca ° E ~ ..c v H ~ ~ a ° ~ ~ o ~ v ~ L o u N n as O v L C U C .b H 4-. N G O o • ` cC Cp +O-' ' i, o O ,Z7 , Oa«A 0. 7F~ S2 a) v L 3 3 c [ ° v a L Q v c a v oA cp o m 72 't -S-- "b <a c u Y IG u 4~ N v u G > ti b • ay -G w C CL C G~ [ G p .-G ° d, u Q a~ U ° cLd v y a w o c bL v ° c o v P ° s b o a" G a~ o u v o[ ° c y G c a o r y u V) u aui C ..O u a g ° n ~ o v o Lg- vc a o o o c o a nn °U U d' n o ; a c u p v o o q) 71 biD bb -It v > d a v °o a L a O v L 'cn rn a ca u o u 2 b« a a q° Q) Z C1 c o b2 Q) Z o 3 U ° a Q) ° J c U CZ v u a ca v u " ce v v u C v v' O u O C O v ~--i 0. O 'C O ro II, 't7 O Q) 0 84 Z lS# 7 Q C 1] U ct O u u U O 3 v °U N m ° ro 3 a d G b by 41 M c) J v C O. U O tr ~4 _ v -o ° a y Q o > o v a o ° o a v v v o o v q ~ ~ can ~ > ~ a Z ~ ~ ° . ~ ~ ~ ~ s~ ~ ~ o c c G a ° C °b o> a '3 n n m OO O''y. u N O u O v v O 3 ro -Z4 v v v "LI Z 4-1 v O. Q fJ cy Z v O u O ° 'Q v cti u x of .0. q~ d 3 -d ° 4 c G G ° - u tI'~ -b v cc b O R~ O OA b.D u -d N u bq C ° n u o b ~3 bb c. c o v a c, u 75 Q) 6 a N CL ct a bn c3 o u a~ a ~ a ° v G o ° n v a 'E34 El r ap ❑ iA c ^o V ° v c w v o a _ t bb u cl, -E cOC ate.. , - y 4. O GfJ N ? •f bA d J v C u ? v a n v u G C. N M n o o~ ~ - C ai > O v 41 Cl. - ^ 'd O cu:) 4a v is c C, Z7: 0 0 c > It Q N a v n o o c d 7 o - o O 1~ v °J > C G " c~a u > cv.~ cy O > Q ci f~ o d tJ Q 3 o v ° ° a c 3 o ,.iaaagnrp_ . CO C - yaaO AeU L c U c c N o. m , b!1. Vv'it'NN 1 O .n x ZLm puell.m 40 /ice o C A .°n 6 r c w ON,* o O $ V s o Y 44 k f i xF' - ~ ,.~'t~:.:i•..~ '•4~~~ .r at•_..1.7_..11«;~i.,._.....-:ySTt.:: ~ 04, . . , .....r. • .r It 04 v _ { i. ♦ 1 _ =kF~ 1ff - 4 kr i t!~r . Jia •~1 as •a • -,t; aa~ ~ ae~• .aa.r a a.. sy• • a «ea n. aa.• r. as' iYq il'.. a ♦e n M v 4. ~ ~ v O G v R. ~ ~ O U C ~ Oy ~ a v > .L' ctl b CA O ~ cd O ~ ~ v ~ v ~c~d v ,w. ro ~ ctl aJ v cC v O ~G.. cd C C 4i O G o ro v v c m d o n. ~ ~ ~ ~ o ti ~ u O IU) m c ° q'I EG C c~ ca = v ~ v Ql cs v c 22 cn a y -0 a 14, z 3 U c G x n o ta., v LO Y Q) N C ^Ji L v bb 3 5 u c G 3 C IJ w o c L b p ro G 0 C o p o ° c LL -0 r c d 0 3 c v c CC N p 77 Q. o i) QA ; ° o o c a o v o c C ~ ~ 3 N v p aJ w v ..i O C- ou 7j It Z3 Z O ci bA ._O ti u .n C O O a.~ ,'7- O" cd O b-fi cd - cd _ LLI -f". _ v c a v 3= v c a r v U E~ o ° z `J O 4. G QA n. ..d cE v. O . J v o ~ O z G r ? o a° o u o p3 7 w= a 0 cu V, C A o G ° 'ocA d cn x° o v c v c - .v q o a v o a v ti y v y c c Q) Q) a o s a ° ~ ~ ~ c ~ n. " Q' -1~ o ~ bo a o 3 q~ ~o c o v v-u ° E m u 73 v~ v O O c n a o a v b v O to bA CZU o n. a pz1, .-G •[c _m IL c c c 4n T7 = ref - z z z Z m N m w R1 Q co - co i co L 7,0 c o- U a Q f,r wlAF W i C r t i - 3 _ T4i .1 < f• ' as ~ o b 0 ° U U v ~ 0 N p bA ~ .b 0 Q) -L4 Jo, _u O 0 O ~°u U o o O U CA d y O ° Q I-z Q, Cc) ° Z E U o ° be c ° o > a p o a G bA o o p 'O = N per, ;6 -Ij u cu b3 L v o be v ° o i Z b a U Z G m bn o o v~ o ° U C bp a~ G v~ a~ U 0 N G N Z U 72 '71 7j ° I v [ a o v o o 3 rs i v x d p> 2 a c r o N na a n>> c u C, 0 o U c a o n ° s 3 0 v a o o r Z a v bn ° e o L ° J o L1 d 3 v Z o c o~ w a R d o ° o v Z° cA o 3 o p U o f ° 'd p v v o v s ¢ 'd u [ n o 3 v Z a o c~ ° on a° o cc u N cCc a~ ai bb v c on ° oI v p ° c o tlQ cu U h tp r. 1, C) 0 c b y .b do v 4p Q o op ° 3 a~ 2 G m one ~4 ° C Q 3 Z co E co C) 0 o [ o v 3 b c 3 a o° z 3 y [ o C C v N Q) 0 Z o v c v a oh Z Q v Q Q m v b a z cr, " g r rc b on c cp a v o np o C ~ a 3 ° w Q c ° o N Z - z n o ¢ a n ¢ v G o n. V~ u c ° tl~ C -0 bb u It Z o v a b ° v U , bD o v Z U C (D o i Z o a c m Qj 1) C s m cn ° o p Cl) o U d c C on c a C 0 0 bj~ c° G .c a E v a G o ,a u a v c [ rn Z _ ° a a a ° c b v nn " on 7 = c on v d y a a~ y `a ° a u b' 3 Cl) ° - o C w on u o ° d a p o d Z 3 c v a° v o 'v v° v[ c ° v v (n b o o ti 3 w x a: p d Q 3 H ~w i 73 V N - r i r+. Y• 4 c a ° t. `13_ C w r r 3 c m " > a j - Q) O O ctl in N d o n U c bl~ m 1 o 2 bb x o N _ ~ , - h Z Q m c It v o >1 f, u Z o v u 2 ° u " v Id v N c r _ -C C O It bl Q) a c c y; x Q) r- 7- [ 3 0 Q, 0 L a 75 " 7 v [ x b c d Q) It 0 W) o --o E u u a Q v c > c c ° U a 3 v u ° o u o o o E v 3 0~ u p a 3 " v G o c o c a o c U14, Q 'ut 0 x Q o Y .Y -000 ap > 3 v r U 24 ab y b ° o u bA It L Cf) co [ uv U Q) = 3 c~ o v Y[ a U d c q q y cu u u Q) CIJ a ca "O Q cE 'O O U .t+ q O ctl O u m U ° a~ a~ Q U) N r a~ C i, ~4 O u O o Z c a= o b N o 'r tL o ° o~ o a> Y u cs v 3 q c -a ' 3 a d n m Y O a Q u 2 0b.0 3' cn ° u a q r " o 3 7 U d o u N a c c cn CD u v 2 a ° ° E 'd v d K an c - lu, Z E 'c Z cul IN) z x v d ~4 > - Q 0 4° ° It 00 rn 0 U v C~ [ n. 3 o E m c o n a C C c v z p ~ O aCi O v ~bA bn 'd O O `a CA Cc, r a~ a. z C O v CA C 0 0 _ U o r G 71 E C v C 'o C U aJ C C bA N rC G aJ O G rn "d f5i - p bj~ Q GZ. U O -2 z j?. v C a u 7, O LCr, x ' t N -Y v c.C u U C ~wi (6 r U C C j. r ~ C o y ° `14 a o a E a x tL UU ° H 4 4L co t _ o n I a o c S3 u o6 J It C # ' 4 11 El L) - ^n ctl C 3 ~ 4 1_V _ 'Lt -u th CAA O bA -d am O ° il ~ m Lam- '4> K , s U v tr~ 3 U C U H v C v G, U v ~ ~ N 0 0 can C Ln 8 a > o o Ce erg cri o U d a a a -Q, er t~ bA. O Cbj~ P. u Cy C tC N > C73 C) v a v r u CO V a o ~ ~ 4 v ~ ~ w ro U 0 rl a v a R c a r c 3 v v ~ a~ o ~ v - U J G O N ~ U ~n v N ~ C ate. v ~ "b bA F- ~ v v bA U CJ 7 vi ~ r C ~ a v U C x ICE > v C v 75 J f1, u 'v^ K,lJ ~ p ~ m O ~ v v C. v O U 'TS m f n. ca v .3 'O G C7 O C) .C N ~ N~ !y Q♦ n ~ (d L+ ~ 3 a~ ~,C O O b10 t,.., O „ v O v cd 2 > b o v C1 ~ rv. E .v" ~ U O O E T O v v ~ ~ O O o ° t c ° E -6 v ° o 4~: .-O p CO v U O u ' J- 4 -iJ a 7 v ~ m C" ° .b o h v 3 ° a u b t G N o na ° o ° d ° o c °u a aA v E a G o v c v> by 3 o o on cp v O u SOU-. O ~40 r CA - ..O O"' C c' v y 4 a ar a o a b G v W 'np cr n a O y -,Cj 14- X11 on o a~ J2. n, o x n. n, c~ d G o G a -c7 . c c C c 7 7 a a Q U C % Q W Z ~~o•+ o o v v 4 N O o v • 0 Y ° v jaaals paaegs ' u O Ck 7j 4 u 73 p v o -l s~~ f"} in, 0 a a z o o a, ;t- [ U U N _ C > (MU ns v Y a E 'b o [ a on E 9 o H EL --75 C U [ G t _ f. i 1' J U U ~ C QJ ~ u O ~ N 7 ~ (6 cC ~ O i O an d a1 -6 U Q av+ C !6 T C v o ° Y c v o o 3 0) 2- 0 C3) 0) 12 -2 u Q) O Q0 ro 0 V 0 U Q d rra M z Q a U a) _r m x c 1 hails paaegs N _..1 L I ° o a~ v _ f - V x - m l 17 e i~ N v a JOIDallua poogaoggbiau n v O uD a s - ::waver ! A Q U OI f"!M C i ` Z co w g •s. rrY ~ t ' YYa O z 'i sI s R5 l7 z ,C C a! O l7 ~ ~ IO 3J o o t a O r N Q ~ m VI z t] c ~n %AN o G T 3 h G C ~ O} N AI. M ~s L 0 r ~ c 7 C a7 o z a - p z f G1 0 N i 0 ` eYu` _ + r, R- a 141 ?1 :S r C a (O Z o ice O - O ? 'o t6 L Z _ f" J G1 ~ w ~ Qi ~ Q r 2 .~i ~ a~ U Z N z S MI' F" LO LO. ids .7 m ti. z z N z z z z N M LO OJ N -i c c6-...~..-..,.~,,, c n- ~ rn _0 Z O N O G L CL > 0 N n E z L Z c di u E Q N C O O z U a a ~ c m G J C~ on m L O d v C1 bA N u p., cc O C G 'o U v G v v GU U Q O v L~. v m bh EL ~o C v t U G O Ii. a U cc v v O 'c cc G G G G w is c x G O o O. u G > v bA ^ G .b O w v v; s... CA G^ S: ~2S G G b ^cy v O G a j p+ r- U G N E U 'nn c G tA o oE: a 17 7-- p ro a Q W Q G H CL > c o o on ° G Q' a, w o o Q > G G O O G pr U u cu v C - O G, E O G v v O G U It C O Ui.,^ U _ v O. ca bL in _ /C TJ O I- "U C v o q, ~ q •..c Q ~ ~ rG ~ ~ cd • C O. ~ ~ w ~ ~ o ti p w v u ca ~ U ~ v U G ~ O O v '27 U v C O r- G-i Q .r. .L j v GL. X v i v G CQ 'd G b '-O v BOA ' GA u O U U _ 71 O" O ❑ O G C VY G m u It > "L7 0 v N W U O O m m El c:l It o c~ v a[ a o U o n N o v Q -f.- o u u v a x Q J d z c o R CL ° c 2 tsn 3 c :-a v Q ~ ro x u, .o o v ti It -fz N O u q' O G O It a rGi, ca O Q ..Gr O v v O v . d: bA v CU c v G '3 O u a. ~r O G c~ U cC OA O i-' v O C a, _ L CJJ Z AU ro q v . ~ ~ ~ O ~ G' LJj O C ~ U a~. ctl O p ti L v `o o a > o G o o v Y v J ~ v v w N "d p Q Q O a+ in, -cd -cl v k L •0 C) C C O C, U i .b k v O O N bA v w p w o 3 w Uo _r_ 7j Cl. fu It u o > v o w C o c 3 C a d v ¢ a a v c a° ° c v 1 c.q > v v ~ C r- d v n o v CL o 3 a un C ° ti bA v v U [ a o ° ° C bA x > o ° > v _2~4 v o It It °O N V) 7j Cl+ sv. .Y bb b v .b Vl v v O O R v; C U O CA O .b .:.d C v u '__O b -z" N ' C v v C O u v O to 7j _r Q) CL C r- to U 3 ° Id cd D, o ° r_ t'. s --5 -0 o e ° " ° p n v ro a "d u c ° CO ti o ° o ° d a ° v 3 bb '4- C ~ u C,) Id a G v 'x r CD C v ~ " ~ fl. b ~ ~ ca ~ v da C y3 U v ~ g U O v ~ ~ w ayi v ° b ° ° oA o v °o v 'b v u v v c°a 'b O i v wv, ce r u 0. b v p C v C ,v, 3 CL ' in, c L1. cC v ~ O O cC 'LJ '"d ~ ~ 'u v ~ v > 'd c O -d ~ ca C ~ ~ ~ U U v JvrJ -d O v v w L o ~ - c 0 o g,Mr - > ~ C C LL ice O C =d C b C i q u p 00 U II U O C U v c v o = a v 3 b o 15, biD (0 C .b O [ U "u O U iy p u OA r U U m o c n a d v> o a ,c 0 3 z x L a U G C a G ,L _ Q d a > N s d u O O v O ~ d O a ¢ O > u Z ~ Co ' 3 ~ ~ U i w v cn ~ v U ~ 'b G ~ ~ p U v -t4 7= U" > v v GCA 'J a`~ c w Cc) v cCe Y -C IZI C) p a~ ca.. O N O ie <e O C v C C > ce 3 _ c z ti _ O C O C C R, O N Q~ cd aJ m C O U ql, o v C v s, v b O ai ai C a~ k O i-s 3 a~ U v .L' u a~ O OU G, 3 v `d w cep • u "d a) w E o o n a c c 0> 0 0 O 3 3 E x c E a o c c m IL c C 5 r C6 N co ti d 41 3 N p CL m m m t4 ? C6 c 3 i G I e ~ ~ m E C1 f, Nr R ( x ..,.fix... ~ r,=- t L m fi , fi, 11/ C : F. R 7213L~If'$t-',.3 Q7 O Lb CL a _ z 0 ~ -b M' a ti o y h d r H v u c E o > v C v v O C C~^ P=1 iy 3 0 nA a oA o W a a -d a c v Z C v v cl- "rj ~ ~ LJl. ~ O t L+ v ~ O ~ O ca ai -d C C ca O C " 3 of v b C m O R. O C l7 ¢i v r-S O O 3 a CA o u C a~ 0. i "b -r v C N b p .3 m O O q) iS, 4. ..d P., 'u •C O w bA q O v C O u a d a c r o n °A a~ o°n x CA U U ~d G :Ec•S v v G ai U v Cv ~0. v u _.y' L ~ O V ~ ce av a~ C O O cOe It v aS `O v a, Ln v C ~ C . U LO ~ C C . V O ~ s, C C [ v v a a v v v ~ s. k '^C v N 3 O O. O Ch O Cfi [ 'v; 4C O v 0. "b Q, 71 -14 Oa ro " c=s °i v O b G v 2 C v of ' C ry 3 v C.' C v~ ~s • 3 cd v 14- v p L u c vii G v E 3 v a > a 3 t o Cn o ai ca ~ ~ ,a v a~ CA b ~ v v C ~ v ~ ~ bb cvC > `y rC O C > C p " v C C C. v u 3 C L' C (C p, "b C ctl Oti C cV c0 ate- :b CA cad tn 'El a L[ u d L 0 71 14- cC C A. II. t-- C O . k v cE u C G [ Ll, J bCA v .C .r. b cCa A, CA bA v i. U "d v v u 1 14- u ia- a ° ° c ° ° ° 3 F- ai o ° b v o o c a J Z Con ° b 41 sv.,A O C a ui +v-' of C ce L1. o v J5 Im' F r r r *t Y O ~ A t] ~+~,"3 fjfjf1 AA ~ JJJ~. l 111 i Y~ 73 i i 1. ~ t > 4 10 Z ~ i a rt ' ~ • _ J c x -XI (6 N v C J cC -°i > ~ ~ cry R+ ~ cv G i• ° ~ C ° d+ O C u ^-i O G1 .C O u u > h n+ v D., 'Y L` ~ y u "o v; ai rC ~ v O o c o o a nn ° v a o a v en Q[ t- ~7-i C ~ ~ b ~ v ~ ~ O ~a • • w ~ Y v Ci. v C ° > v° - IS ° Z i a d v L c c b y v o 5 v 4. ~ c v o o cf~ C c+''. ~ v > o .-C ro O cd ~ 'c3 C U .C 7-2 c d[ v L z v a U 7 c a q o o 3 o v o v Q❑ a s a L v > a v o u co Z "Q, C U ° GA ' C 'L3 ° C r1 GG cCC ' d S. 5 O d O a 18) 2 -:2 0 2', u 7:1 u Q) u U) bf, o. ~ ~ v •C c c C v ~ 3 72 p ° s " v ° o c x c ° o F a b c c C c a -C~ L 2 C Z ci) S] O > O v w ° - cCa o h m C Q) C C oo b o a 3 v c c. u n o c m 'u ' ou C 3 p o c~C o r v K m ti o T o -o 'L G CEL ° v ° o o v t w ° a o u 4i o° °o N b °A o o ti Z ° v n a i C v > c~ ? ~ '-r v v C C ~ O C cCc >3 "d ° G C s e ~ ~ v ~ O -I-- _ > ' "d L U ca "d C L ° a frt CL, t ° 0) -0 E v vJ ~ v ~ ~ •u pr ~ v v ~ v u -b O cC v GL ~ ~ i,1 ~ v ~ 3 vC b 0 73 'd ~ `cd" u O ~ a~ a~i ~ ~ [ per". id p., ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s a Q d 3 W v[ av L 3 r L v 'N 'U G o I'd v c G v o Y v o c > C7 v It 4• n. G ~ o ~ o O r n a d v n° v o¢" v v ° U v c 71 c1l 3 o G o o a v v L q cn ro Y ~ oCri ° .c F v ~ ~ -ti .x ~ W cn ~ ~ ~ cn w n, a, on o ~ ~ o r C M C R c .gip L cry V cX .0 ca Cq U .v ° -G W m C, o F- Z 3 0 Y r L u. ua ' C3 i F In :7{ Q (9 R1 o Cl ° ID p Z cn z rn v Q G v ~ pn 3 y U U Z O Q) 0 co u Id 3 ti .5 c z ° u s c "c ' U a r °r ° o K 3 tiw u ° o C b ° v b ~ v ° ° o c a a a o > L C7 I -Z~ a a, o L o z Q) U C v ti C 0 o U ° pp o c n. 4 N tp 't b a o d ti > m Z °o ' G o v n v n c TO v o U ° a 3 p° ° r v c v pp a U Q.) o° d u ° rap U ° d J o Q) U, v b a [ - ° a o w W o o c m v c o c > a Z c - Q) Q, u It v O J u Q a C C U. v ro C ca C C C w U Q'I p o a v W ? 3 o a ° U a 3 a o V O o v c 3 o r pi 7~ c 2 a a 0 0 0 14- d u u c b o a v a a Z v Q H • O O cC C a0 c = O O cC CO 3 'a O .C G, --Cj bCA ''.y U C - O O „ v N/~ pA O aJ v a a, L v d ° Q, iy a T o o Cs a u o v .a c- c- Q U U a U v pp " o b o U r v d u ° a d °o r o O ~ ~ v 4 c o w ro Y p C~ a C> a o Wp u a x Q,, W v pr, Q v o u a ° U o 'a a ol o a, v U a a, o a D o c ° v w c > a ° K N ~ u u o 4 a c a r b a 3 a o a b o c ° H v U L-i U .L' O •Li.. L L: ry Cp c ' u cUd VI bb a° o r'i o v, - -a o m d cu f?. ° G -b pn v o u e~ a a a 3 v~ u U x .r- v ~r b tz v v ~ o _ U Z v U a e a C o v ? a G as v ,F.~ v v1 b 6~ v a C C ° o Cf a a t: o u. r y ° m n 4 c v u o c t _X Vi o v - pn U a b v c <a pap u res pcn ' d c a O c s° td = c u o a x E~ ° o o ° d 4~ ° u -Q, u a o € v a s f o c v [ o ° tr3 v v ° -b c= a ° ~ ~ ~ ° ¢np ~ W v v v ~ o nom u a ~ ~ o v 0 u U a ~ ~ ~ U fi: ~ v C b 'd U ?s} v u v v; v r-y-, u Q `b L fJ `C v v C ,T, -S E CL V V) 71 o L x a oA v o c bp --ci 0 0 3 v r d 3 o C o W v G C . L 3 L cC X h -tL bJD c° 3 a o 3 a o U o °c d o o r v o c H ti o d v o= c y o° ° c 0 C) 'CJ U p '27 > m a~ O~.r CA L1, c9 O O v bA u Ci u •-~C., -5 - - m Pa ' 'T1 r of p_ ' o v a bA 3 0 °0 5 0 N TS bA L a E, Q O a O CL bA O L v ° O a O Q s d d G a 7 , -f:~ C i7i y a tL d ° ti v v a 30 U Q Z° i v a 3 o S 3 n r Ln 0 Pl 3 e .r y.- wil 7-J. In o r I cz _ • _ I w z ~ f f c0 E O N N Y Q N LL C O ; Z # ~ ' 5 U a m ! J CD k _ C t C 3 ! C R a 3 m Y 3 N Cd 9 bb 2 -d 41 la C]. .3 C ~ ~ O ~ ~ N -ld -6 It -Y co o 75 .3 v w v a. ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ O O 3 0 ~ ti ~ O sCC', O v u O N 'H k G i o ~ o ~ a 3 E c o v ~ 4J ~ U p m v v ' v -b O c~ O v G v i v a~ I "i:S OA v _ is Lrl E O N 4 { i 1 roll LL- - - i O O z I m I O z N N Cl) N O O E (6 LL C N C co CY) a z o o ° -E > o ~ z L o~ - Z c 7 O o Z _ U . a m - - L U n C0 ~ ~ G N O 3 u v a It v"i v .O 'U b b - v `z v pp o t^ Q -b ~ ~ cd v ca co N oa ti c x - 43 ~ It o 0 3 c v o N U l~ p U h [ U c ° v cl - r _ °o c a r~ o ° a lu C) Q) C v [ d b C V E p U~~ v 3 i m c 0, a o m on v ~ o ~ -C 4,~ ~ o -ti g a Q,) o v o a G o 3 h c 0 71 o i p v .5 by 73 O a, oA y u 4 o f4 -E v~ 5n -CC n = - .2 1 [ p Z .Y CL - .0 u v v O _ C v 0 41 r, qJ F F ( O .i tl sI r ax z o N LO N Y O f c6 co CY) z _0 0 N ~ z ~ t - S Al C L m - lu U T m m o i L N C CA O L N C~ v ~ ~ ~ O o v ~ ~ O UU ~ O C O C v Cy a -d ~ ~ 3 c ~ ~ s N v O E v n m ~ u b U Cl y -ti Q '~i-• - j up m u v v 2 Ct, O U 'L' d a U U v C 30 c3 - f U N G U nn ~d ~Ci ctl ,p 20 in, v 9 P ro C) u v v °J b O [ [ v v v v v C e y O b a a Ir ~ - ~m ~ y. v S" U v v V Q) i. -u v ai b ~ G 7t~ b Q) pp u ctl . ~n io v -v g ~ ~ 3 3 ~ 3 ~ c ~ p g ~ g N an a 41 o ~ nn v v ~ a+ > ~ o c~ ~ c 7j 0 O z 3 n u CA v o a Z r t - 0 N T i 3 Q 8 O !r ; C I d 'O O O m 0 z N r - C14 Y O O LL m a % ~ Z O ~ O j 73 ~ Z Z 1` ° i - 70 1G - - C 3 m O 3 N ca o v axi > x 71 p 0 v O ~ .b 'Cd v a`3 b C ~ v N v v m vd p s v 7~ n 3 ° v c a 0 3 c. $ v o~~ o Lit a o a v v ° y C a o v ° c" -E 14- to C/7) a o 0 2 Z a cn r v [ b 0 3 0 C vo L o v u g o o -d o 0 G n Z ° v o a~ v' v c o a 7j 3 P. Y J a O rte. f0 bL Q) 0 0 d ~ v ° m a s 3 n Z 2 to N T 3 T CO G 1 Y O N E C N d O O L O L m O z E 0 z co N W N Y O O (6 LL C co m O Z L O O > N - - _ C 1 _ m C~ C ~ O Y O 3 h v N o f~d u 0 c v 4., u - CL " 'tJ x m O O rd O d 4. ~ -C O u c~~C Q. ~ ~ O '6 y, .OA C Cla 4 Z o ~ 'j ~ C O Q v °~=-j 4 p E U- ~e v °U 'x ° OVA cs.tl d cd cd a o n o R, v ~ .x 3 3 v b o v o n o ~j v a a v o a v u Q) y ~ y v O F° d W b d °h cp ° c v p o o v a ° o x cd X. -b cd U U v C H E Li 7j E U. U, cpd N O U _v E O c3 C N v ctl W c b v v c o 3 v v11 o k G o v w v ° 7 a o o° v 0 u Y u b v G C v N p C p C ~ v cd ~ ~ v ca ~ - 00 ~ G v, b v C1.. C cd v .:.d a v~ -d R' v W p v ci CL r: C) 12'. U E 142 r , It cc: -,t 14- D V v o o CJ n a b v ~y o v V v - 14, U 1~+' O CA ° C k p tn' u cc v C, G 4. U v ca.a LL J O C O L v G' C ct v N v a~ 3 v c ~ ~ v E ~ v cr- o c v o v o c v i' o [ ° > ° ° v G Z Z C U 0 o E _ ru ca ;.r U _0 7 Q) O C~ i Q1 J ~ z a~ o o z 0 c~ 0 3 0 E E2 c co C c m 70 m o Z 0 - ° o > ~ Z Z m E O N Z o U -G c a; ca m ~ > o ro C) o m 71, oo ° o c c v m ~ o bJD U o 0 3 7b m a •x v o o w° o bA v c v a, cn 'v c > ca. W L E u [ o y Tj v[ U, H e an C v ti b "G O 'C v C 'j C1 CG G. CfJ u O CIJ b v °J c ° U a°i o v V a o° U ~ on ti o 0 3 o n. ~a o 0 o c u L Cl, biD o U Q v o 5 ~ o -o x on _ro E t u •o > 3 8 U c E ° u a CJ m _ u u v U o on v a d o? a - ~ G CA q v ce v o v Z bj~ v G c v o c°" v 3 c n° 00 'C~ u 7j 5 v° 0 3 . 2 o a c o v v - o „ Z ° o ° o a w 3 - - N u u O i O U a v > C O •K C v y x a 5 d o Q-i a o c a3i 3 ~ c, c ~ v v a, E v _ v v o bL (-A C v 3 o Q C~C ° ~ O i' ~ k b G C cC U cd ~ P. O -O ~ c~V a0. O C ~ O s-. ~ ❑ <a L~~' O O ~ v .A _C TJ cc 'C7 m i. ~ v N 7) Er , 2 ri v v C). U v H ti a c v G o-~ c d v o° .x 0 c cn~ ° ° o u ° c c 3 p v n w 3 w , o ~ a o V° C7 ° .c v) 2 « 71 0 °u .c °u v CC) 'ut - r4 o n 4° v r 3 a ° rn u v o ti H G c ° N c o o u u O v ctl u ' bq '"O Qj -Z c" I-z ~ 4 ~ C cd v ~ h G nt C "d C cG•s Up p 't y -0 ~ cv O u C1, v v v ~ OA C-0 ~ C -0 tL y , 'd Z u v su. O 0 o u °p o Q on N a, w v ° 4~ p w G L c h O ° v v m on -14 y u p O u u V a F ~ > v ~ i ~ -C G' 0. ~ v❑ ~ ~ ~ C ~ O w ~ ~ ~ 'tJ o ~ cC v ~ O v R U O ~ v C4' h n u ~ ~ N 3 ~ c a -C, 0 V u w G o W o to o an > [ d c o v a G o c.G dS v ~ v w ~ 75 Z •o oun a ~ ~ a ~ o I CD 14- on u v a C, v 14CI) '.t o 3 0 o~ c c on o ° m c c ti 0 G i U a Z o a sYu G o° -p o s ° o ~ ~ w .G G cn 3 o N v r s y U 7 Q c a 5 Y O O C d a O O L O L m z E 0 z CITY OF Exhibit C ASHLAND ash ~ I ' I E MAIN Ashland = 1 Middle i School ! i 1 I ~ } l ' w s s ~ z r ; h.__.. , J Walker` Elementary E School 0 200 400 800 1,200 Fe Normal Neighborhood Plan Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Normal Neighborhood Plan ! 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 ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.4.6 TO ADD A NEW SHARED STREET CLASSIFICATION. Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section I 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 ofFirefi6ters Local 1660 Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Transportation Commission considered the above-referenced amendments to the Transportation System Plan at a duly advertised public hearing on 2015 and following deliberations recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of - ; 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 July 28, 2015 and following deliberations recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on September 1, 2015, and on [subsequent public hearing 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 Page 1 of 6 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 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: l) 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 shal I 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 3. 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 4. 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 Streetas a Planned Avenue from Walker Avenue to Ashland St. Page 2 of 6 SECTION 5. The Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 18.4.6.040, Street Design Standards, street classification table is hereby amended to include a new classification of "Shared Street" as follows 18.4.6.040 F. Design Standards. A description of street design standards for each street classification follotivs in Table 18.4.6.040.F and subsection 18.4.6.040. G. All elements listed are required unless specifically noted, and dimensions and ranges represent minimum standard or ranges for the improvements shown. The approval authority may require a dimension within a specified range based upon intensity of land use, existing and projected traffic and pedestrian volumes, or when supported through other applicable approval standards. The approval authority inay approve dimensions and ranges greater than those proposed by an applicant. Table 18.4.6.040. F: City of Ashland Street Design Standards WITHIN CURB-TO-CURB AREA TYPE OF AVERAGE RIGHT- CURB-TO- MOTOR MEDIAN BIKE PARK CURB PARK- SIDE- STREET DAILY OF- CURB VEHICLE AND/OR LANES -ING ROW WALKS TRIPS WAY PAVEMENT TRAVEL CENTER (ADT) WIDTH WIDTH LANES TURN on on on on LANE both both both both sides sides sides sides 2-Lane 8,000 to 61'-87' 34' 11' none 6' 8'-9' 6" 5'-8" 6'-10' 2 Boulevard 3-Lane 30,000 73'-99' 46' 11' 12' 6' 81-9' 6" 5'-8" 6_10'2 Boulevard 5-Lane 95'-121' 68' 11' 12' 6' 81-9' 6" 5'-8'' 6'-10'2 Boulevard 2-Lane 3,000 to 59'-86' 32'-33' 10'40.5' none 6' 81-9' 6" 5'-8" 6'-10' 2 Avenue 3-Lane 10,000 70.5'- 97 5, 43.5'-44.5 10'-10.5' 11.5' 6' 8'-9' 6" 5'-8'' 6'-10' Avenue Neighborhood 1,500 to NA NA 3 Collector, 5,000 Residential 49'-51' F22' 11' none 6" 8' 5'-6' No Parking Parking One 50'-56' 25'-27' 91-10' 7' 6" 7'-8' 5'-6' Side Parking Both 57'-63' 32'-34' 9'40' 7' 6" 7'-8' 5'-6' Sides Neighborhood Collector, Commercial Parallel Parking One 55-65' 28' 10' 8' 6" 5'-8" 8'-10' 2 Side Parallel 63'-73' 36' 10' 8' 6" 6-8" 8'-10' z Parking Both Page 3 of 6 Table 18.4.6.040.F: City of Ashland Street Design Standards WITHIN CURB-TO-CURB AREA TYPE OF AVERAGE RIGHT- CURB-TO- MOTOR MEDIAN BIKE PARK CURB PARK- SIDE- STREET DAILY OF- CURB VEHICLE AND/OR LANES -ING ROW WALKS TRIPS WAY PAVEMENT TRAVEL CENTER (ADT) WIDTH WIDTH LANES TURN on on on on LANE both both both both sides sides sides sides Sides Diagonal Parking One 65'-74' 37' 10' 17' 6" 5'-8'' 8'40' 2 Side Diagonal Parking Both 811-91' 54' 10' 17' 6" 5'-8" 8'-10' 2 Sides Neighborhood less than NA NA 3 Street 1,500 Parking One 47'-51' 22' Queuing 7' 6" 5'-8' 5'-6' Side Neighborhood Street Parking Both 50'-57' 25'-28' Queuing 7' 6" 5'-8' 5'-6' Sides a 100 Less than Private Drive 15'-20' 12' 15' Queuing NA NA NA NA NA NA Shared Less Street than 25' 18' paved 12' NA NA NA NA NA NA 1500 12'paved Alley NA 16' width, 2' NA NA NA NA NA NA NA strips on both sides 6'-10' paved Path Multi-Use NA 12'-18' width' Path strips on n NA NA NA NA NA NA NA both sides 1) 7'- 8' landscape parkrow shall be installed in residential areas; 5' hardscape parkrow with tree wells shall be installed in commercial areas on streets with on-street parking lanes, or 7' landscape parkrow may be used in commercial areas on streets without on-street parking lanes or where the street corridor includes landscaped parkrow. Street Trees shall be planted in parkrows pursuant to 18.4.4.030. 2) 6'sidewalk shall be installed in residential areas, 8'-10' sidewalk shall be installed in commercial areas, 10' sidewalk shall be required on boulevards in the Downtown Design Standards Zone. 3) Bike lanes are generally not needed on streets with low volumes (less than 3, 000 ADT) or low motor vehicle travel speeds (less than 25mph). For over 3, 000 ADT or actual travel speeds exceeding 25 mph, 6' bike lanes, one on each side of the street moving in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic 4) A private drive is a street in private ownership, not dedicated to the public, which serves three or less units. Private drives are permitted in the Performance Standards Options overlay. SECTION 6. The Ashland Municipal Code Chapter subsection 18.4.6.040 G, Street Design Standards, is hereby amended to add a new classification of "Shared Street" as follows: Page 4 of 6 18.4.6.040.G.8 Shared Street Provides access to residential uses in an area in which right-of-way is constrained by natural features, topography or historically significant structures. The constrained ripht- of-way prevents typical bicvcle 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. See FiLyure 18.4.6.040.G.8. Prototypical Section: Shared Street '4~ at 18' 251 Figure 18.4.6.040.G.8 Shared Street Street Function: Provide vehicular, epedestrian, and bicycle nei hborhood circulation and access to individual residential and commercial properties designed to encourage socializinLy with neighbors, outdoor play for children, and creating comfortable spaces for walking and biking. Connectivity: Connects to all types of streets. Averap-e Dailv Traffic: 1,500 or less motor vehicle trips per day Managed Speed: Motor vehicle travel speeds should be below 15 mph Rip_ht-of-Way Width: 25' Page 5 of 6 Pavement width: 18' minimum, maintaining full fire truck access and minimum turning paths at all changes in alil4nment 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: Parkin! and loadin! 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. RefuLle areas are to be provided within the right of way to allow pedestrians to step out of the travel lane when necessary. 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, 3-5 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 , 2015, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2015. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2015. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 6 of 6 Exhibit A Road Classifications neigborhood collector local street shared street multi-use path Shared Streets within the Normal Neighborhood Plan areamay be alternatively developed as alleys or multi-use paths. Improvement of the rail road crossing requires approval of an application for an at grade railroad crossing. ~a Normal Neighborhood Plan Street Network Map 0 200 400 800 Feet C I T Y OF Exhibit B ASHLAND • i . Normal Neighborhood Plan Z= Avenue with sidewalks & bikelanes Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Streets with sidewalks Shared Street 0 200 400 800 Feet • • • • Multi-use path ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 18.3.4 NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.2.1.020 TO ADD A NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING CLASSIFICATION, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 18.2.1.040 TO ADD A NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT. Annotated to show deletiens and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined through and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section I 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 Assn of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland is projected to grow by approximately 3,250 residents by 2030 and 2,000 employees by 2027, and the City Council reaffirmed the long-standing policy of accommodating growth within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) planning process; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland seeks to balance projected population and employment growth with the community goal of retaining a district boundary and preventing sprawling development, and to this end examines opportunities to use land more efficiently for housing and businesses; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland continues the community's tradition of integrating land use and transportation planning, and using sustainable development measures such as encouraging a mix and intensity of uses on main travel corridors to support transit service and use, integrating affordable housing opportunities, and reducing carbon emissions by providing a variety of transportation options; and Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, the City conducted a planning process involving a series of public workshops, on- line forum, key participant meetings and study sessions from October 2011 through July 2015 involving a three-step process in which participants identified the qualities that make a successful neighborhood„ developed vision statements for the study area, and reviewed and revised plans illustrating an example of what development might look when the 94 acre is incorporated into the City of Ashland; and WHEREAS, the final report for the Normal Neighborhood Plan included recommended amendments to the zoning map and land use ordinance which would support the development of the neighborhood as envisioned in the planning process being small walkable neighborhood modules that provide concentrations of housing grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on July 28, 2015, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of ; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on , 2015; and 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 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 Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance 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. A new Chapter 18.3.4 of the Ashland Municipal Code creating a new overlay district [Normal Neighborhood District ] set forth in full codified form on the attached Exhibit A and made a part hereof by this reference, is hereby added to the Ashland Municipal Code. SECTION 3. Chapter 18.2.1.020, of the Zoning Regulations and General Provisions section of the Ashland Municipal Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.2.1.020 Zoning Map and Classification of Zones For the purpose of this ordinance, the City is divided into zones designated and depicted on the Zoning Map, pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan Map, and summarized in Table 18.2.1.020. Page 2 of 4 Table 18.2.1.020 Base Zones Overlay Zones Residential - Woodland WR Airport Overlay Residential - Rural RR Detail Site Review Overlay Residential - Single-Family (R-1-10, R-1-7.5, Downtown Design Standards and R-1-5 Overlay Residential - Suburban (R-1-3.5) Freeway Sign Overlay Residential - Low Density Multiple Family (R-2) Historic District Overlay Residential - High Density Multiple Family (R-3) Pedestrian Place Overlay Commercial (C-1) Performance Standards Options Overlay Commercial - Downtown (C-1-D) Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay Employment (E-1) -Hillside Lands Industrial (M-1) -Floodplain Corridor Lands -Severe Constraints Lands Special Districts -Water Resources Croman Mill District (CM) -Wildfire Lands Health Care Services District (HC) Residential Overlay Normal Neighborhood (NN) North Mountain Neighborhood District (NM) Southern Oregon University District SOU SECTION 4. Chapter 18.2.1.040, of the Zoning Regulations and General Provisions section of the Ashland Municipal Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.2.1.040 Applicability of Zoning Regulations Part 18.2 applies to properties with base zone, special district, and overlay zone designations, as follows: Table 18.2.1.040: Applicability of Standards to Zones, Plan Districts and Overlays Designation Applicability Base Zones Residential - Woodland (WR) Chapter 18.2 Applies Directly Residential - Rural (RR) Chapter 18.2 Applies Directly Residential - Single-family (R-1-10, R-1- Chapter 18.2 Applies Directly 7.5, R-1-5) Chapter 18.2 Applies Directly Residential - Suburban (R-1-3.5) Chapter 18.2 Applies Directly Residential - Low Density Multiple Family Chapter 18.2 Applies Directly (R-2) Chapter 18.2 Applies Directly Residential - High Density Multiple Family Chapter 18.2 Applies Directly (R-3) Chapter 18.2 Applies Directly Commercial (C-1) Commercial - Downtown (C-1-D) Employment (E-1) Industrial M-1 Page 3 of 4 Table 18.2.1.040: Applicability of Standards to Zones, Plan Districts and Overlays Designation Applicability Special Districts Croman Mill District Zone (CM) CM District Replaces chapter 18.2 Health Care Services Zone (HC) NN District Replaces chapter 18.2 Normal Neighborhood District (NN) NM District Replaces chapter 18.2 North Mountain Neighborhood (NM) Southern Oregon University SOU Overlay Zones Airport Overlay Modifies chapter 18.2 Detail Site Review Overlay Modifies chapter 18.2 Downtown Design Standards Overlay Modifies chapter 18.2 Freeway Sign Overlay Modifies chapter 18.2 Historic Overlay Modifies chapter 18.2 Pedestrian Place Overlay Modifies chapter 18.2 Performance Standards Options Overlay Modifies chapter 18.2 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay Modifies chapter 18.2 Residential Overlay Modifies chapter 18.2 SECTION 5. 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 6. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code 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, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections I- 2, 5-6) 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 , 2015, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2015. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2015. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 4 of 4 Exhibit A Normal Neighborhood District Chapter 18 Code Amendments 18.3.4.010 Purpose 18.3.4.020 Applicability 18.3.4.030 General Requirements 18.3.4.040 Use Regulations 18.3.4.050 Dimensional Regulations 18.3.4.060 Site Development and Design Standards 18.3.4.070 Conservation Area overlay 18.3.4.075 Advanced Financing District [Placeholder] 18.3.4.080 Review and Approval Procedure 18.3.4.010 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. 18.3.4.020 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 chapter conflict with comparable standards described in any other ordinance, resolution or regulation, the provisions of the Normal Neighborhood District shall govern. 18.3.4.030 General Regulations Page 1 of 12 A. Conformance with the Normal Neighborhood Plan. Land uses and development, including construction of buildings, streets, multi-use paths, and open space 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 18.3.9 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 18.3.4.050 iii. A change in the allowable base density, dwelling units per acre, in section 18.3.4.050. 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 provides an additional vehicular access point onto East Main Street or Clay Street. 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 18.3.4.050, but not including height and residential density. iii. A change in the Plan layout that changes the boundaries or location of a conservation area to correspond with a delineated wetland and water resource protection zone, or relocation of a designated open space area. 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: a.The proposed amendment maintains the transportation connectivity established by the Normal Neighborhood Plan; b. The proposed amendment furthers the street design and access management concepts of the Normal Neighborhood Plan. Page 2 of 12 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 I Procedure. Minor amendments are subject to the Exception to the Site Design and Use Development Standards of chapter 18.5.2.050.E. 18.3.4.040 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-1-5 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-1-3.5 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-1-3.5-C zone. The use regulations and development standards are intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households through development of multiple compact attached and/or detached dwellings 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-1-3.5-C overlay are to provide sufficient on-street parking to accommodate ground floor neighborhood business uses. Page 3 of 12 4. Plan NN-2 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-Neighborhood Plan. 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, 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 entry. 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. (Townhome, Row house) 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. 6. Multiple Dwelling Residential Unit. Page 4 of 12 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. (Reserved) 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. Table 18.3.4.040 Land Use NN-1-5 NN-1-3.5 NN-1-3.5-C NN-2 Descriptions Single family Suburban Suburban Multi-family Residential Residential Residential Low Density with Residential commercial Residential Uses Single Dwelling Residential Unit (Single-Family Dwelling) P P N N Accessory Residential Unit P P P N Double Dwelling Residential Unit N P P P (Duplex Dwelling) Cottage Housing (Placeholderl P N N N Clustered Residential Units N P P P Attached Residential Unit N P P P Multiple Dwelling Residential Unit (Multi family Dwelling) N P P P 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 P N 3,500 square feet of gross floor area Professional and Medical Offices, with each building N N P N 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 P N to the permitted retail use. Restaurants N N P N Day Care Center N N P N Assisted Living Facilities N C C C Public and Institutional Uses Religious Institutions and Houses of Worship C C C C Public Buildings P P P P Page 5 of 12 Community Gardens P P P P Open space 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. 18.3.4.050 Dimensional Regulations A. The lot and building dimensions shall conform to the standards in Table 18.3.4.050 below. Table 18.3.4.050 Dimensional Standards NN-1-5 NN-1-3.5 NN-2 NN-1-3.5C Base density, dwelling units per acre 4.5 7.2 13.5 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 Minimum Front Yard to unenclosed front porch, feet 82 82 82 Minimum Side Yard 6 6 6 03 03 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 18.4.8 Maximum Building Height, feet / stories 35 / 2.5 35 / 2.5 35 / 2.5 Maximum Lot Coverage, percentage of lot 50% 55% 65% Minimum Required Landscaping, percentage of lot 50% 45% 35% Parking See section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design Requirements Page 6 of 12 Minimum Outdoor Recreation Space, percentage of lot na na 8% 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 the width of any existing public utility easement, whichever is greater; an unenclosed porch must be no less than 6 feet in depth and 8 feet in width, see section 18.6.1.030 for definition of porch. 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 18.3.4.050, except where granted a density bonus under chapter 18.3.9. Performance Standards Options and consistent with the following: 1 General Density Provisions. a. The density in NN-1-5, NN-1-3.5, NN-1-3.5-C and NN-2 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 section 18.5.8.050.F. 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 18.5.8.050.F. 2. Residential Density Bonuses. a. The maximum residential density bonuses permitted shall be as described in section 18.2.5.080.F. b. Cottage Housing. [Reserved] 18.3.4.060 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 18.3.4.030.B. 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 Page 7 of 12 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 18.4.3.080, 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 Local 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 space amenity for residents. The following approval criteria and standards apply to common greens: Page 8 of 12 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: [Reserved] 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 18.3.11 Water Resources Protection Zones (Overlays), 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. 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 must be 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 peak 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. 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. Page 9 of 12 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-1-3.5-C zone must have parking primarily accommodated by the provision of public parking areas and on- street parking spaces, and are not required to provide private off-street parking or loading areas, except for residential uses where one space shall be provided per residential unit. 6. Neighborhood Module Concept plans. The Neighborhood Module Concept plans (i.e. development scenarios) are for the purpose of providing an example of developments that conform to the standards, and do not constitute independent approval criteria. Concept plans are attached to the end of this chapter. 18.3.4.65 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. 18.3.4.070. Open Space Area Overlay All projects containing land identified as Open Space Areas on the Normal Neighborhood Plan Open Space Network Map, unless otherwise amended per section 18.3.030.C, 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 recreational open space and conservation purposes is proportional to the value bestowed upon the property through the change in zoning designation and future annexation. 18.3.4.075. Advance Financing District [Reserved] 18.3.4.080. 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 12 Neighborhood Module Concept plans The City recognizes that future innovations in building technologies, water conservation practices, and creative approaches to site design and layout will help shape the neighborhood module concept in consideration of the unique characteristics of the properties being developed. As such these example illustrations presented are primarily intended to assist those involved in conceptualizing a development to better address the principle objectives outlined within the Normal Neighborhood Plan. { i rl=rsonal and r-. ......t cornmur"Ity garden space 00 alley Ji L Y t T A%fafletyof 11a U7FI(l C. pt_S jL f and saes r, J F sosar,t ntNf j ! f' j i bullding. _ 114 slblie ifom r x. Consddate' Pakina ai~~aILL 1s~,aetc~r~,:, - parrilr3a d <.e52i~ f:t a41 , Page 11 of 12 Normal Neighborhood District Zoning Classification Map. E ~ j r 1~~5 I ~ 3 t f f 1 < ~ f . t ° I i F4yf ~ y~ ~b ~rt~ii hi J r I: I 4I ~ 1' I ~ t QTT. t I I I 1 tlK-, lAkHi I Zoning NN-1-5 NN-1-3.5 NN-1-3.5-C N € I ~ 'j,~,, open space Road Classifications ~neig'aoTbood collector local street - -5-- j shared street path I A Hi At,,,, Normal Neighborhood District Zoning Classifications 0 2GO 400 80D Feet Page 12 of 12 CITY OF ASHLAND Planning Commission Report DATE: April 22, 2014 TO: Ashland City Council FROM: Ashland Planning Commission RE: PA420130-1858 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 8t" 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- o 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 Oregon 97520 Ashland, ~r, www.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 of prominent 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 of fragile ecosystems, provide passive recreational opportunities where people can connect with nature, protect scenic views considered important to the community, protect future development from flood 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 l lt" 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'/2 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. Ashland, Main Street Oregon 97520 www.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 www.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 sorne 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 putforth 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. Ashland, Main Street EWA Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us CITY OF Memo -ASHLAND TO: Ashland City Council FROM: Normal Neighborhood Plan Working Group DATE: December 2, 2014 RE: Normal Neighborhood Plan Recommendations Vision Statement Neighborhood planning is the process by which the City works with Ashland's residents to envision the future of the neighborhood. The eventual incorporation of the Normal Neighborhood Plan area into the City depends on careful consideration of the neighborhood's unique identity and character and a holistic planning approach. The Normal Neighborhood Working Group envisions a neighborhood that is notable for the natural beauty of the area's wetlands and creeks, mountain views, diversity of households, and as an area which accommodates bicycling and walking as a reliable and convenient way to move throughout the area. Local streams, wetlands, and scenic vistas contribute significantly to define the character of the Normal Neighborhood. The quality of the place is enhanced by these features and the wildlife that they attract. Connected and contiguous open spaces should remain as central features of the area's future development as they help reflect the community of Ashland's commitment to promote environmental quality, provide recreational opportunities, and function to incorporate nature into the daily lives of the area's residents. The neighborhood should provide for a range of housing choices available a diversity of Ashland's population. The neighborhood can accommodate a blend of housing types including individual residences, townhomes, apartments, moderately sized cottages, pedestrian oriented cluster housing, and mixed-use neighborhood serving businesses. Future developments should be designed to relate to, and complement, adjacent properties. Incorporating unifying elements between adjacent developments will serve to promote neighborhood cohesiveness, provide open space in a coordinated manner, and secure an efficient circulation system. Given the immediate proximity to existing schools, parks, and local business areas the neighborhood is recognized as place where children can readily walk and bike to schools through a safe, desirable family-based neighborhood. The Normal Neighborhood Plan Working Group believes a neighborhood plan is necessary to address long-term community goals, unify expectations, and integrate the project area into the fabric of the City. The implementation standards for the neighborhood plan should be strong enough to maintain the vision for the area, yet flexible enough to respond to changing conditions and adapt over time. Normal Ncighhorhood N\`rnkin Group ~r, CITY of Memo ASH LAND Recommendations Land Use and Housing Density: 1. Housing Density gradation should move from south to north. This would place higher density development near the railroad tracks and within a relatively short distance to transit lines, parks and community facilities. This approach will also protect the existing viewshed. 2. Zoning designations applied within the Normal neighborhood area should be consistent with the zoning of adjacent land within the City Limits, and use zoning labels that are comparable to those used in the rest of the city while recognizing the Normal Neighborhood (NN) district. 3. Maintain option for neighborhood serving businesses and services close to East Main St near the northeast corner of the plan area. Open Space: 1. Maintain the approach toward designation of open space and conservation areas proposed in the draft plan. Amend the plan to allow non-conservation open space to be relocated requiring a minor amendment application. 2. Obtain a review of the final plan by the Parks Department prior to adoption. Design issues: 1. Maintain a maximum building height of 35 feet. 2. Encourage the development of clustered housing that integrates with open space and respects the viewshed. 3. Provide for a smooth transition between adjacent developments to promote neighborhood cohesiveness, provide open space in a coordinated manner, and secure an efficient circulation system. Transportation: 1. The internal transportation system's local street network should incorporate multiple connections with East Main St as shown, and maintain the Normal Collector as designated in the draft plan. Additional connections to East Main Street or Clay Street, which are not shown in the proposed Street Framework, should require a major amendment to the Plan. 2. Internal local streets should be aligned to provide a grid pattern, including clear east-west connections. 3. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways are critical, especially as a means to connect residents with the middle school and the existing bike path. 4. External transportation improvements, including the railroad crossing and improvements to East Main St., are integral and should proceed in concert with development. However, we believe the city may need to play a role in the financing/implementation of these projects. Accordingly, as a next step we recommend that the council direct city staff and/or an outside consultant to identify and quantify: a. the need and possible means for public investment in the project, and b. the overall costs and benefits that these facilities present to the entire city. \on mil Ncighhorhiwd oi-king Grrnip In MA 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). Executive Summary Normal Neighborhood Reimbursement District Offsite Infrastructure Construction Cost Estimate and Apportionment of Costs City of Ashland, Oregon INTRODUCTION: As part of the development of the Normal Neighborhood Plan, certain offsite street and utility improvements/upgrades are needed. The City is proposing to develop said improvements in participation with properties in the Normal Neighborhood. The offsite improvements addressed by this study are: 1. Street and utility improvements/upgrades to East Main Street from Walker Avenue to Clay Street. 2. Improvements to the Normal Avenue railroad crossing at the south end of the neighborhood. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to: 1. Determine the cost to make said improvements noted above. 2. Determine an equitable method for all parties to participate in construction of said improvements. In addition, estimated construction costs were prepared for street and utility improvements/upgrades to East Main Street from Clay Street to Tolman Creek Road as a separate analysis. BACKGROUND: The Normal Neighborhood" is located in the eastern area of Ashland, bounded roughly by East Main Street on the north, the Siskiyou Railroad on the south, Ashland Middle School on the west, and Wingspread Mobile Home Park, Creek Drive, and Clay Street on the east. The neighborhood consists of 34 lots with a total of 472 potential dwelling units under the scenario being considered in the Normal Neighborhood Plan. Under the existing Comprehensive Plan the area would accommodate approximately 550 dwelling units. It is anticipated that the costs of improvements be apportioned to new dwelling units only (i.e. with issuance of a building permit through an advanced financing district), not the existing 23 homes in the project area. The potential dwelling unit count was provided by the City Planning Department Staff. Street and utility improvement costs to upgrade East Main Street to current City of Ashland standards were estimated based on current improvement costs. The costs were for improvements from Walker Avenue to Clay Street being approximately 3500 feet long or 0.66 miles. East Main Street in this area typically consist of approximately 31 feet wide asphaltic concrete pavement roadway with two travel lanes and two bike lanes. The street right of way is 60 feet. The proposed street improvements have a couple of different cross-sections. The roadway width would be 48.5 feet wide from the face of curb on the south side to the face of curb on the north side. There would be two travel lanes, one center turn lane, and two six foot (6') wide bicycle lanes on each side. There is not a sidewalk proposed on the north side, only a three foot (3') wide shoulder. The variations in the street cross-section had to do with the sidewalk area on the south side. Most of the sidewalk areas will consist of a six foot (6') wide concrete sidewalk separated from the curb with a seven foot (7') wide planter/bio Swale area. There are some areas because of deep cuts or fills, the sidewalk area was narrowed to eliminate the planter/bio swale thereby lessening the cost for construction of retaining walls, etc. In these sections, a six foot (6') wide concrete sidewalk is proposed next to the curb, with a retaining wall. These improvements will fit within the existing 60 foot wide right of way in most cases. Some right of way will need to be acquired to accommodate the required centerline radius for this street classification as well as to provide for a safe driving environment. The cost of right of way acquisition has been included in the construction cost estimate. Some slope and utility easements will be required on both sides of the new street, and those have also been calculated and included in the construction cost estimate. Also included in the construction cost estimate for East Main Street were sanitary sewer, storm sewer, waterlines, and power line relocation. The improvements to East Main Street noted above were analyzed two ways. Overhead power lines are located on both sides of the street. PP&L lines are on the north side and City of Ashland power lines are on the south side. Option 1 was to relocate the power lines outside of the street improvements but leaving them overhead. Option 2 was to remove the overhead power lines and place them underground. Although Option 2 is more expensive, it is common practice and a requirement in many cases to move overhead power lines underground when making major street improvements, especially when most of the right of way will be taken up by the streets and sidewalks, as is the case here. Costs were primarily based on current ODOT prices and calculated using a standard ODOT construction cost estimating form/spreadsheet. In addition to preparing a construction cost estimate for improvements to East Main Street from Walker Avenue to Clay Street, a separate construction cost estimate was prepared for extending the same improvements from Clay Street to Tolman Creek Road, approximately 1000 feet further east. The costs were separated into two options like those noted above. Option 1 was to relocate the power lines outside of the street improvements but leaving them overhead. Option 2 was to remove the overhead power lines and place them underground. The Normal Avenue rail crossing improvement costs were estimated by RH2 Engineers, earlier in the process. Normal Avenue is proposed to be realigned with a new at grade signalized railroad crossing. The new realigned section of road would be approximately 720 feet long and consist of two travel lanes, two bicycle lanes, and six foot (6') wide sidewalks on both sides. The improvements will require acquisition of right of way which is included in the construction cost estimate. The City will participate in the cost of improvements to the following extent: 1. 50% SDC Participation for: a. Street Construction, b. Sanitary Sewer Construction, and c. Storm Sewer Construction 2. 0% Participation for: a. Right of Way Acquisition b. Power Relocation c. Waterline Construction Also included in the construction cost estimates are Engineering, and Contingencies estimated at 62% of the construction cost. As discussed earlier, the construction cost estimates are based on spring, 2015 costs. Adjustments to future cost estimates should be inflated based on the applicable Construction Cost Index rates for this area. These usually range between 2-3% per year. CONCLUSION (Summary of Findings): The estimated construction cost estimates for each option and the apportionment of costs of same are noted below. Option 1- Improvements/upgrades to East Main Street from Walker Avenue to Clay Street, and the Normal Avenue Railroad Crossing (Relocating Power Lines Overhead) Construction Cost City Share of Construction Cost (SDC): $2,284,059.00 Normal Neighborhood Share of Cost: $3,502,959.00 Total Construction Cost: $5,787,018.00 Normal Neighborhood Cost Apportionment Number of Lots: 34 Total Number of Potential Dwelling Units: 472 Neighborhood Share of Cost Per Dwelling Unit: $7,421.52 Option 2 - Improvements/upgrades to East Main Street from Walker Avenue to Clay Street, and the Normal Avenue Railroad Crossing (Place Power Lines Underground) Construction Cost City Share of Construction Cost (SDQ $2,887,788.50 Normal Neighborhood Share of Cost: $4,106,688.50 Total Construction Cost: $6,994,477.00 Normal Neighborhood Cost Apportionment Number of Lots: 34 Total Number of Potential Dwelling Units: 472 Neighborhood Share of Cost Per Dwelling Unit: $8,700.61 improvements/upgrades to East Main Street from Clay Street to Tolman Creek Road -The estimated construction cost estimate for this section of street is as follows, option 1- Relocating Power Lines Overhead - Construction Cost Estimate - $1,489,482 Option 2 - Place Power Lines Underground - Construction Cost Estimate - $1,606,272 Total Construction Cost Estimate Summary - The following is a summary of all estimated construction costs per option. Option 1 - Relocate Power Lines Overhead East Main Street from Walker Avenue to Clay Street: $4,470,765 East Main Street from Clay Street to Tolman Creek Road: $1,489,482 Subtotal: $5,960,247 Normal Avenue Railroad Crossing: $1,316,253 Total Cost Option 1: $7,276,500 Option 2 - Place Power Lines Underground East Main Street from Walker Avenue to Clay Street: $5,678,224 East Main Street from Clay Street to Tolman Creek Road: $1,606,272 Subtotal: $7,284,496 Normal Avenue Railroad Crossing: $1,316,253 Total Cost Option 2: $8,600,749 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is our recommendation that Option 2 be utilized for this project. Even though the price is higher, it will be more difficult and unsightly to reposition the overhead power lines. I believe that safe could be compromised because the proposed street cross-section puts the curb very close to the right-of-way line and therefore the power lines, which is potentially dangerous for drivers. Also, maintenance will be much better if the power is underground. Furthermore, Land Use ordinance 18.4.6.090 requires electric, communication, and related utilities to be placed underground except where existing physical constraints, such as geologic conditions, streams, or existing development conditions make underground placement impractical. In the Case of doing substantial work on East Main Street it seems that under-grounding them is practical. Attached Exhibits: c•i7 FE?t3 - Reimbursement District - Potential Units Per Lot Ch`~~OihE,P~`rfOy Apportionment of Costs - Option 1 / r Apportionment of Costs - Option 2 ~ . 1041 fY.Ji% Construction Cost Estimate - East Main Street - Walker Ave. to Clay Street, Normal Avenue RR Crossing -Options 1 and 2 ' U2EC10N Construction Cost Estimate - East Main Street -Clay Street to Tolman h..,, Creek Road -Options land 2 Normal Neighborhood Plan Draft - February 2015 Normal Neighborhood Plan Street Network Plan t> 3c i D Normal Neighborhood Plan Potential Unit Count 3/2014 CITY OF ASHLAND NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT -POTENTIAL UNITS PER LOT Prepared by: Hardey Engineering & Associates, Inc. Date: 26-Mar-15 Rev: 9-Apr-15 Number Map Number Tax Lot Number No. of Potential Units 1 39 1E 10 1300 4 2 39 lE 10 1400 0 3 39 lE 10 1500 4 4 39 1E 10 1700 50 5 39 1E 10 1800 1 6 39 1E 10 1900 0 7 39 1E 10 2000 0 8 39 1E 10 2100 0 9 39 1E 10 2200 1 10 39 1E 10 2300 3 11 39 1E 10 2400 1 12 39 1E 10 2500 49 13 39 1E 10 2600 30 14 391E 10 2800 3 15 39 1E 10 2900 5 16 39 lE 10 3000 5 17 39 1E 10 3100 7 18 39 1E 10 3200 4 19 39 1E 10 3300 7 20 39 1E 10 3400 4 21 39 1E 10DA 3100 14 22 39 1E 10DA 3300 30 23 39 1E 10DA 3400 0 24 39 1E 10DA 3500 32 25 39 1E 10DA 3600 15 26 39 1E 10DD 700 27 27 39 1E 10DD 800 2 28 39 1E 10DD 1000 15 29 39 1E 10DD 1100 40 30 39 1E 11C 3600 0 31 39 1E 11C 3601 36 32 39 1E 11C 3602 33 33 391E 11CB 3600 50 34 39 1E 11CB 3700 0 TOTAL UNITS: 472 P:\Sdskproj\038-24-15\CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT\Estimates\ Normal District Composition Hardey Engineering Associates, Inc 4/9/2015 CITY OF ASHLAND - NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT Apportionment of Costs - East Main Street - Walker Ave. to Clay St. - Option 1 (Relocate Power) City Participation 50% SDC For: Street Construction Sanitary Sewer Storm Sewer 0% SDC For: Right of Way Acquisition Power Relocation Waterline East Main Total Cost: $4,470,765.00 Less Right of Way Costs: ($319,100.00) Less Power Relocation Costs: ($265,000.00) Less Waterline Costs: ($324,400.00) Adjusted Total: $3,562,265.00 Less 50% SDC Participation: $1,781,132.50 City Share (SDC): $1,781,132.50 Reimbursement Share: $2,689,632.50 Normal Ave. Railroad Crossing - Total Cost: $1,316,253.00 Less Right of Way Costs: ($310,400.00) Adjusted Total: $1,005,853.00 Less 50% SDC Participation: $502,926.50 City Share (SDC): $502,926.50 Reimbursement Share: $813,326.50 Combined Costs - East Main and Normal Ave. RR Crossing City Share - East Main: $1,781,132.50 City Share - Normal RR Xing: $502,926.50 Total: $2,284,059.00 Reimbursement Share - East Main: $2,689,632.50 Reimbursement Share - Normal RR Xing: $813,326.50 Total: $3,502,959.00 1 Of 2 Hardey Engineering Associates, Inc. 4/9/2015 Assessment Per Lot - Option 1 Date: 26-Mar-15 Rev: 9-Apr-15 No. of Potential Reimbursement Number Map Number Tax Lot Number Dwelling Units Share Per Lot 1 39 1E 10 1300 4 $29,686.09 2 39 1E 10 1400 0 $0.00 3 39 1E 10 1500 4 $29,686.09 4 39 1E 10 1700 50 $371,076.17 5 39 1E 10 1800 1 $7,421.52 6 39 1E 10 1900 0 $0.00 7 39 1E 10 2000 0 $0.00 8 39 1E 10 2100 0 $0.00 9 39 1E 10 2200 1 $7,421.52 10 39 1E 10 2300 3 $22,264.57 11 39 1E 10 2400 1 $7,421.52 12 39 1E 10 2500 49 $363,654.64 13 39 1E 10 2600 30 $222,645.70 14 39 1E 10 2800 3 $22,264.57 15 39 1E 10 2900 5 $37,107.62 16 39 1E 10 3000 5 $37,107.62 17 39 1E 10 3100 7 $51,950.66 18 39 1E 10 3200 4 $29,686.09 19 39 1E 10 3300 7 $51,950.66 20 391E 10 3400 4 $29,686.09 21 39 1E 10DA 3100 14 $103,901.33 22 39 1E 10DA 3300 30 $222,645.70 23 39 1E 10DA 3400 0 $0.00 24 39 1E 10DA 3500 32 $237,488.75 25 39 1E 10DA 3600 15 $111,322.85 26 39 1E 1ODD 700 27 $200,381.13 27 39 1E 10DD 800 2 $14,843.05 28 39 1E IODD 1000 15 $111,322.85 29 39 1E 1ODD 1100 40 $296,860.93 30 39 1E 11C 3600 0 $0.00 31 39 1E 11C 3601 36 $267,174.84 32 39 1E 11C 3602 33 $244,910.27 33 39 1E 11CB 3600 50 $371,076.17 34 39 1E 11CB 3700 0 $0.00 TOTAL UNITS: 472 $3,502,959.00 COST PER UNIT: $7,421.52 2 Of 2 Hardey Engineering Associates, Inc. 419/2015 CITY OF ASHLAND - NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT Apportionment of Costs - East Main Street - Walker Ave. to Clay St. - Option 2 (Underground Power) City Participation 50%SDC For: Street Construction Sanitary Sewer Storm Sewer 0% SDC For: Right of Way Acquisition Power Relocation Waterline East Main Total Cost: $5,678,224.00 Less Right of Way Costs: ($319,100.00) Less Power Relocation Costs: ($265,000.00) Less Waterline Costs: ($324,400.00) Adjusted Total: $4,769,724.00 Less 50% SDC Participation: $2,384,862.00 City Share (SDC): $2,384,862.00 Reimbursement Share: $3,293,362.00 Normal Ave. Railroad Crossing - Total Cost: $1,316,253.00 Less Right of Way Costs: ($310,400.00) Adjusted Total: $1,005,853.00 Less 50% SDC Participation: $502,926.50 City Share (SDC): $502,926.50 Reimbursement Share: $813,326.50 Combined Costs - East Main and Normal Ave. RR Crossing City Share - East Main: $2,384,862.00 City Share - Normal RR Xing: $502,926.50 Total: $2,887,788.50 Reimbursement Share - East Main: $3,293,362.00 Reimbursement Share - Normal RR Xing: $813,326.50 Total: $4,106,688.50 1 Of 2 Hardey Engineering Associates, Inc. 4/9/2015 Assessment Per Lot - Option 2 Date: 26-Mar-15 Rev: 9-Apr-15 No. of Potential Reimbursement Number Map Number Tax Lot Number Dwelling Units Share Per Lot 1 39 1E 10 1300 4 $34,802.44 2 39 1E 10 1400 0 $0.00 3 39 1E 10 1500 4 $34,802.44 4 39 1E 10 1700 50 $435,030.56 5 39 1E 10 1800 1 $8,700.61 6 39 1E 10 1900 0 $0.00 7 39 1E 10 2000 0 $0.00 8 39 1E 10 2100 0 $0.00 9 39 11110 2200 1 $8,700.61 10 39 1E 10 2300 3 $26,101.83 11 39 1E 10 2400 1 $8,700.61 12 39 1E 10 2500 49 $426,329.95 13 39 1E 10 2600 30 $261,018.34 14 39 1E 10 2800 3 $26,101.83 15 39 1E 10 2900 5 $43,503.06 16 39 1E 10 3000 5 $43,503.06 17 391E 10 3100 7 $60,904.28 18 39 1E 10 3200 4 $34,802.44 19 39 1E 10 3300 7 $60,904.28 20 39 1E 10 3400 4 $34,802.44 21 39 1E 10DA 3100 14 $121,808.56 22 39 1E 10DA 3300 30 $261,018.34 23 39 1E 10DA 3400 0 $0.00 24 39 1E 10DA 3500 32 $278,419.56 25 39 1E 10DA 3600 15 $130,509.17 26 39 1E IODD 700 27 $234,916.50 27 39 1E 1ODD 800 2 $17,401.22 28 39 1E 1ODD 1000 15 $130,509.17 29 39 1E 1ODD 1100 40 $348,024.45 30 39 1E 11C 3600 0 $0.00 31 39 1E 11C 3601 36 $313,222.00 32 39 1E 11C 3602 33 $287,120.17 33 39 1E 11CB 3600 50 $435,030.56 34 39 1E 11CB 3700 0 $0.00 TOTAL UNITS: 472 $4,106,688.50 COST PER UNIT: $8,700.61 2 Of 2 Hardey Engineering Associates, Inc. 4/912015 OPTION 1 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO. 1 (RELOCATE POWER) PROJECT NAME: East Main St, Walker Ave. to Clay St KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST MOBILIZATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL MOBILIZATION LS 10.00% $213,961 TEMPORARY PROTECTION AND DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC LS 5.00% $101,886 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL EROSION CONTROL LS 1.00% $19,784 ROADWORK CONSTRUCTION SURVEY WORK LS 2,00% $39,568 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS LS $20,000 $20,000 REMOVAL OF CURBS FOOT $6 $0 REMOVAL OF GUARDRAIL FOOT $4 $0 REMOVAL OF PIPES FOOT 490 $12 $5,880 REMOVAL OF SURFACINGS SOYD 100 $10 $1,000 REMOVAL OF WALKS AND DRIVEWAYS SOYD 390 $10 $3,900 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 4.5 $5,060 $22,770 GENERAL EXCAVATION CUYD 6000 $15 $90,000 EMBANKMENT IN PLACE CUYD $11 $0 12 INCH SUBGRADE STABILIZATION SOYD $13 $0 24 INCH SUBGRADE STABILIZATION SOYD 7000 $24 $168,000 12 INCH SURFACING STABILIZATION SOYD $20 $0 24 INCH SURFACING STABILIZATION SOYD $31 $0 WATERING MGAL $18 $0 SUBGRADE GEOTEXTILE SOYD 8500 $1 $8,500 LOOSE RIPRAP, CLASS 100 CUYD 60 $45 $2,700 DRAINAGE AND SEWERS 36 INCH CULVERT PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH FOOT 140 $85 $11,900 12 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH FOOT 760 $46 $34,960 18 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH FOOT 690 $50 $34,500 24 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH FOOT 990 $62 $$1,380 36 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 10 FT DEPTH FOOT $80 $0 48 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 10 FT DEPTH FOOT $180 $0 CONCRETE STORM SEWER MANHOLES EACH 10 $2,800 $28,000 CONCRETE INLETS, TYPE CG-2 EACH 20 $1,250 $25,000 12'x 4' STRUCTURAL PLATE ARCH FOOT 160 $500 $80,000 MSE HEAD & END WALLS SOFT 800 $15 $12,000 IRRIGATION STRUCTURE EACH 2 $3,000 $6,000 UTILITY PIPE SLEEVES LIN FT $30 $0 8" SANITARY SEWER PIPE, 5' DEPTH LIN FT 2600 $35 $91,000 48" SANITARY MANHOLES EACH 15 $2,500 $37,500 4" SERVICE LATERALS LIN FT 300 $15 $4,500 12" MINUS RIVER RUN ROCK C.Y. 100 $40 $4,000 BRIDGES BRIDGES EACH $0 TEMP BRIDGE EACH $0 BRIDGE REMOVAL EACH $0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO. 1 (RELOCATE POWER) PROJECT NAME: East Main St, Walker Ave. to Clay St KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER ITEM! UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST END PANELS EACH $0 BASES COLD PLANE PAVEMENT REMOVAL, 0 - 2 INCH DEEP SOYD $4 $0 COLD PLANE PAVEMENT REMOVAL, 21NCH DEEP SOYD $3 $0 AGGREGATE BASE TON 4900 $18 $88,200 AGGREGATE SHOULDERS TON 240 $17 $4,080 WEARING SURFACES ASPHALT IN TACK COAT TON $420 $0 LEVEL 2,1/2 INCH DENSE MHMAC TON $75 $0 LEVEL 3,1/2 INCH DENSE MHMAC TON 2800 $85 $238,000 ASPHALT WALKS SOYD $4 $0 CRACK SEALING FOOT $18 $0 EXTRA FOR ASPHALT APPROACHES EACH 12 $500 $6,000 REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT SOYD $110 $0 REINFORCED CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS SOYD $110 $0 ASPHALT DRIVEWAY APPROACH SOFT 1500 $4 $6,000 CONCRETE CURBS FOOT $18 $0 CURB AND GUTTER CONCRETE CURBS FOOT 7000 $12 $84,000 CONCRETE WALKS SOFT 17200 $5.0 $86,000 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRONS SOFT 3900 $8 $31,200 PAVEMENT CUTTING LIN FT 6400 $4 $25,600 PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND GUIDANCE DEVICES GUARDRAIL, TYPE 2A FOOT $20 $0 GUARDRAIL, TYPE 3 FOOT $50 $0 GUARDRAIL, TYPE4 FOOT $60 $0 GUARDRAIL ANCHORS, TYPE 1 EACH $680 $0 GUARDRAIL END PIECES, TYPE B EACH $85 $0 GUARDRAIL TRANSITION EACH $2,250 $0 GUARDRAIL TERMINALS, NON-FLARED EACH $2,550 $0 GUARDRAIL TERMINALS, FLARED EACH $2,250 $0 ADJUSTING GUARDRAIL FOOT $5 $0 CONCRETE BARRIER FOOT $51 $0 CONCRETE BARRIER, TALL FOOT $60 $0 OEUNEATORS, TYPE 1 EACH $37 $0 MILEPOST MARKER POSTS EACH $63 $0 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: ARROWS EACH 8 $260.00 $2,080 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: "SCHOOL CROSSING" EACH 1 $650.00 $650 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: RAILROAD CROSSING MARKINGS EACH $650.00 SO PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: BICYCLE LANE SYMBOLS EACH 25 $138.00 $3,450 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: "BIKE RAILROAD" EACH $200.00 $0 PAVEMENT LINE, TYPE D SOFT $7.00 $0 MONO-DIRECTIONAL CRYSTAL TYPE I MARKERS EACH $3.60 $0 BI-DIRECTIONAL YELLOW TYPE I MARKERS EACH $3.60 $0 BI-DIRECTIONAL YELLOW TYPE I MARKERS, RECESSED EACH $8 $0 PAINTED PERMANENT PAVEMENT STRIPING FOOT 14000 $0.15 $2,100 THERMOPLASTIC, PROFILE, 90 MIL, EXTRUDED FOOT $2,00 $0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO. 1 (RELOCATE POWER) PROJECT NAME: East Main St., Walker Ave. to Clay St. KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST RUMBLE STRIPS MILE $1,700 SO PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND ILLUMINATION SYSTEMS PERMANENT SIGNS LS 1.00% $18,875 INTERPRETIVE PANELS AND DECORATIVE HARDSCAPE FEATURES LS $32,000 $0 LOOP DETECTORS INSTALLATION EACH $1,000 so TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION EACH $125,000 $0 INTERCONNECT SYSTEM LS so STREET LIGHTS SINGLE - INCLUDING CONECTIONS, WIRING, CONDUIT EACH 8 $9,000 $72,000 STREET LIGHTS MULTIPLE - INCLUDING CONECTIONS, WIRING, CONDUIT EACH $14,000 $O ILLUMINATION $0 RIGHT-OF-WAY DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL PERMANENT SEEDING, MIX NO. 1 ACRE 3 $5,000 $15,000 SINGLE MAILBOX SUPPORTS EACH $250 $0 MULTIPLE MAILBOX SUPPORTS EACH 5 $300 $1,500 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION SITES 1 $0 $0 FENCING LIN FT 3430 $25 $85,750 LANDSCAPING LS 1 $65,000 $65,000 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS 1 $0 $0 16" DIP WITH CLASS - B BACKFILL FOOT 3360 $85 $285,600 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EACH 6 $4,000 $24,000 16~GATEVALVE EACH 3 $3,000 $9,000 8" GATE VALVE EACH 4 $1,200 $4,800 CONNECT TO CITY WATER SYSTEM (WALKER) LS 1 $1,000 $1,000 RELOCATE POWER TRANSMISSION LINE (CITY) LS 1 $65,000 $65,000 RELOCATE POWER TRANSMISSION LINE (PP&L) LS 1 $200,000 $200,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $2,553 574 ForProectsDeve% edb ConsWtants. AC BONUS Or STATISTICAL BONUS 5.0% $11,900 CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING" 25.0% $641,368 CONSULTANT CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 17.0% $434108 CONTINGENCIES 20.0% $510,715 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/ANNOUNCEMENTS $0 BID SUBTOTAL $4,1151,665 RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATE (process only, add cost of land FILES 24 $7,500 $180,000 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION LS 1 $28,000 EASEMENTS LS 1 $111100 M,47%765 57 7 1, 1 rKIND ' "NORMAL AVE. RAILROAD CROSSING AGENCY CITY OF ASHLAND F WORK LENGTH E STIMATOR DATE ET IMPROVEMENTS 1019/14 SPEC # ITEMDESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ---200__a_EMP.ORARY--EATURESANDAP-PUR7FJ4MCES------_..----.----- 210 MOBILIZATION LS 1 10% $69,50 225 TEMPORARY WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL, COMPLETE LS 1 $3,000 $3,00 280 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LS 1 $1,500 $1,500 300 ROADWORK 305 CONSTRUCTION SURVEY WORK LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 310 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 350 SUBGRADE GEOTEXTILE SY 4000 $2 $8,00 600 BASES 641 SUBBASE TN 1400 $15 $21,000 641 314 INCH - 0 AGGREGATE BASE (4" DEPTH) TN 560 $24 $13,44 641 4 INCH - 0 AGGREGATE BASE (6" DEPTH) TN 820 $16 $13,120 744 LEVEL 2, 112 INCH DENSE MHMAC TON 585 $110 $64,35 759 CONCRETE CURBS LF 1440 $25 $36,000 759 CONCRETE WALKS SF 8650 $6 $51,900 N/A RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION LS 1 $400,000 $400,0 ___.__-__._.__-_-___-----------._-_-----__.-CONSTRUCTION-SUBTOTAL-----__--__----- ---------VbgMp . ROW ACQUISITION (PRIVATE) SF 28000 $10 $280,000 ROW ACQUISITION (CITY) SF 3800 $8 $30,400 RAILROAD PERMITTING LS 1 $100,000 $100,00 CONTINGENCY (30%) LS 1 $209,043 $209,04 __--TOfiAL___-.______-_---____._-_-____ __$,1;311;;353:00 1 Of 1 10/9/2014 - k. f ~ ~t r- r., - - Tit j ' i PLAN VIEW E OPTION 2 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO.2 (UNDERGROUND POWER) PROJECT NAME: East Main SL, Walker Ave. to Clay St. KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST MOBILIZATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL MOBILIZATION LS 10.00% $254,447 TEMPORARY PROTECTION AND DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC LS 5.00% $121,165 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL EROSION CONTROL LS 1.00% $23,527 ROADWORK CONSTRUCTION SURVEY WORK LS 2.00% $47,055 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS LS $20,000 $20,000 REMOVAL OF CURBS FOOT $6 $0 REMOVAL OF GUARDRAIL FOOT $4 $0 REMOVAL OF PIPES FOOT 490 $12 $5,880 REMOVAL OF SURFACINGS SQYD 100 $10 $1,000 REMOVAL OF WALKS AND DRIVEWAYS SQYD 390 $10 $3,900 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 4.5 $5,060 $22,770 GENERAL EXCAVATION CUYD 6000 $15 $90,000 EMBANKMENT IN PLACE CUYD $11 $0 12 INCH SUBGRADE STABILIZATION SQYD $13 $0 24 INCH SUBGRADE STABILIZATION SOYD 7000 $24 $168,000 12 INCH SURFACING STABILIZATION SQYD $20 $0 24 INCH SURFACING STABILIZATION SQYD $31 $0 WATERING MGAL $18 $0 SUBGRADE GEOTEXTILE SQYD 8500 $1 $8,500 LOOSE RIPRAP, CLASS 100 ICUYD 60 $45 $2,700 DRAINAGE AND SEWERS 36 INCH CULVERT PIPE, b FT DEPTH FOOT 140 $85 $11,900 12 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH FOOT 760 $46 $34,960 18 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH FOOT 690 $50 34,500 24 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH FOOT 990 $62 $61,380 36 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 10 FT DEPTH FOOT $80 $0 48 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 10 FT DEPTH FOOT $180 $0 CONCRETE STORM SEWER MANHOLES EACH 10 $2,800 $28,000 CONCRETE INLETS, TYPE CG-2 EACH 20 $1,250 $25,000 12'x 4' STRUCTURAL PLATE ARCH FOOT 160 $500 $80,000 MSE HEAD & END WALLS SOFT 800 $15 $12,000 IRRIGATION STRUCTURE EACH 2 $3,000 $6,000 UTILITY PIPE SLEEVES LIN FT $30 $0 8' SANITARY SEWER PIPE, 5' DEPTH LIN FT 2600 $35 $91,000 48' SANITARY MANHOLES EACH 15 $2,500 $37,500 4" SERVICE LATERALS LIN FT 300 $15 $4,500 12" MINUS RIVER RUN ROCK C.Y. 100 $40 $4,000 BRIDGES BRIDGES EACH $0 TEMP BRIDGE EACH $0 BRIDGE REMOVAL EACH $0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO. 2 (UNDERGROUND POWER) PROJECT NAME: East Main St., Walker Ave. to Clay St. KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST END PANELS EACH $0 BASES COLD PLANE PAVEMENT REMOVAL, 0 - 2 INCH DEEP SOYD $4 $0 COLD PLANE PAVEMENT REMOVAL, 2 INCH DEEP SOYD $3 $O AGGREGATE BASE TON 4900 $18 $88,200 AGGREGATE SHOULDERS TON 240 $17 $4,080 WEARING SURFACES ASPHALT IN TACK COAT TON $420 $0 LEVEL 2,1/2 INCH DENSE MHMAC TON $75 $0 LEVEL 3,1/2 INCH DENSE MHMAC TON 2800 $85 $238,000 ASPHALT WALKS SQYD $4 $0 CRACK SEALING FOOT $18 $0 EXTRA FOR ASPHALT APPROACHES EACH 12 $500 $6,000 REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQYD $110 $0 REINFORCED CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS SOYD $110 $0 ASPHALT DRIVEWAY APPROACH SOFT 1500 $4 $6,000 CONCRETE CURBS FOOT $18 $0 CURB AND GUTTER CONCRETE CURBS FOOT 7000 $12 $84,000 CONCRETE WALKS SOFT 17200 $5.0 $86,000 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRONS SOFT 3900 $8 $31,200 PAVEMENT CUTTING LIN FT 6400 $4 $25,600 PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND GUIDANCE DEVICES GUARDRAIL, TYPE 2A FOOT $20 $0 GUARDRAIL, TYPE 3 FOOT $50 $0 GUARDRAIL, TYPE4 FOOT $60 $0 GUARDRAIL ANCHORS, TYPE1 EACH $680 $0 GUARDRAIL END PIECES, TYPE B EACH $85 $0 GUARDRAIL TRANSITION EACH $2,250 $0 GUARDRAIL TERMINALS, NON-FLARED EACH $2,550 $0 GUARDRAIL TERMINALS, FLARED EACH $2,250 $0 ADJUSTING GUARDRAIL FOOT $5 $0 CONCRETE BARRIER FOOT $51 $0 CONCRETE BARRIER, TALL FOOT $60 $0 DELINEATORS, TYPE 1 EACH $37 $0 MILEPOST MARKER POSTS EACH $63 $O PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: ARROWS EACH 8 $260.00 $2,080 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: "SCHOOL CROSSING" EACH d14000 $650.00 $650 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: RAILROAD CROSSING MARKINGS EACH $650.00 $0 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: BICYCLE LANE SYMBOLS EACH $138.00 $3,450 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: "BIKE RAILROAD" EACH $200.00 $0 PAVEMENT LINE, TYPE D SOFT $7.00 $0 MONO-DIRECTIONAL CRYSTAL TYPE I MARKERS EACH $3.60 $0 BI-DIRECTIONAL YELLOW TYPE I MARKERS EACH $3.60 $0 Bi-DIRECTIONAL YELLOW TYPE I MARKERS, RECESSED EACH $8 $0 PAINTED PERMANENT PAVEMENT STRIPING FOOT $0.15 $2,100 THERMOPLASTIC, PROFILE, 90 MIL, EXTRUDED FOOT $2.00 $0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO.2 (UNDERGROUND POWER) PROJECT NAME: East Main St, Walker Ave. to Clay St. KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL. COST RUMBLE STRIPS MILE $1,700 $0 PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND ILLUMINATION SYSTEMS PERMANENT SIGNS LS 1.00% $22,225 INTERPRETIVE PANELS AND DECORATIVE HARDSCAPE FEATURES LS $32,000 S0 LOOP DETECTORS INSTALLATION EACH $1,000 $O TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION EACH $125,000 $0 INTERCONNECT SYSTEM LS $0 STREET LIGHTS SINGLE - INCLUDING CONECTIONS, WIRING, CONDUIT EACH 12 $9,000 $10$,000 STREET LIGHTS MULTIPLE - INCLUDING CONECTIONS, WIRING, CONDUIT EACH $14,000 $0 ILLUMINATION $0 RIGHT-0F-WAY DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL PERMANENT SEEDING, MIX NO. 1 ACRE 3 $5,000 $15,000 SINGLE MAILBOX SUPPORTS EACH $250 $0 MULTIPLE MAILBOX SUPPORTS EACH 5 $300 $1,500 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION SITES 1 $0 $0 FENCING LIN FT 3430 $25 $85,750 LANDSCAPING LS 1 $65,000 $65,000 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS 1 $0 $0 18" DIP WITH CLASS - B BACKFILL FOOT 3360 $85 $285,600 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EACH 6 $4,000 $24,000 16" GATE VALVE EACH 3 $3,000 $9,000 B" GATE VALVE EACH 4 $1,200 $4,800 CONNECT TO CITY WATER SYSTEM (WALKER) LS 1 $1,000 $1,000 UNDERGROUND POWER TRANSMISSION LINE (CITY) LS 1 $400,000 $400,000 UNDERGROUND POWER TRANSMISSION LINE (PP&L) LS 1 $500,000 $500,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $3,298,919 For Projects Den!o b Consultants: AC BONUS Or STATISTICAL BONUS 5.0°/C $11,900 CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING' 25.0% $827,705 CONSULTANT CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 17.0% $560,816 CONTINGENCIES 20.0% $659,784 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/ANNOUNCEMENTS $0 BID SUBTOTAL $5,3i9,124 RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATE (process only, add cost of land FILES 24 $7,500 $180,000 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION LS 1 $28,000 EASEMENTS LS 11 $111,100 $111100 $5,678,224 TN -7 T, J N NORMAL AVE. RAILROAD CROSSING AGENCY CITY OF ASHLAND KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATOR DATE STREET IMPROVEMENTS 1019/14 {~6M SPEC lit ITEM OESCMPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL 210 MOBILIZATION is 1 10% $69,500 225 TEMPORARY WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL, COMPLETE LS 1 $3,000 $3,0 280 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LS 1 $1,500 $1,500 300 ROADWORK 305 CONSTRUCTION SURVEY WORK LS 1 $10,000 $10,00 310 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 350 SUBGRADE GEOTEXTILE SY 4000 $2 $8,000 600 BASES 641 SUBBASE TN 1400 $15 $21,000 641 3/4 INCH - 0 AGGREGATE BASE (4" DEPTH) TN 560 $24 $13,440 641 4 INCH - 0 AGGREGATE BASE (6" DEPTH) TN 820 $16 $13,12 ----------T60'--WEAIZINGSURFiI►,CES--------------___-- 744 LEVEL 2, 1/2 INCH DENSE MHMAC TON 585 $110 $64,35 759 CONCRETE CURBS LF 1440 $25 $36,00 759 CONCRETE WALKS SF 8650 $6 $51,900 N/A RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION LS 1 $400,000 $400,000 ---CONSTRUCT[ON-SUBTOTAL-------____.- ROW ACQUISITION (PRIVATE) SF 28000 $10 $280,000 ROW ACQUISITION (CITY) SF 3800 $8 $30,400 RAILROAD PERMITTING LS 1 $100,000 $100,0 CONTINGENCY (30%) LS 1 $209,043 $209,0431 - - TOTAL -$1- -6,253 -0 1 of 1 1019/2014 - - r t t i PLAN VIEW OPTION I CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO.1 (RELOCATE POWER) PROJECT NAME: East Main St-Clay St to Tolman Crook Rd KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST MOBILIZATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL MOBILIZATION LS 10.00% $65,665 TEMPORARY PROTECTION AND DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC LS 5.00% $31,269 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL EROSION CONTROL LS 1.00% $6,072 ROADWORK CONSTRUCTION SURVEY WORK LS 2.00% $12,143 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS LS 10,000 $1 $10,000 REMOVAL OF CURBS FOOT 100 $6 $600 REMOVAL OF GUARDRAIL FOOT 200 $4 $800 REMOVAL OF PIPES FOOT 100 $12 $1,200 REMOVAL OF SURFACINGS SQYD 50 $10 $500 REMOVAL OF WALKS AND DRIVEWAYS SQYD 150 $10 $1,500 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 0.7 $5,060 $3,542 GENERAL EXCAVATION CUYD 3000 $15 $45,000 EMBANKMENT IN PLACE CUYD $11 $0 12 INCH SUBGRADE STABILIZATION SQYD $13 $0 24 INCH SUBGRADE STABILIZATION SOYD 200 $24 $4,800 12 INCH SURFACING STABILIZATION SQYD $20 $0 24 INCH SURFACING STABILIZATION SQYD $31 $0 WATERING MGAL $18 $0 SUBGRADE GEOTEXTILE SQYD 3500 $1 $3,500 LOOSE RIPRAP, CLASS 100 ICUYD 10 $45 $450 DRAINAGE AND SEWERS 36 INCH CULVERT PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH FOOT 80 $85 $6,800 12 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH FOOT 300 $46 $13,800 18 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH FOOT 650 $50 $32,500 24 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH FOOT 990 $62 $61,380 36 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 10 FT DEPTH FOOT $80 $0 46 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 10 FT DEPTH FOOT $180 $0 CONCRETE STORM SEWER MANHOLES EACH 3 $2,800 $8,400 CONCRETE INLETS, TYPE CG-2 EACH 8 $1,250 $10,000 12'x 4' STRUCTURAL PLATE ARCH FOOT $500 $0 MSE HEAD & END WALLS SOFT 200 $15 $3,000 IRRIGATION STRUCTURE EACH $3,000 $0 UTILITY PIPE SLEEVES LIN FT $30 $0 8" SANITARY SEWER PIPE, 5' DEPTH LIN FT $35 $0 48" SANITARY MANHOLES EACH $2,500 $0 4' SERVICE LATERALS LIN FT $15 $0 12" MINUS RIVER RUN ROCK IC-Y- $40 $0 MAJOR ADJUSTMENT OF MANHOLES EACH 6 $7001 $4,200 BRIDGES BRIDGES EACH $0 TEMP BRIDGE EACH $0 BRIDGE REMOVAL EACH $0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO. 1 (RELOCATE POWER) PROJECT NAME: East Main St-Clay St to Tolman Creek Rd KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST END PANELS EACH SO BASES COLD PLANE PAVEMENT REMOVAL, 0 - 21NCH DEEP SQYD 1000 $4 $4,000 COLD PLANE PAVEMENT REMOVAL, 2 INCH DEEP SQYD $3 $0 AGGREGATE BASE TON 1200 $1$ $21,600 AGGREGATE SHOULDERS TON 150 $17 $2,550 WEARING SURFACES ASPHALT IN TACK COAT TON $420 $O LEVEL 2,112 INCH DENSE MHMAC TON $75 $0 LEVEL 3,1/2 INCH DENSE MHMAC TON 720 $85 $61,200 ASPHALT WALKS SQYD $4 $O CRACK SEALING FOOT $18 0 EXTRA FOR ASPHALT APPROACHES EACH 4 $500 $2,000 REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT SOYD $110 $0 REINFORCED CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS SQYD $110 $0 ASPHALT DRIVEWAY APPROACH SOFT $4 $0 CONCRETE CURBS FOOT $18 $0 CURB AND GUTTER CONCRETE CURBS FOOT 1600 $12 $19,200 CONCRETE WALKS SOFT 9300 $5 $46,500 CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS SOFT 420 $8 $3,360 PAVEMENT CUTTING LIN FT 1600 $4 $6,400 PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND GUIDANCE DEVICES GUARDRAIL, TYPE 2A FOOT 300 $20 $6,000 GUARDRAIL, TYPE 3 FOOT $50 $0 GUARDRAIL, TYPE 4 FOOT $60 $0 GUARDRAIL ANCHORS, TYPE1 EACH 1 $680 $680 GUARDRAIL END PIECES, TYPE B EACH 1 $85 $85 GUARDRAIL TRANSITION EACH 1 $2,250 $2,250 GUARDRAIL TERMINALS, NON-FLARED EACH $2,550 $0 GUARDRAIL TERMINALS, FLARED EACH $2,250 $0 ADJUSTING GUARDRAIL FOOT $5 $0 CONCRETE BARRIER FOOT $51 $0 CONCRETE BARRIER, TALL FOOT $60 $0 DELINEATORS, TYPE 1 EACH $37 $0 MILEPOST MARKER POSTS EACH $63 $0 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: ARROWS EACH 6 $260 $1,560 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: "SCHOOL CROSSING" EACH $650 $0 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE 0: RAILROAD CROSSING MARKINGS EACH $650 $0 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: BICYCLE LANE SYMBOLS EACH 6 $138 $828 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: "BIKE RAILROAD" EACH $200 $0 PAVEMENT LINE, TYPE D SOFT $7.00 $0 MONO-DIRECTIONAL CRYSTAL TYPE I MARKERS EACH $3.60 $O BI-DIRECTIONAL YELLOW TYPE I MARKERS EACH $3.60 $0 Bt-DIRECTIONAL YELLOW TYPE I MARKERS, RECESSED EACH $8 $0 PAINTED PERMANENT PAVEMENT STRIPING FOOT 3800 $0.15 $570 THERMOPLASTIC. PROFILE, 90 MIL, EXTRUDED FOOT $2 $0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO. 1 (RELOCATE POWER) PROJECT NAME: East Main St-Clay St to Tolman Creek Rd KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST RUMBLE STRIPS MILE $1,700 $0 PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND ILLUMINATION SYSTEMS PERMANENT SIGNS LS 1.000% $5,744 INTERPRETIVE PANELS AND DFCORATNE HARDSCAPE FEATURES LS $32,000 $0 LOOP DETECTORS INSTALLATION EACH $1,000 $O TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION EACH $125,000 $0 INTERCONNECT SYSTEM LS $0 STREET LIGHTS SINGLE - INCLUDING CONECTIONS, WIRING, CONDUIT EACH 3 $9,000 $27,000 STREET LIGHTS MULTIPLE - INCLUDING CONECTIONS, WIRING, CONDUIT EACH $14,000 $0 ILLUMINATION $0 RIGHT-OF-WAY DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL PERMANENT SEEDING, MIX NO. 1 ACRE 0.70 $5,000 $3,500 SINGLE MAILBOX SUPPORTS EACH $250 $0 MULTIPLE MAILBOX SUPPORTS EACH 1 $300 $300 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION SITES 1 $0 $0 FENCING LIN FT 900 $25 $22,500 LANDSCAPING LS 1 $34,470 $34,470 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS 16" DIP WITH CLASS - B BACKFILL FOOT 900 $85 $76,500 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EACH 1 $4,000 $4,000 16" GATE VALVE EACH 1 $3,000 $3,000 8" GATE VALVE EACH 2 $1,200 $2,400 CONNECT TO CITY WATER SYSTEM (WALKER) LS 2 $1,000 $2,000 RELOCATE POWER TRANSMISSION LINE (CITY) LS 1 $35,000 $35,000 RELOCATE POWER TRANSMISSION LINE (PP&L) LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $822,319 i i For Proefts Dovs!2eEd b Consultants: AC BONUS Or STATISTICAL BONUS 5.0% $3,060 CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING" 25.0% $206,345 CONSULTANT CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 17.0% $139,794 CONTINGENCIES 20.0% $164,464 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/ANNOUNCEMENTS $0 BID SUBTOTAL $1,335,982 RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATE (process only, add cost of land FILES 7 $7,500 $52,500 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION LS 1 $25,000 EASEMENTS LS 1 $76,000 TOTAL $1,489,482 OPTION 2 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO.2 (UNDERGROUND POWER) PROJECT NAME: East Main St.-Clay St, to Tolman Creek Rd. KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST MOBILIZATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL MOBILIZATION LS 10.00% $72,219 TEMPORARY PROTECTION AND DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC LS 5.00% $34,390 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL EROSION CONTROL LS 1.00% $6,678 ROADWORK CONSTRUCTION SURVEY WORK LS 2.00% $13,355 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS LS 10,000 $1 $10,000 REMOVAL OF CURBS FOOT 100 $6 $600 REMOVAL OF GUARDRAIL FOOT 200 $4 $800 REMOVAL OF PIPES FOOT 100 $12 $1,200 REMOVAL OF SURFACINGS SOYD 50 $10 $500 REMOVAL OF WALKS AND DRIVEWAYS SOYD 150 $10 $1,500 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 0.7 $5,060 $3,542 GENERAL EXCAVATION CUYD 3000 $15 $45,000 EMBANKMENT IN PLACE CUYD $11 $0 12 INCH SUBGRADE STABILIZATION SOYD $13 $0 24 INCH SUBGRADE STABILIZATION SOYD 200, $24 $4,800 12 INCH SURFACING STABILIZATION SOYD $20 $0 24 INCH SURFACING STABILIZATION SOYD $31 $0 WATERING MGAL $18 $0 SUBGRADE GEOTEXTILE SOYD 3500 $1 $3,500 LOOSE RIPRAP, CLASS 100 CUYD 10 $45 $450 DRAINAGE AND SEWERS 36 INCH CULVERT PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH FOOT 80 $85 $6,800 12 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH FOOT 300 $46 $13,800 18 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH FOOT 650 $50 $32,500 24 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH FOOT 990 $62 $61,380 36 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 10 FT DEPTH FOOT $80 $0 48 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 10 FT DEPTH FOOT $180 $0 CONCRETE STORM SEWER MANHOLES EACH 3 $2,800 $8,400 CONCRETE INLETS. TYPE CG-2 EACH 8 $1,250 $10,000 12'x 4' STRUCTURAL PLATE ARCH FOOT $500 $0 MSE HEAD & END WALLS SOFT 200 $15 $3,000 IRRIGATION STRUCTURE EACH $3,000 $0 UTILITY PIPE SLEEVES LIN FT $30 $0 8' SANITARY SEWER PIPE, 5' DEPTH LIN FT $35 $0 48' SANITARY MANHOLES EACH $2,500 $0 4" SERVICE LATERALS LIN FT $15 $0 12" MINUS RIVER RUN ROCK C.Y. $40 $0 MAJOR ADJUSTMENT OF MANHOLES EACH 6 $700 $4,200 BRIDGES BRIDGES EACH $0 TEMP BRIDGE EACH $0 BRIDGE REMOVAL EACH $0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO.2 (UNDERGROUND POWER) PROJECT NAME: East Main St.-Clay St to Tolman Creek Rd. KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST END PANELS EACH $0 BASES COLD PLANE PAVEMENT REMOVAL, 0 - 2 INCH DEEP SOYD 1000 $4 $4,000 COLD PLANE PAVEMENT REMOVAL, 2 INCH DEEP SOYO $3 $0 _t- 1 AGGREGATE BASE TON 1200 $18 $21,600 AGGREGATE SHOULDERS TON 150 $17 $2,550 WEARING SURFACES ASPHALT IN TACK COAT TON $420 $0 LEVEL 2,112 INCH DENSE MHMAC TON $75 $0 LEVEL 3,112 INCH DENSE MHMAC TON 720 $85 $61,200 ASPHALT WALKS SOYD $4 $0 CRACK SEALING FOOT $18 $0 EXTRA FOR ASPHALT APPROACHES EACH 4 $500 $2,000 REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT SOYD $110 $0 REINFORCED CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS SOYD $110 $0 ASPHALT DRIVEWAY APPROACH SOFT $4 $0 CONCRETE CURBS FOOT $18 $0 CURB AND GUTTER CONCRETE CURBS FOOT 1600 $12 $19,200 CONCRETE WALKS SOFT 9300 $5 $46,500 CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS SOFT 420 $8 $3,360 PAVEMENT CUTTING LIN FT 1600 $4 $6,400 PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND GUIDANCE DEVICES GUARDRAIL, TYPE 2A FOOT 300 $20 $6,000 GUARDRAIL, TYPE 3 FOOT $50 $0 GUARDRAIL, TYPE4 FOOT $60 $0 GUARDRAIL ANCHORS, TYPE1 EACH 1 $680 $680 GUARDRAIL END PIECES, TYPE B EACH 1 $85 $85 GUARDRAIL TRANSITION EACH 1 $2,250 $2,250 GUARDRAIL TERMINALS, NON-FLARED EACH $2,550 $0 GUARDRAIL TERMINALS, FLARED EACH $2,250 $0 ADJUSTING GUARDRAIL FOOT $5 $0 CONCRETE BARRIER FOOT $51 $0 CONCRETE BARRIER, TALL FOOT $60 $0 DELINEATORS, TYPE 1 EACH 37 $0 MILEPOST MARKER POSTS EACH $63 $0 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: ARROWS EACH 6 $260 $1,560 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: "SCHOOL CROSSING" EACH $650 $0 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: RAILROAD CROSSING MARKINGS EACH $650 $0 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: BICYCLE LANE SYMBOLS EACH 6 $138 $828 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: "BIKE RAILROAD" EACH $200 $0 PAVEMENT LINE, TYPE D SOFT $7.00 $0 MONO-DIRECTIONAL CRYSTAL TYPE I MARKERS EACH $3.60 $0 BI-DIRECTIONAL YELLOW TYPE I MARKERS EACH $3.60 $0 81-DIRECTIONAL YELLOW TYPE I MARKERS, RECESSED EACH $8 $0 PAINTED PERMANENT PAVEMENT STRIPING FOOT 3800 $0.15 $570 THERMOPLASTIC, PROFILE, 90 MIL, EXTRUDED FOOT $2 $0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO. 2 (UNDERGROUND POWER) PROJECT NAME: East Main SL-Clay SL to Tolman Creek Rd. KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST RUMBLE STRIPS MILE $1,700 $0 PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND ILLUMINATION SYSTEMS PERMANENT SIGNS LS 1.00% $6,344 INTERPRETIVE PANELS AND DECORATIVE HARDSCAPE FEATURES LS $32,000 $0 LOOP DETECTORS INSTALLATION EAGH $1,000 $0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION EACH $125,000 $0 INTERCONNECT SYSTEM LS $0 STREET LIGHTS SINGLE - INCLUDING CONECTIONS, WIRING, CONDUIT EACH 3 $9,000 $27,000 STREET LIGHTS MULTIPLE - INCLUDING CONECTIONS, WIRING, CONDUIT EACH $14,000 $0 ILLUMINATION $0 RIGHT-OF-WAY DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL PERMANENT SEEDING, MIX NO. 1 ACRE 0.70 $5,000 $3,500 SINGLE MAILBOX SUPPORTS EACH $250 $0 MULTIPLE MAILBOX SUPPORTS EACH 1 $300 $300 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION SITES $0 $0 FENCING LIN FT 900 $25 $22,500 LANDSCAPING LS 1 $34,470 $34,470 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS 16" DIP WITH CLASS - B BACKFILL FOOT 900 $85 $76,500 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EACH 1 $4,000 $4,000 16" GATE VALVE EACH 1 $3,000 $3,000 8" GATE VALVE EACH 2 $1,200 $2,400 CONNECT TO CITY WATER SYSTEM EACH 2 $1,000 $2,000 UNDERGROUND POWER TRANSMISSION LINE (CITY) LS 1 $95,000 $95,000 UNDERGROUND POWER TRANSMISSION LINE (PPBL) LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $894L412 For Projects Develo b Consultants: AC BONUS Or STATISTICAL BONUS 5.0% $3,060 CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING' 25.0% $224,368 CONSULTANT CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 17.0% $152,050 CONTINGENCIES 20.0% $178,882 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENTlANNOUNCEMENTS $0 BID SUBTOTAL $1,452,772 RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATE (process only, add cost of land FILES 7 $7,500 $52,500 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION LS 1 $25,000 EASEMENTS LS 1 $76,000 TOTAL $1,606,272 I A M i ~ m. o , s c e a s a~a e a w w F .r. ' f ~t J C7L j Lq , J- J' I 7..- _ Zoning NN-1-5 NN-1-3.5 NN-1-3.5-C NN-2 space .J. J Road Classifications neigborhood collector local street mr~ hared street shared street # ~ r path 3 e S HI~nYV •ar Normal Neighborhood Plan Draft - February 2015 0 200 400 800 Feet r • B o x rt VcM9t ra'riUngg... . 1 i rrrrrrrrrrrrrrKrrarr ~.r"' Z~ III rrrgrrs _.,.t r Road Classifications i~ I e neigborhood collector ggggggggggggg, local street shared street 1. ; - • - - - multi-use path Normal Neighborhood Plan Street Network Map 0 200 400 800 Feet 4 i 16 lgbb 0 .;0 i~ 0 a 0 22 1 TO, c~ h /L~ D 3 0 s j 10- i -L ~y7t~lt 0 10 0 33, 0 0 14 ~0' 0' 01 0 26 p I 4 ~ ! ?7 1 14 0 5 : a .r s - 0' 0 5 3 r i 36 0 Of 50 n r 14 ! n 14 0 A$$ s ' 5 7,0 ' e..~■ 0~ c t` 7 ¢ 30, 32 0 Zoning ~i I C~ NN-1-5 z s p~ 2,p _ NN-1-3.5 40 w 15. NN-1-3.5-C /kO l NN-2 Open pace t 2 -rte °Au K _ J Road Classifications 5 neigborhood collector X4" local street . _ - shared street ~E path - - = 1 AMRnC1CLN [ Normal Neighborhood Working Plan Estimated Future Dwelling Unit Potential Total - 472 0 200 400 800 Feet i i F' F C= e n } Au IS ~ Q P 6L } 1 ruE a' cuas I A mr ~m w D Z Bn R~ ~u~7 R~ z O P ~ 3i _ J./ O 0 a.o ~ a.~waY Caanx~ ~ r7y GtN ~N 4~Z my3° l~yk~ O iR m ~L "I D D D 5a~ ,wrw E:1 0 Z v_ EN~rzmuee~Y ' Z ewrcvwre - Z eoiv cc - - - TI 0 05 I (n M m re z N m g~aaa - ~ ~ ~ -Vyps. a ~ \ °K 1Q Q° r Executive Summary Normal Neighborhood Reimbursement District Offsite Infrastructure Construction Cost Estimate and Apportionment of Costs Updated April 27, 2015- Reduced East Main Street Improvements City of Ashland, Oregon INTRODUCTION: As part of the development of the Normal Neighborhood Plan, certain offsite street and utility improvements/upgrades are needed. The City is proposing to develop said improvements in participation with properties in the Normal Neighborhood. The offsite improvements addressed by this study are: 1. Street and utility improvements/upgrades to East Main Street from Walker Avenue to Clay Street. 2. Improvements to the Normal Avenue railroad crossing at the south end of the neighborhood. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to: 1. Determine the cost to make said improvements noted above. 2. Determine an equitable method for all parties to participate in construction of said improvements. BACKGROUND: The "Normal Neighborhood" is located in the eastern area of Ashland, bounded roughly by East Main Street on the north, the Siskiyou Railroad on the south, Ashland Middle School on the west, and Wingspread Mobile Home Park, Creek Drive, and Clay Street on the east. The neighborhood consists of 34 lots with a total of 472 potential dwelling units under the scenario being considered in the Normal Neighborhood Plan. Under the existing Comprehensive Plan the area would accommodate approximately 550 dwelling units. It is anticipated that the costs of improvements be apportioned to new dwelling units only (i.e. with issuance of a building permit through an advanced financing district), not the existing 23 homes in the project area. The potential dwelling unit count was provided by the City Planning Department Staff. Street and utility improvement costs to upgrade East Main Street to current City of Ashland standards were estimated based on current improvement costs. East Main Street in this area typically consists of approximately 31 feet wide asphaltic concrete pavement roadway with two travel lanes and two bike lanes. The street right of way is 60 feet. April 27. 2015 Executive Summary - Normal Neighborhood Reimbursement District Hardey Engineering & Associates, Inc. i EAST MAIN IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY: General Conditions In an effort to reduce the cost of the off-site improvements, the limits of the East Main Street reconstruction was reduced to a 500 feet total length, centered on the proposed intersection of Normal Avenue and East Main Street. The revised estimate is for a 500 foot long street section containing 2-6 foot wide bike lanes, 2-10 foot wide travel lanes, and 1-11.5 foot wide turning lane with curb and gutter on both the north and south sides. The use of curb and gutter is necessary to control surface run-off along the street; eliminate the need for parallel drainage ditches along both sides of the street and to provide a safer travel surface for bicycles as well as for vehicles. The original plan for East Main Street was for a modified half street section in that there are no provisions for sidewalk or parkrows on the north side of the street. The north sidewalk and parkrow would be constructed along with any future development of north side properties. The 500 foot section would be constructed as previously proposed with a 43.5 foot width from the face of curb on the south side to the face of curb on the north side. A six foot wide concrete sidewalk would be constructed on the south side with a 7 foot wide parkrow/bioswale constructed between the curb and the sidewalk. An additional 250 foot long street section would be constructed on the east and west ends of the fully improved street section to accommodate lane tapers. This section would not require curbs or sidewalks but would necessitate some extensions of the storm sewer to accommodate the extra street width. Sidewalks Sidewalks would be constructed on the south side of the street. There are two options to be considered regarding the limits of the sidewalk to be constructed. One option is to construct sidewalks only within the 500 foot fully improved section. The other option is to construct sidewalk along the entire street length from Tolman Creek Road to Walker Ave. Estimates have been prepared for both of the following options: Option No. 1 This option would construct sidewalks only within the fully improved 500 foot street section. The remainder of the walk would be completed in the future when E. Main Street is fully improved. This option would be far less costly but would provide no pedestrian connectivity. Option No. 2 The second option would provide a continuous sidewalk along the south side of East Main from Tolman Creek Road to Walker Avenue. This option would provide several immediate benefits including: 1. Providing pedestrian connectivity to the westerly section of East Main Street, to Walker Avenue, Clay Street and Tolman Creek Road all of which have existing sidewalk systems. 2. Provide a safe route to school for students at Ashland Middle School, John Muir School, Walker School and Willow Wind School. 3. Provide additional street width for a full width bike lane on the south side of the street. April 27. 2015 Executive Summary -Normal Neighborhood Reimbursement District I iardey Engineering & Associates. Inc. 2 Unfortunately, due in part to the nature of the topography and existing developments along East Main Street, the construction of sidewalks triggers several additional elements of street construction, adding significant costs to the project. The following improvements would also be required to construct a continuous sidewalk: 1. A storm sewer system would be required to eliminate the existing large drainage ditch on the south side of the street. 2. Curb and gutter would also be required to control and channel storm run-off into the storm sewer system, through a series of curb inlets and manholes. 3. Additional street width would be required so that the curb and storm sewer would be in the proper position to accommodate the future street construction. 4. A minor amount of right of way would be required to accommodate the extra width. To limit the amount of street width required, the sidewalk could be placed behind and adjacent to the curb, temporarily eliminating the proposed 7 foot wide parkrow. Since this would be a temporary sidewalk it could be constructed of asphalt rather than concrete to further reduce the cost. When the full street improvements are installed in the future, the asphalt sidewalk would be removed and the parkrow installed in its location. The final 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk would be installed at the edge of the parkrow, 7 feet from the curb. Power Lines Currently there are overhead power lines located on both sides of the street. The lines located on the south side of the street belong to the City of Ashland while the lines on the north side are owned by Pacific Power. Both lines are main 600 amp feeders and both power lines would need to be relocated to accommodate the proposed improvements. In keeping with the City of Ashland requirements, these two power lines should be reconstructed underground. To bury high voltage power lines of this type requires some oversized and very specialized equipment. To accommodate this equipment, additional utility easements along the entire length of the construction area will be needed. It is recommended that both power lines be undergrounded for the full length of the study area, from Tolman Creek Road to Walker Avenue. This recommendation is reflected in the attached estimates. Water and Sewer Lines As the Normal area develops, it will be necessary to install water and sewer lines in East Main Street to provide services for the 500 anticipated units within the neighborhood area. It will be necessary to install approximately 2600 feet of 8 inch sewer line and approximately 3400 feet of 16 inch water line, however, only 1000 feet of water and sewer lines are included in this estimate. This length of sewer and water would be installed within the improved section of street to eliminate the need to cut the surface of the newly constructed street in the future. The remaining lengths of sewer and water lines will be installed in the future with the full improvement of East Main Street. April 27, 2015 Executive Summary - Normal Neigliborhood Reimbursement District Hardey Engineering & Associates, Inc. 3 Storm Sewer Under option no. 2, the entire south side storm system will be constructed including curb inlets, manholes and future pipe connections. With option no. 1, only approximately 700 feet of storm sewer would be required. Rail Crossing The Normal Avenue rail crossing improvement costs were estimated by RH2 Engineers, earlier in the process. Normal Avenue is proposed to be realigned with a new at grade signalized railroad crossing. The new realigned section of road would be approximately 720 feet long and consist of two travel lanes, two bicycle lanes, and six foot (6') wide sidewalks on both sides. The improvements will require acquisition of right of way which is included in the construction cost estimate. COST ALLOCATION The City will participate in the cost of improvements to the following extent: 1. 50% SDC Participation for: a. Street Construction, b. Sanitary Sewer Construction, and c. Storm Sewer Construction 2.0% Participation for: a. Right of Way Acquisition b. Power Relocation c. Waterline Construction Also included in the construction cost estimates are Engineering, and Contingencies estimated at 62% of the construction cost. As discussed earlier, the construction cost estimates are based on spring, 2015 costs. Adjustments to future cost estimates should be inflated based on the applicable Construction Cost Index rates for this area. These usually range between 2-3% per year. CONCLUSION (Summary of Findings): The estimated construction cost estimates for each option and the apportionment of costs of same are noted below. Option 1- Improvements/upgrades to a 500 foot section of East Main Street, and the Normal Avenue Railroad Crossing Construction Cost City Share of Construction Cost (SDC): $1,326,984.50 Normal Neighborhood Share of Cost: $2,941,484.50 Total Construction Cost: $4,268,469.00 Normal Neighborhood Cost Apportionment: Number of Lots: 34 Total Number of Potential Dwelling Units: 472 Neighborhood Share of Cost Per Dwelling Unit: $6,231.96 April 27. 201$ Executive Summary- Normal Neighborhood Reimbursement District Hardey Engineering & Associates, Inc. 4 Option 2 - improvements/upgrades to a 500 foot section of East Main Street plus a continuous sidewalk from Tolman to Walker, and the Normal Avenue Railroad Crossing Construction Cost City Share of Construction Cost (SDC): $2,098,944.00 Normal Neighborhood Share of Cost: $3,713,444.00 Total Construction Cost: $5,812,388.00 Normal Neighborhood Cost Apportionment Number of Lots: 34 Total Number of Potential Dwelling Units: 472 Neighborhood Share of Cost Per Dwelling Unit: $7,867.47 RECOMMENDATIONS: The attached construction cost estimate and supporting documentation are based upon the improvement/reconstruction of a 500 foot long section of East Main Street centered at the proposed intersection of Normal Avenue. Two options are provided based upon the length of sidewalk to be constructed. Option No. 1 is limited to the 500 feet of sidewalk included within the street improvement section. Option No. 2 adds an additional 3500 feet of sidewalk which would provide a continuous walk from Tolman Creek Road to Walker Avenue, While much of the work for the two options is the same, such as easement and right-of-way acquisition, power line costs, and utility costs, the second option adds $1,543,919 worth of sidewalk, curbs, storm drains and extra street width to the project. HEA, Inc. makes no recommendation regarding the choice of the two options. There are some benefits in bicycle and pedestrian safety and convenience with option no. 2; however these same benefits will be realized when the street is ultimately built out. The question as to whether this extra sidewalk length should be added upfront and included in the financing district is best answered by city officials. Attached Exhibits: Reimbursement District- Potential Units Per Lot Apportionment of Costs - Option 1 Apportionment of Costs - Option 2 Construction Cost Estimate - East Main Street - 500 ft. section plus Normal Avenue RR Crossing - Options 1 and 2 Normal Neighborhood Plan Draft - February 2015 Normal Neighborhood Plan Street Network Plan 0 Pf?or Normal Neighborhood Plan Potential Unit Count 3/2014 Cti ti S' -,1 10419 OREGCTN gG rare + April 27. 2015 Executive Summary - Normal Neighborhood Reimbursement District Hardey Engineering & Associates, Inc. 5 CITY OF ASHLAND NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT -POTENTIAL UNITS PER LOT Prepared by: Hardey Engineering & Associates, Inc. Date: 26-Mar-15 Rev: 27-Apr-15 Number Map Number Tax Lot Number No. of Potential Units 1 39 1E 10 1300 4 2 391E 10 1400 0 3 39 1E 10 1500 4 4 39 1E 10 1700 50 5 39 1E 10 1800 1 6 39 1E 10 1900 0 7 39 1E 10 2000 0 8 39 1E 10 2100 0 9 39 1E 10 2200 1 10 391E 10 2300 3 11 391E 10 2400 1 12 391E 10 2500 49 13 391E 10 2600 30 14 39 1E 10 2800 3 15 39 1E 10 2900 5 16 39 1E 10 3000 5 17 391E 10 3100 7 18 39 1E 10 3200 4 19 39 1E 10 3300 7 20 391E 10 3400 4 21 391E 10DA 3100 14 22 39 1E 10DA 3300 30 23 391E 10DA 3400 0 24 39 lE 10DA 3500 32 25 39 1E 10DA 3600 15 26 39 1E 10DD 700 27 27 39 1E 10DD 800 2 28 39 lE 10DD 1000 15 29 391E 10DD 1100 40 30 39 1E 11C 3600 0 31 39 1E 11C 3601 36 32 39 lE 11C 3602 33 33 39 1E 11CB 3600 50 34 391E 11C6 3700 0 TOTAL UNITS: 472 https://thehardevgroup-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jhardey_hea-inc_com/Documents/Excel files/Excel) Files/Construction Cost Estimates/ Normal District Composition Hardey Engineering Associates, Inc 4/27/2015 CITY OF ASHLAND - NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT Apportionment of Costs - East Main Street - S00 Foot Section - Option 1 City Participation 50% SDC For: Street Construction Sanitary Sewer Storm Sewer 0% SDC For: Right of Way Acquisition Power Relocation Waterline East Main Total Cost: $2,952,216.00 Less Right of Way Costs: ($319,100.00) Less Power Relocation Costs: ($900.000.00) Less Waterline Costs: ($85,000.00) Adjusted Total: $1,648,116.00 Less 50% SDC Participation: $824,058.00 City Share (SDC): $824,058.00 Reimbursement Share: $2,128,158.00 Normal Ave. Railroad Crossing - Total Cost: $1,316,253.00 Less Right of Way Costs: ($310,400.00) Adjusted Total: $1,005,853.00 Less 50% SDC Participation: $502,926.50 City Share (SDC): $502,926.50 Reimbursement Share: $813,326.50 Combined Costs - East Main and Normal Ave. RR Crossing City Share - East Main: $824,058.00 City Share - Normal RR Xing: 5502,926.50 Total: $1,326,984.50 Reimbursement Share - East Main: $2,128,158.00 Reimbursement Share - Normal RR Xing: $811326.50 Total: $2,941,484.50 101`2 Hardey Engineering Associates, Inc. 4/27/2015 Assessment Per Lot - Option 1 Date: 26-Mar-15 Rev: 27-Apr-15 No. of Potential Reimbursement Number Map Number Tax Lot Number Dwelling Units Share Per Lot 1 39 1E 10 1300 4 $24,927.83 2 39 1E 10 1400 0 $0.00 3 39 1E 10 1500 4 $24,927.83 4 391E 10 1700 50 $311,597.93 5 39 1E 10 1800 1 $6,231.96 6 39 1E 10 1900 0 $0.00 7 39 lE 10 2000 0 $0.00 8 39 1E 10 2100 0 $0.00 9 391E 10 2200 1 $6,231.96 10 391E 10 2300 3 $18,695.88 11 39 1E 10 2400 1 $6,231.96 12 391E 10 2500 49 $305,365.98 13 391E 10 2600 30 $186,958.76 14 39 1E 10 2800 3 $18,695.88 15 39 1E 10 2900 5 $31,159.79 16 39 1E 10 3000 5 $31,159.79 17 39 1E 10 3100 7 $43,623.71 18 39 1E 10 3200 4 $24,927.83 19 391E 10 3300 7 $43,623.71 20 39 1E 10 3400 4 $24,927.83 21 391E 10DA 3100 14 $87,247.42 22 391E 10DA 3300 30 $186,958.76 23 39 1E 10DA 3400 0 $0.00 24 391E 10DA 3500 32 $199,422.68 25 391E 10DA 3600 15 $93,479.38 26 391E 10DD 700 27 $168,262.88 27 391E 10DD 800 2 $12,463.92 28 39 1E 10DD 1000 15 $93,479.38 29 39 1E 10DD 1100 40 $249,278.35 30 391E 11C 3600 0 $0.00 31 39 1E 11C 3601 36 $224,350.51 32 39 1E 11C 3602 33 $205,654.64 33 39 1E 11CB 3600 50 $311,597.93 34 39 1E 11CB 3700 0 $0.00 TOTAL UNITS: 472 $2,941,484.50 COST PER UNIT: $6,231.96 20F2 Hardey Engineering Associates, Inc. 4/27/2015 CITY OF ASHLAND - NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT Apportionment of Costs - East Main Street - 500 Foot Section Plus Sidewalk from Tolman to Walker - Option 2 City Participation 50% SDC For: Street Construction Sanitary Sewer Storm Sewer 0% SDC For: Right of Way Acquisition Power Relocation Waterline East Main Total Cost: $4,496,135.00 Less Right of Way Costs: ($319,100.00) Less Power Relocation Costs: ($900,000.00) Less Waterline Costs: ($85,000.00) Adjusted Total: $3,192,035.00 Less 50% SDC Participation: $1,596,017.50 City Share (SDC): $1,596,017.50 Reimbursement Share: $2,900,117.50 Normal Ave. Railroad Crossing - Total Cost: $1,316,253.00 Less Right of Way Costs: ($310,400.00) Adjusted Total: $1,005,853.00 Less 50% SDC Participation: $502,926.50 City Share (SDC): $502,926.50 Reimbursement Share: $813,326.50 Combined Costs - East Main and Normal Ave. RR Crossing City Share - East Main: $1,596,017.50 City Share - Normal RR Xing: 9502,926.50 Total: $2,098,944.00 Reimbursement Share - East Main: $2,900,117.50 Reimbursement Share - Normal RR Xing: $813,326.50 Total: $3,713,444.00 1 OF 2 Hardey Engineering Associates, Inc. 4/27/2015 Assessment Per Lot - Option 2 Date: 26-Mar-15 Rev: 27-Apr-15 No. of Potential Reimbursement Number Map Number Tax Lot Number Dwelling Units Share Per Lot 1 391E 10 1300 4 $31,469.86 2 391E 10 1400 0 $0.00 3 391E 10 1500 4 $31,469.86 4 391E 10 1700 50 $393,373.31 5 391E 10 1800 1 $7,867.47 6 39 1E 10 1900 0 $0.00 7 391E 10 2000 0 $0.00 8 39 1E 10 2100 0 $0.00 9 391E 10 2200 1 $7,867.47 10 39 1E 10 2300 3 $23,602.40 11 39 1E 10 2400 1 $7,867.47 12 391E 10 2500 49 $385,505.84 13 391E 10 2600 30 $236,023.98 14 39 1E 10 2800 3 $23,602.40 15 391E 10 2900 5 $39,337.33 16 39 1E 10 3000 5 $39,337.33 17 39 1E 10 3100 7 $55,072.26 18 39 1E 10 3200 4 $31,469.86 19 39 lE 10 3300 7 $55,072.26 20 391E 10 3400 4 $31,469.86 21 39 1E 10DA 3100 14 $110,144.53 22 391E 10DA 3300 30 $236,023.98 23 39 1E 10DA 3400 0 $0.00 24 39 1E 10DA 3500 32 $251,758.92 25 391E 10DA 3600 15 $118,011.99 26 39 1E 10DD 700 27 $212,421.58 27 391E 10DD 800 2 $15,734.93 28 39 1E 10DD 1000 15 $118,011.99 29 39 1E 10DD 1100 40 $314,698.64 30 391E 11C 3600 0 $0.00 31 39 1E 11C 3601 36 $283,228.78 32 39 1E 11C 3602 33 $259,626.38 33 39 1E 11CB 3600 50 $393,373.31 34 39 1E 11CB 3700 0 $0.00 TOTAL UNITS: 472 $3,713,444.00 COST PER UNIT: $7,867.47 2 OF 2 Hardey Engineering Associates, Inc. 4/27/2015 OPTION 9 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO. 1 (500 FET OF 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK) PROJECT NAME: East Main St., 250 Ft E. & W. of Normal Ave KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER Friday, April 24, 2015 ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST MOBILIZATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL MOBILIZATION LS 10.00% $102,075 TEMPORARY PROTECTION AND DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC LS 5.00% $48,607 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL EROSION CONTROL LS 1$9,438 ROADWORK CONSTRUCTION SURVEY WORK LS 2.00% $18,877 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 REMOVAL OF CURBS LF $6 $0 REMOVAL OF GUARDRAIL LF $4 $0 REMOVAL OF PIPES LF 60 $12 $720 REMOVAL OF SURFACINGS SY 3400 $10 $34,000 REMOVAL OF WALKS AND DRIVEWAYS SY 130 $10 $1,300 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 0.4 $5,060 $2,024 GENERAL EXCAVATION CY 1700 $15 $25,500 EMBANKMENT IN PLACE CY $11 $0 12 INCH SUBGRADE STABILIZATION SY $13 $0 24 INCH SUBGRADE STABILIZATION SY 1000 $24 $24,000 12 INCH SURFACING STABILIZATION SY $20 $0 24 INCH SURFACING STABILIZATION SY $31 $0 WATERING MGAL $18 $0 SUBGRADEGEOTEXTILE SY 1000 $1 $1,000 LOOSE RIPRAP, CLASS 100 ICY 10 $45 $450 DRAINAGE AND SEWERS 36 INCH CULVERT PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH LF $85 $0 12 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH LF $46 $0 18 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH LF $50 $0 24 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH LF 700 $62 $43,400 36 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 10 FT DEPTH LF $80 $0 48 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 10 FT DEPTH LF $180 $0 CONCRETE STORM SEWER MANHOLES EACH 2 $2,800 $5,600 CONCRETE INLETS, TYPE CG-2 EACH 4 $1,250 $5,000 12' x 4' STRUCTURAL PLATE ARCH LF 80 $500 $40,000 MSE HEAD & END WALLS SF 200, $15 $3,000 IRRIGATION STRUCTURE EACH 1 $3,000 $3,000 UTILITY PIPE SLEEVES LF $30 $0 8' SANITARY SEWER PIPE, 5' DEPTH LF 1000 $35 $35,000 48" SANITARY MANHOLES EACH 2 $2,500 $5,000 4' SERVICE LATERALS LF $15 $0 12" MINUS RIVER RUN ROCK ICY 50 $40 $2,000 BRIDGES BRIDGES EACH $0 TEMP BRIDGE EACH $0 BRIDGE REMOVAL EACH $0 END PANELS EACH $0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO. 1 (500 FET OF 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK) PROJECT NAME: East Main St., 250 Ft E. & W. of Normal Ave KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER Friday, April 24, 2015 ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST BASES COLD PLANE PAVEMENT REMOVAL, 0 - 2 INCH DEEP SY $4 $0 COLD PLANE PAVEMENT REMOVAL, 2 INCH DEEP SY $3 $0 AGGREGATE BASE TON 3200 $18 $57,600 AGGREGATE SHOULDERS TON 150 $17 $2,550 WEARING SURFACES ASPHALT IN TACK COAT TON $420 $0 LEVEL 2,1/2 INCH DENSE MHMAC TON $75 $0 LEVEL 3,1/2 INCH DENSE MHMAC TON 780 $85 $66,300 ASPHALT WALKS SY $4 $0 CRACK SEALING LF $18 $0 EXTRA FOR ASPHALT APPROACHES EACH 6 $500 $3,000 REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT SY $110 $0 REINFORCED CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS SY $110 $0 ASPHALT DRIVEWAY APPROACH SF 200 $4 $800 CONCRETE CURBS LF $18 $0 CURB AND GUTTER CONCRETE CURBS LF 1000 $12 $12,000 CONCRETE WALKS SF 2800 $5.0 $14,000 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRONS SF 1000, $8 $8,000 PAVEMENT CUTTING LF 70 $4 $280 PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND GUIDANCE DEVICES GUARDRAIL, TYPE 2A LF $20 $0 GUARDRAIL, TYPE 3 LF $50 $0 GUARDRAIL, TYPE 4 LF $60 $0 GUARDRAIL ANCHORS, TYPE 1 EACH $680 $0 GUARDRAIL END PIECES. TYPE B EACH $85 $0 GUARDRAIL TRANSITION EACH $2,250 $0 GUARDRAIL TERMINALS, NON-FLARED EACH $2,550 $0 GUARDRAIL TERMINALS, FLARED EACH $2,250 $0 ADJUSTING GUARDRAIL LF $5 $0 CONCRETE BARRIER LF $51 $0 CONCRETE BARRIER, TALL LF $60 $0 DELINEATORS, TYPE1 EACH $37 $0 MILEPOST MARKER POSTS EACH $63 $0 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: ARROWS EACH $260.00 $0 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: "SCHOOL CROSSING" EACH $650.00 $0 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: RAILROAD CROSSING MARKINGS EACH $650.00 $0 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: BICYCLE LANE SYMBOLS EACH 4 $138.00 $552 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: "BIKE RAILROAD" EACH $200.00 $0 PAVEMENT LINE, TYPE D SF $7.00 $0 MONO-DIRECTIONAL CRYSTAL TYPE I MARKERS EACH $3.60 $0 BI-DIRECTIONAL YELLOW TYPE I MARKERS EACH $3.60 $0 Bt-DIRECTIONAL YELLOW TYPE I MARKERS, RECESSED EACH $8 $0 PAINTED PERMANENT PAVEMENT STRIPING LF 3000 $0.15 $450 THERMOPLASTIC, PROFILE, 90 MIL, EXTRUDED LF $2.00 $0 RUMBLE STRIPS MILE $1,700 $0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO. 1 (500 FET OF 6- CONCRETE SIDEWALK) PROJECT NAME: East Main St., 250 Ft E. & W. of Normal Ave KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER Friday, April 24, 2015 ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND ILLUMINATION SYSTEMS PERMANENT SIGNS LS 1 $1,000 $1,000 INTERPRETIVE PANELS AND DECORATIVE HARDSCAPE FEATURES LS $32,000 $0 LOOP DETECTORS INSTALLATION EACH $1,000 $0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION EACH $125,000 $0 INTERCONNECT SYSTEM LS $0 STREET LIGHTS SINGLE - INCLUDING CONECTIONS, WIRING, CONDUIT EACH 2 $9,000 $18,000 STREET LIGHTS MULTIPLE - INCLUDING CONECTIONS, WIRING, CONDUIT EACH $14,000 $0 ILLUMINATION $0 RIGHT-OF-WAY DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL PERMANENT SEEDING, MIX NO. 1 ACRE 0.20 $5,000 $1,000 SINGLE MAILBOX SUPPORTS EACH $250 $0 MULTIPLE MAILBOX SUPPORTS EACH 2 $300 $600 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION SITES $0 $0 FENCING LF 700 $25 $17,500 LANDSCAPING ACRE 0.20 $65,000 $13,000 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS $0 $0 16" DIP WITH CLASS - B BACKFILL LF 1000 $85 $85,000 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EACH $4,000 $0 16" GATE VALVE EACH $3,000 $0 8" GATE VALVE EACH 1 $1,200 $1,200 CONNECT TO CITY WATER SYSTEM (WALKER) LS $1,000 $0 UNDERGROUND POWER TRANSMISSION LINE (CITY) LS 1 $400,000 $400,000 UNDERGROUND POWER TRANSMISSION LINE (PP&L) LS 1 $500,000 $500,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,622,823 For Projects Developed b Consultants: AC BONUS Or STATISTICAL BONUS 5.0% $3,315 CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING' 25.0% $406,534 CONSULTANT CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 17.0% $275,880 CONTINGENCIES 20.0% $324,565 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENTlANNOUNCEMENTS $0 BID SUBTOTAL' $2,633,116 RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATE (process only, add cost of land FILES 24 $180,000 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION LS 1 $28,000 EASEMENTS LS 1 PTf 0 $111,100 $2,952,216 OPTION 2 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO. 2 (CONTINUOUS ASPHALT SIDEWALK FROM WALKER TO TOLMAN CREEK) PROJECT NAME: East Main St., 250 Ft E. & W. of Normal Ave KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER Friday, April 24, 2015 ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST MOBILIZATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL MOBILIZATION LS 10.00% $188,634 TEMPORARY PROTECTION AND DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC LS I _I _5.000/61 $89,826 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL EROSION CONTROL LS 1.00% $17,442 ROADWORK CONSTRUCTION SURVEY WORK LS 2.00% $34,884 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS LS $15,000 $15,000 REMOVAL OF CURBS LF $6 $0 REMOVAL OF GUARDRAIL LF $4 $0 REMOVAL OF PIPES LF 400 $12 $4,800 REMOVAL OF SURFACINGS SY 3500 $10 $35,000 REMOVAL OF WALKS AND DRIVEWAYS SY 250 $10 $2,500 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 1.3 $5,060 $6,578 GENERAL EXCAVATION CY 4300 $15 $64,500 EMBANKMENT IN PLACE CY $11 $0 12 INCH SUBGRADE STABILIZATION SY $13 $0 24 INCH SUBGRADE STABILIZATION SY 5200 $24 $124,800 12 INCH SURFACING STABILIZATION SY $20 $0 24 INCH SURFACING STABILIZATION SY $31 $0 WATERING MGAL $18 $0 SUBGRADE GEOTEXTILE SY 4000 $1 $4,000 LOOSE RIPRAP, CLASS 100 ICY 40 $45 $1,800 DRAINAGE AND SEWERS 36 INCH CULVERT PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH LF 140 $85 $11,900 12 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH LF 500 $46 $23,000 18 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH LF 690 $50 $34,500 24 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 5 FT DEPTH LF 990 $62 $61,380 36 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 10 FT DEPTH LF $80 $0 48 INCH STORM SEWER PIPE, 10 FT DEPTH LF $180 $0 CONCRETE STORM SEWER MANHOLES EACH 10 $2,800 $28,000 CONCRETE INLETS, TYPE CG-2 EACH 15 $1,250 $18,750 12'x 4' STRUCTURAL PLATE ARCH LF 160 $500 $80,000 MSE HEAD & END WALLS SF 800 $15 $12,000 IRRIGATION STRUCTURE EACH 2 $3,000 $6,000 UTILITY PIPE SLEEVES LF $30 $0 8' SANITARY SEWER PIPE, 5' DEPTH LF 1000 $35 $35,000 48" SANITARY MANHOLES EACH 2 $2,500 $5,000 4" SERVICE LATERALS LF $15 $0 12' MINUS RIVER RUN ROCK ICY 100 $40 $4,000 BRIDGES BRIDGES EACH $0 TEMP BRIDGE EACH $0 BRIDGE REMOVAL EACH $0 END PANELS EACH $0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO.2 (CONTINUOUS ASPHALT SIDEWALK FROM WALKER TO TOLMAN CREEK) PROJECT NAME: East Main St., 250 Ft E. & W. of Normal Ave KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER Friday, April 24, 2015 ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST BASES COLD PLANE PAVEMENT REMOVAL, 0 - 2 INCH DEEP SY $4 $0 COLD PLANE PAVEMENT REMOVAL, 2 INCH DEEP SY $3 $0 AGGREGATEBASE TON 4500 $1$ $81,000 AGGREGATE SHOULDERS TON 150 $17 $2,550 WEARING SURFACES ASPHALT IN TACK COAT TON $420 $0 LEVEL 2,1/2 INCH DENSE MHMAC TON $75 $0 LEVEL 3,112 INCH DENSE MHMAC TON 1050 $85 $89,250 ASPHALT WALKS SY 2400 $4 $9,600 CRACK SEALING LF $18 $0 EXTRA FOR ASPHALT APPROACHES EACH 10 $500 $5,000 REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT SY $110 $0 REINFORCED CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS SY $110 $0 ASPHALT DRIVEWAY APPROACH SF 1000 $4 $4,000 CONCRETE CURBS LF $18 $0 CURB AND GUTTER CONCRETE CURBS LF 3000 $12 $36,000 CONCRETE WALKS SF 2800 $5.0 $14,000 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRONS SF 2500 $8 $20,000 PAVEMENT CUTTING LF 3100 $4 $12,400 PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND GUIDANCE DEVICES GUARDRAIL, TYPE 2A LF $20 $0 GUARDRAIL, TYPE 3 LF $50 $0 GUARDRAIL, TYPE 4 LF $60 $0 GUARDRAIL ANCHORS, TYPE1 EACH $680 $0 GUARDRAIL END PIECES, TYPE B EACH $85 $0 GUARDRAIL TRANSITION EACH $2,250 $0 GUARDRAIL TERMINALS, NON-FLARED EACH $2,550 $0 GUARDRAIL TERMINALS, FLARED EACH $2,250 $0 ADJUSTING GUARDRAIL LF $5 $0 CONCRETE BARRIER LF $51 $0 CONCRETE BARRIER, TALL LF $60 $0 DELINEATORS, TYPE 1 EACH $37 $0 MILEPOST MARKER POSTS EACH $63 $0 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: ARROWS EACH $260.00 $0 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: "SCHOOL CROSSING" EACH $650.00 $0 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: RAILROAD CROSSING MARKINGS EACH $650.00 $0 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: BICYCLE LANE SYMBOLS EACH 10 $138.00 $1,380 PAVEMENT LEGEND, TYPE D: "BIKE RAILROAD" EACH $200.00 $0 PAVEMENT LINE, TYPE D SF $7.00 $0 MONO-DIRECTIONAL CRYSTAL TYPE I MARKERS EACH $3.60 $0 BI-DIRECTIONAL YELLOW TYPE I MARKERS EACH $3.60 $0 BI-DIRECTIONAL YELLOW TYPE I MARKERS. RECESSED EACH $8 $0 PAINTED PERMANENT PAVEMENT STRIPING LF 6000 $0.15 $900 THERMOPLASTIC, PROFILE, 90 MIL, EXTRUDED LF $2.00 $0 RUMBLE STRIPS MILE $1,700 $0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FORM PREPARED BY HARDEY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. OPTION NO.2 (CONTINUOUS ASPHALT SIDEWALK FROM WALKER TO TOLMAN CREEK) PROJECT NAME: East Main St., 250 Ft E. $ W. of Normal Ave KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATE PREPARER Friday, April 24, 2015 ITEM UNIT AMOUNT UNIT TOTAL COST PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND ILLUMINATION SYSTEMS PERMANENT SIGNS LS 1 $2,000 $2,000 INTERPRETIVE PANELS AND DECORATIVE HARDSCAPE FEATURES LS $32,000 $0 LOOP DETECTORS INSTALLATION EACH $1,000 $0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION EACH $125,000 $0 INTERCONNECT SYSTEM LS $0 STREET LIGHTS SINGLE - INCLUDING CONECTIONS, WIRING, CONDUIT EACH 2 $9,000 $18,000 STREET LIGHTS MULTIPLE - INCLUDING CONECTIONS, WIRING, CONDUIT EACH $14,000 $0 ILLUMINATION $0 RIGHT-OF-WAY DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL PERMANENT SEEDING, MIX NO. 1 ACRE 0.30 $5,000 $1,500 SINGLE MAILBOX SUPPORTS EACH $250 $0 MULTIPLE MAILBOX SUPPORTS EACH $300 $0 RETAINING WALL LF 700 $492 $344,400 FENCING LF 1500 $25 $37,500 LANDSCAPING LS $65,000 $0 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS $0 $0 16" DIP WITH CLASS - B BACKFILL LF 1000 $85 $85,000 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EACH $4,000 $0 16" GATE VALVE EACH $3,000 $0 8" GATE VALVE EACH 1 $1,200 $1,200 CONNECT TO CITY WATER SYSTEM (WALKER) LS $1,000 $0 UNDERGROUND POWER TRANSMISSION LINE (CITY) LS 1 $400,000 $400,000 UNDERGROUND POWER TRANSMISSION LINE (PP&L) LS 1 $500,000 $500,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $2,574,973 For Projects Developed b Consultants: AC BONUS Or STATISTICAL BONUS 5.0% $4,463 CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING* 25.0% $644,859 CONSULTANT CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 17.0% $437,745 CONTINGENCIES 20.0% $514,995 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/ANNOUNCEMENTS $0 BID SUBTOTAL $4,177,035 RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATE (process only, add cost of land FILES 24 $7,500 $180,000 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION LS i VFW $28,000 EASEMENTS LS 1 $111,100 $4,4961135 NORMAL AVE. RAILROAD CROSSING AGENCY CITY OF ASHLAND KIND OF WORK LENGTH ESTIMATOR DATE STREET IMPROVEMENTS 1019/14 ITEM SITEM DE&CRIPTKNI UN{T QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL --200-_JEMPORARY_F.EATl1RES..AW-AM.URTF-MM ES-,~_------------__ 210 MOBILIZATION LS 1 10% $69,500 225 TEMPORARY WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL, COMPLETE LS 1 $3,000 $3,000 280 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LS 1 $1,500 $1,50 300 ROADWORK 305 CONSTRUCTION SURVEY WORK LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 310 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS LS 1 $5,000 $5,00 350 SUBGRADE GEOTEXTILE SY 4000 $2 $8,000 600 BASES 641 SUBBASE TN 1400 $15 $21,000 641 314 INCH - 0 AGGREGATE BASE (4° DEPTH) TN 560 $24 $13,440 641 4 INCH - 0 AGGREGATE BASE (6" DEPTH) TN 820 $16 $13,12 - -700"''VNEARiFiG-SURFI'Q►CES_- 744 LEVEL 2,112 INCH DENSE MHMAC TON 585 $110 $64,35 759 CONCRETE CURBS LF 1440 $25 $36,000 759 CONCRETE WALKS SF 8650 $6 $51,90 N/A RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION LS 1 $400,000 $400,0001 ROW ACQUISITION (PRIVATE) SF 28000 $10 $280,000 ROW ACQUISITION (CITY) SF 3800 $8 $30,400 RAILROAD PERMITTING LS 1 $100,000 $100,0 CONTINGENCY (30%) LS 1 $209,043 $209,043 i;318353. 1 Of 1 10/912014 , 2 r Y T.'HIV ibc.G G } i J PLAN VIEW - - _ a j . r _ of , w g C it C i 4 F 3 A 9 al Y own r ~ nn L Zoning 1 NN-1-5 NN-1-3.5 b NN-1 -3.5-C N -2 Open Space Road Classifications :I ' I ' ti a■~r neigborhood collector local street shared street , mom w path LLjI I SHt4lvv-br-- Normal Neighborhood Plan Draft - February 2015 0 200 400 800 Feet - - s~ . tat ■xwscwu w®eeaxuwti t MY ■ttt0It ltIt IV IN III tIt «-gittta• t 1. r°a 4 Road Classifications c°*a~ neigborhood collector local street i T-i6G^ilEYi shared street ' - - - - - multi-use path Normal Neighborhood Plan F-T Street Network Map 0 200 400 800 Feet NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT EAST MAIN STREET - CROSS SECTIONS UPDATED APRIL 27, 2015 - REDUCED EAST MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS RIW C R/W EXISTING I EXISTING 30' RIGHT Of WAY RIGHT OF Of WAY I I EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING I 4.5 BIKE 11' TRAVEL 11' TRAVEL 4.5 BIKE I LANE LANE LANE LANE I < a x = N ~ I a z ( ` I u` o EXISTING Fu ci ASPHALT u ROADWAY uv EXISTING EXISTING _ -GROUND - GROUND 1 EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION STATION 36+00 SCALE: 1'-4' R/W PUE ruE R/w 4 L~ PROPOSED 20' PUE EXISTING EXISTING PROPOSED 20' PUE SLOPE k UTNTY EASEMENT 30' RIGHT OF WAY 70' OUGHT Of WAY SLOPE k UTILITY EASEMENT ! I -0.5• q.5' 0.5 I I I ! b' BIKE t0 1RAYCi 11.5 TURN IQ' TRAVEL 6' BIKE I 6' 2' CONCRETE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE DO-SWdIE SIDEWALK ! 3 5 75' SHOULDER rill r j I ~ I 'L 31 • ~ I I I o 1 0 io z < C CIU I 27. 2% I 1. EXISTING GROUND ' ' J GROUND PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION STATION 36+00 SCALE: 7"-4' R/W R/W E%!5➢F _ EXISTING 30 RIGHT O OF WAY ~ 30' RIGHT OF WAY I I 0,5' I I EXISTING CXISTUTO E. 4.5' BIKE 1T' TRAVEL - fl TRAVEL 5' BIKE ASPHALT LANE LANG LANE LANE SIDEWALK ~ I i v x > m I a a ~ 3w I I _ O OC ~ EXISTING k2 PROPOSED w u SPHALT xtz //ASPHALT 4 `w /-,A. D,'AY F, 8 / ROADWAY EXISTING l 27 Il GROJNp GROUND 1 PROPOSED HALF STREET TYPICAL SECTION STATION 46+00 SCALE. 1"=4' DATE. APRIL 27, 2015 Hardey Engineering & Associates, Inc. MEDf0A0, gRECON 97501-0063 INCA& P.O, 80% 1625 772- a•. VOICE: 54772-957380 r.;e eowm~t. c^d m, Idao. rna aael,^. Hcap«m,d bereln, as FA%: nevum.m o1 pmamlana w~Va, u ur pWVty o1 rc~d<r 6^g'w.49 541-772-9573 k A, ;.to., I, a^c it nd Ia be m.d, to rude a m pan, Ia -y ENGINEERING INTEGRttt EMAIL' In(a6Ehea-mcmm AUmI p-- rRbwl Ne .,itlen ouNai~aGOn m H-,y Engnma'nq d A»«Ia<,, tic .N~wo,we-r.-ow.cte~,cA CITY OF -AS H LA N D Council Communication September 1, 2015, Business Meeting 8th Quarterly Financial Report of the 2013-15 Biennium FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services/Finance Director, tuneberl@ashland.or.us SUMMARY: The Administrative Services Department submits financial reports to Council on a quarterly basis to provide assurance of budget compliance and for informational and comparative purposes throughout the year. This report is for the "eighth or final quarter" covering April through June 2015 of the two-year budget with comparisons to budget, between years and to other periods. Even though we have tried to simplify our comparisons they can be complex, thus confusing, and we apologize for this in advance. These is preliminary final information for the 2013-15 biennium and the June 30, 2015, financial report. Some information is likely to change as the annual audit is currently in process. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Financial reports are intended to present information in formats consistent with the department, fund and business activity presentations included in the adopted biennium budget document and the manner in which they will be shown in the end of year report. Quarterly reports are prepared by staff to keep Mayor and Council current on the financial conditions of the city. Presenting financial reports on a regular basis allows Council and top management to ask questions and for staff to highlight trends and anomalies and to make recommendations on necessary changes in a timely fashion. Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports are available for your review in the Administrative Service Department office should you require any additional information. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE GOAL Provide high quality and effective delivery of the full spectrum of city service and governance in a transparent, accessible and fiscally responsible manner. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: This report highlights operations for the last quarter of the biennium and the entire budget. Additional information can be made available if so desired by Council. Page I of 2 1`, CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council accept the quarterly report. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to accept the eighth quarterly financial report for BN 2013-2015. ATTACHMENTS: Financial Report Financial Statements Page 2 of 2 Management Discussion and Analysis June 30, 2015 Financial Report This is the last quarter of the biennium budget period. This report references budget comparisons to the 2013-15 biennium, and in some cases comparisons of the current fiscal year (FY 2014-15) to the prior fiscal year (FY 2013-14). This is preliminary information for the end of the 2013-15 biennium. The final numbers for the year will be presented to Council in December, after the Audit Commission has accepted the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). A. Note the charts and table on page one reflect a city-wide reduction of cash between years of $239,450. The largest change is in the Water Fund. The $897,000 reduction represents capital expenditures (primarily the Talent Ashland Phoenix project). The increase in the Street Fund represents reimbursements of expenses received on capital projects completed in a prior period. The Wastewater Fund cash balance grew due to an increase in rates and rate revenue in anticipation of future capital needs. At this point, seventy-one percent of total cash is restricted in use. B. Revenues city-wide are 97.5% of budget. C. There are no budget violations at this time. Notable revenue points: Food & Beverage tax revenue for the biennium is $5.1 million. This is 13% over the $4.5 million amount budgeted for the 2013-15 biennium and includes a 10% increase in fiscal year 2014-15 over the prior fiscal year. This indicates more activity and (possibly) higher prices charged by operators between periods. Transient Occupancy (Lodging) Tax revenue for the total biennium is $4.6 million. This is 8% above the $4.2 million budgeted for the 2013-15 biennium and is 17.6% over last year. This indicates more activity, more rooms to rent and (possibly) higher prices charged by operators between periods. Development fees and charges (system development charges, planning and building revenue) for the total biennium is $1.9 million. More activity relating to construction such as the Southern Oregon University science building, Oregon Shakespeare rehearsal center, and two new commercial buildings contribute to the increase. In total, Charges for Services (sales) improved when compared to the last quarter of the prior year. Sales for the prior quarter were up 2.6% above the same point in 2013 and this final quarter is up 3.5%, year to year. Wastewater fees increased 11.6% after a 10% rate adjustment. Electric increased 1.0% between years after a 3.6% adjustment in rates and Water sales increased 4.0% between years despite a 10% rate increase in July 2014. The lesser increase in dollar sales than the rate increases relates to decreases in Page 1 of 2 volumetric sales. Quantity of electricity and water sold are down 5% and 7 /0, respectively, between 2014 and 2015. Parks & Recreation Charges for Services of $8,856,000 to the City General Fund is 100% for the biennium and total revenues ended the period at 99.1 % of budget. Notable expense points: City-wide operating expenditures are 95.7% of the biennium budget with personnel costs ending the period at 98.9%. This is a sign of nearly full staffing. Capital expenditures are $14.5 million, about 48% of the budget, indicating certain projects were not able to be started or completed during the biennium. The biennium ended with $3.1 million in unused Contingency. This reflects $1.4 million of Contingency used to address unanticipated costs and, in some cases, to ensure adequate appropriations to avoid budget violations in departments or programs that were too close to 100%. Examples are higher than anticipated claims costs in the Health Benefits Fund, construction of the Talent Ashland Phoenix emergency intertie project, and a transfer from the Insurance Fund to the Health Benefits Fund for good measure. Internal transfers and internal loans were done as needed or required. An example is budgeted but unneeded transfers for estimated debt service on potential capital project borrowing that was not done. Total repayment of the loan from the Reserve Fund to the Health Benefits fund was not made this biennium with $260,000 delayed and re-budgeted in BN 2015-17. Debt service payments were made as required. The attached reports include: 1. Summary of Cash & Investments (year to year comparison) - page 1. 2. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures-City Wide (biennium basis) - page 2. 3. Schedule of Budgetary Compliance per Resolution(s) (biennium basis) - pages 3-6. 4. Statements of Resources, Requirements and changes in Fund Balance (fund financial statements) - pages 7-24. 5. Schedule of Preliminary Results of Operations (ending fund balances) -page 25. 6. Summary schedule of Revenues - page 26. 7. Department Expense Reports ((biennium basis) - pages 27-38. Page 2 of 2 City of Ashland Summary of Cash and Investments 6/30/2015, Second Closing Balance Balance Change From Fund June 30, 2015 June 30, 2014 FY 2014 General Fund $ 3,471,922 $ 3,606,894 $ (134,972) Community Block Grant Fund 427 3,098 (2,671) Reserve Fund 196,278 611,166 (414,888) Street Fund 5,243,557 4,723,987 519,570 Airport Fund 96,706 76,973 19,733 Capital Improvements Fund 2,185,475 1,940,608 244,867 Debt Service Fund 855,545 1,100,874 (245,329) Water Fund 4,625,443 5,521,984 (896,541) Wastewater Fund 4,312,129 3,690,500 621,629 Electric Fund 1,319,912 1,245,827 74,085 Telecommunications Fund 197,906 313,873 (115,967) Central Services Fund 1,165,512 1,058,321 107,191 Insurance Services Fund 1,980,711 1,838,385 142,326 Health Benefits Fund 747,970 219,771 528,199 Equipment Fund 2,945,075 3,021,994 (76,919) Cemetery Trust Fund 920,596 895,056 25,540 $ 30,265,165 $ 29,869,311 $ 395,854 Parks & Recreation Agency Fund 985,466 1,141,869 (156,403) 985,466 1,141,869 (156,403) Total Cash Distribution $ 31,250,630 $ 31,011,180 $ 239,450 Manner of Investment General Banking Accounts $ 2,058,837 $ 894,381 $ 1,164,456 Local Government Inv. Pool 28,191,793 30,116,800 (1,925,007) City Investments 11000,000 - 1,000,000 Total Cash and Investments $ 31,250,630 $ 31,011,180 $ 239,450 Dollar Distribution Cash Balance Distribution Central Services, Parks and Insurance and Recreation Funds Equipment Funds 3% Claims& Trust 22% Judgments 5922667 SDC's Unassigned $6,634,952 $281,830 3% $8.,892,165 _ 21% 1~ ~29% Library 547,657 - - TOTTourism 0%-~.._. $81,016 0% Debt Reserved $2,259,612 I Asset Forfeited Business Type All Other (General 7% Funds Government) Other Reserved $14,579 33% 42% $12,116,153 0% 39% 12. Jun FY15 Financial Report 2nd Closing xlsx 1 8119/2015 City of Ashland Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - City Wide Second Closing As of June 30, 2015 (100% of biennium) Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 & FY 2013 Resource Summary (24 Months) 2013-2015 Expended Balance YTD EOY Revenues Taxes $ 42,178,083 $ 41,694,083 101.2% $ 484,000 $ 39,387,379 $ 39,387,379 Licenses and Permits 1,872,797 1,545,692 121.2% 327,105 1,923,781 1,923,781 Intergovernmental Revenues 6,074,505 10,552,059 57.6% (4,477,554) 8,194,478 8,194,478 Charges for Services - Rate & Internal 97,941,319 99,244,722 987% (1,303,403) 74,722,573 74,722,573 Charges for Services - Misc. Service fees 2,922,428 3,580,039 81,6% (657,611) 3,407,192 3,407,192 System Development Charges 1,134,393 610,000 186.0% 524,393 1,540,397 1,540,397 Fines and Forfeitures 362,187 339,000 106,8% 23,187 364840 364,840 Assessment Payments 126,991 272,000 46.7% (145,009) 84,590 84,590 Interest on Investments 356,651 339,700 105.0% 16,951 385,866 385,866 Miscellaneous Revenues 3,141,881 2.007,289 156.5% 1,134,592 4,368832 4,368,832 Total Revenues 156,111,234 160,184,584 97.5% (4,073,349) 134,379,928 134,379,928 Budgetary Resources: Other Financing Sources 1,838,589 9,495,500 19.4% (7,656,911) 7,967,838 7,967,838 Interfund Loans 1,684,795 1,949,000 86.4% (264,205) 1,199,795 1,199,795 Transfers In 1,897,442 2,282,324 83.1% (384,882) 943,566 943,566 Total Budgetary Resources 5,420,826 13,726,824 39.5% (8,305,998) 10,111,199 10,111,199 Total Resources 161,532,060 173,911,408 92.9% (12,379,347) 144,491,127 144,491,127 Requirements by Classification Personal Services 55,146,071 55,786,169 98.9% 640,098 48,186,060 48,186,060 Materials and Services 80,257,928 85,165,980 94.2% 4,908,052 60,388,588 60,388,588 Debt Service 9,220,534 10.177,583 90.6% 957,049 9,461,498 9,461,498 Total Operating Expenditures 144,624,533 151,129,732 95.7% 6,505,199 118,036,146 118,036,146 Capital Construction Capital Outlay 14,464.960 30,243,248 47.8% 15,778,288 13,967,343 13,967,343 Interfund Loans 1,684,795 1,690,000 99.7% 5,205 1,199,795 1,199,795 Transfers Out 1,897,442 2,282,324 83.1% 384,882 943,566 943,566 Contingencies (Original Budget $4,542,000) - 3,129,990 0.0% 3,129,990 - - Total Budgetary Requirements 3,582.237 7,102,314 50.4% 3,520,077 2,143,361 2,143,361 Total Requirements 162,671,730 188,475,294 86.3% 25,803,564 134,146,850 134,146,850 Excess (Deficiency) of Resources over Requirements (1,139,670) (14,563,886) 92.2% 13,424,216 10,344,277 10,344,277 Working Capital Carryover 33,966,626 29.998,454 113.2% 3.968,172 23,622,352 23,622,352 Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance $ 32,826,956 $ 15,434,568 212.7% $ 17,392,388 $ 33,966,629 $ 33,966,629 12. Jun FY15 FinanciN Report 2nd Cl,,,,g.1,, &19/2015 City of Ashland Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2013-19, 2014-12, 2014-13, 2014-24, 2015-20, 2015-21, 2015-23, 2015-24 Second Closing As of June 30, 2015 (100% of biennium) Biennial to date actuals (24 Biennial Budget Percent Months) 2013-2015 Used Balance General Fund Administration $ 357,888 $ 553,465 64.7% $ 195,577 Administration - Library 487,988 812,000 60.1% 324,012 Administration - Tourism 47,467 128,483 36.9% 81,016 Administration - Parking - 287,725 0.0% 287,725 Administration - Municipal Court 964,592 994,970 96.9% 30,378 Administrative Services - Social Services Grants 254,204 257,688 98.6% 3,484 Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants 1,304,744 1,433,226 91.0% 128,482 Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 185,715 194,000 95.7% 8,285 Administrative Services - Band 114,017 120,390 94.7% 6,373 Administrative Services - Parks 8,856,000 8,856,000 100.0% 0 Police Department 12,316,387 12,463,656 98.8% 147,269 Fire and Rescue Department 13,149,853 13,279,668 99.0% 129,815 Public Works - Cemetery Division 663,518 704,551 94.2% 41,033 Community Development- Planning Division 2,547,191 2,730,822 93.3% 183,631 Community Development - Building Division 1,327,542 1,390,632 95.5% 63,090 Transfers 192,824 192,824 100.0% - Contingency - 1,041,000 0.0% 1,041,000 Total General Fund 42,769,929 45,441,100 94.1% 2,671,"71 Community Development Block Grant Fund Personal Services 67,560 68,033 99.3% 473 Materials and Services 263,776 406,735 64.9% 142,959 Total Community Development Grant Fund 331,336 474,768 69.8% 143,432 Reserve Fund Interfund Loan 900,000 900,000 100.0% - Transfers 190,000 190,000 100.0% Total Reserve Fund 1,090,000 1,090,000 100.0% Street Fund Public Works - Street Operations 5,036,309 7,628,710 66.0% 2,592,401 Public Works - Street Operations Debt 237,824 341,750 69.6% 103,926 Public Works - Storm Water Operations 1,079,459 1,247,230 86.5% 167,771 Public Works - Storm Water Operations Debt 26,317 26,317 100.0% 0 Public Works - Transportation SDC's 91,028 446,613 20.4% 355,585 Public Works - Storm Water SDC's 4,670 80,600 5.8% 75,930 Contingency - 215,000 0.0% 215,000 Total Street Fund 6,475,606 9,986,220 64.8% 3,510,6114 Airport Fund Materials and Services 133,293 170,310 78.3% 37,017 Capital Outlay 44,962 48,000 93.7% 3,038 Debt Service 77,072 77,072 100.0% 0 Interfund Loan 19,000 19,000 100.0% - Contingency - - N/A - Total Airport Fund 274,327 314,382 87.3% 40,055 12. Jun Fv15 Financial Repal 2nd Closing xlsx 3 8I19R015 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2013-19, 2014-12, 2014-13, 2014-24, 2015-20, 2015-21, 2015-23, 2015-24 Second Closing As of June 30, 2015 (100% of biennium) Biennial to date actuals (24 Biennial Budget Percent Months) 2013-2015 Used Balance Capital Improvements Fund Public Works - Facilities 2,109,209 2,406,460 87.6% 297,251 Administrative Services - SDC (Parks) - - N/A - Administrative Services - Open Space (Parks) 816,726 3,929,000 20.8% 3,112,274 Transfers 83,479 466,900 17.9% 383,421 Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan) 1,000 1,000 100.0% - Contingency - 199,000 0.0% 199,000 Total Capital Improvements Fund 3,010,414 7,002,360 43.0% 3,991,946 Debt Service Fund Materials and Services 7,094 15,000 47.3% 7,906 Debt Service 3,661,139 4,533,084 80.8% 871,945 Interfund Loan 364,795 370,000 98.6% 5,205 Total Debt Service Fund 4,033,028 4,918,084 82.0% 885,056 Water Fund Administration - Conservation 442,021 489,010 90.4% 46,989 Fire- Forest Lands Management Division 889,478 1,025,850 86.7% 136,372 Public Works - Water Supply 4,819,863 5,351,820 90.1% 531,957 Public Works - Water Supply Debt 44,787 44,985 99.6% 198 Public Works - Water Treatment 2,289,201 2,570,700 89.0% 281,499 Public Works - Water Treatment Debt 467,434 467,437 100.0% 3 Public Works - Water Distribution 5,364,674 6,130,680 87.5% 766,C06 Public Works - Water Distribution Debt 662,801 662,995 100.0% 194 Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's - - N/A - Public Works - Improvement SDC's 507,905 582,750 87.2% 74,845 Public Works - Debt SDC's 241,844 241,845 100.0% 1 Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan) 150,000 150,000 100.0% - Contingency - 102,990 0.0% 102,990 Total Water Fund 15,880,008 17,821,062 89.1% 1,941,0!54 WasteWater Fund Public Works - Wastewater Collection 3,854,489 5,298,621 72.7% 1,444,132 Public Works - Wastewater Collection Debt 151,071 151,075 100.0% 4 Public Works - Wastewater Treatment 4,980,940 6,527,385 76.3% 1,546,445 Public Works - Wastewater Treatment Debt 3,253,029 3,253,250 100.0% 221 Public Works - Reimbursemetns SDC's 20,331 117,500 17.3% 97,169 Public Works - Improvements SDC's 87,508 1,383,491 6.3% 1,295,983 Debt Service - 30,000 0.0% 30,000 Contingency 440,000 0.0% 440,000 Total Wastewater Fund 12,347,368 17,201,322 71.8% 4,853,954 Electric Fund Administration - Conservation 1,387,220 1,494,890 92.8% 107,670 Electric - Supply 12,831,515 13,628,373 94.2% 796,858 Electric - Distribution 12,558,899 13,398,521 93.7% 839,622 Electric - Transmission 1,876,536 2,177,635 86.2% 301,099 Debt Service 47,771 47,774 100.0% 3 Contingency - 923,000 0.0% 923,000 Total Electric Fund 28,701,941 31,670,193 90.6% 2,968,252 12. Jun FY15 Flrcandal Report 2nd C1,s,ng xlsx 4 8/19/2015 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2013-19, 2014-12, 2014-13, 2014-24, 2015-20, 2015-21, 2015-23, 2015-24 Second Closing As of June 30, 2015 (100% of biennium) Biennial to date actuals (24 Biennial Budget Percent Months) 2013-2015 Used Balance Telecommunications Fund IT - Personal Services 1,299,335 1,325,560 98.0% 26,225 IT - Materials & Services 1,764,465 1,849,283 95.4% 84,818 IT - Capital Outlay 297,337 308,000 96.5% 10,663 Debt - To Debt Service Fund " 818,000 818,000 100.0% - Contingency 113,000 0.0% 113,000 Total - Telecommunications Fund 4,179,137 4,413,843 94.7% 234,706 -Note; In M & S appropriation Central Services Fund Administration Department 2,797,217 3,015,362 92.8% 218,145 Information Technology - Info Services Division 2,396,771 2,537,128 94.5% 140,357 Administrative Services Department 3,866,706 4,008,194 96.5% 141,488 City Recorder 868,754 888,330 97.8% 19,E76 Public Works - Administration and Engineering 3,266,434 3,362,420 97.1% 95,986 Contingency - - N/A - Total Central Services Fund 13,195,882 13,811,434 95.5% 615,552 Insurance Services Fund Personal Services 179,228 198,080 90.5% 1$853 Materials and Services 1,478,170 1,696,500 87.1% 218,330 Transfer 500,000 500,000 100.0% - Contingency - 30,000 0.0% 30,000 Total Insurance Services Fund 2,157,398 2,424,580 89.0% 267,183 Health Benefits Fund Materials and Services 9,154,283 9,418,787 97.2% 264,504 Interfund Loan 250,000 250,000 100.0% - Contingency - - N/A - Total Health Benefits Fund 9,404,283 9,668,787 97.3% 264,504 Equipment Fund Public Works - Maintenance 2,084,345 2,144,460 97.2% 60,115 Public Works - Purchasing and Acquisition 2,359,891 3,113,000 75.8% 753,109 Contingency 66,000 0.0% 66,000 Total Equipment Fund 4,444,235 5,323,460 83.5% 879,225 Cemetery Trust Fund Transfers 9,139 10,600 86.2% 1,461 Total Cemetery Trust Fund 9,139 10,600 86.2% 1,461 12. dun Fvi 5 Financial Report 2nd Cbsing xlsx 5 8/iHnois Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2013-19, 2014-12, 2014-13, 2014-24, 2015-20, 2015-21, 2015-23, 2015-24 Second Closing As of June 30, 2015 (100% of biennium) Biennial to date actuals (24 Biennial Budget Percent Months) 2013-2015 Used Balance Parks and Recreation Fund Parks Division 7,473,109 7,529,390 99.3% 56,281 Recreation Division 2,507,775 2,547,830 98.4% 40,055 Golf Division 1,026,427 1,052,880 97.5% 26,453 Transfers 922,000 922,000 100.0% - Contingency N/A Total Parks and Recreation Fund 11,929,311 12,052,100 99.0% 122,789 Parks Capital Improvement Fund Materials and Services 1,331 2,000 66.6% 669 Capital Outlay 2,437,058 4,849,000 50.3% 2,411,942 Total Parks Capital Improvement Fund 2,438,389 4,851,000 50.3% 2,412,611 Total Appropriations $ 162,671,730 $ 188,475,295 86.3% $ 25,803,565 12. Jun FY15 Financial Report 2nd Closing xlsx G 8/19/2015 6 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 613012015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 & FY 2013 (24 Months) 2013-2015 Expended Balance YTD FOY 110 General Fund Taxes S 35,933,208 S 36,158,607 99-4% $ (225,399) $ 24,072,916 S 24,072,916 Licenses and Permits 1,872,797 1,545,692 121.2% 327,105 1,923,781 1,923,781 Intergovernmental 1,373,375 1,575,229 87.2% (201,854) 1,179,996 1,179,996 Charges for Services 3,148,841 3,062,700 102.8% 86,141 3,385,512 3,385,512 Fines 362,187 339,000 106.8% 23,187 364,840 364,840 Interest on Investments 47,932 43,000 111.5% 4,932 47,215 47,215 Miscellaneous 157,037 124,000 126.6% 33,037 294,870 294,870 Transfer in (Reserve Fund) 100,000 100,000 100.0% - - - Transfer ln(Cemetery Fund) 9,139 10,600 86.2% (1,451) 9,631 9,631 Total Revenues and Other Sources 43,004,515 42,958,828 1001% 45,687 31,278,761 31,278,761 Administration 357,888 553,465 64.7% 195,577 397,169 397,169 Administration - Library 487,988 812,000 60.1% 324,012 742,545 742,545 Administration - Tourism 47,467 128,483 36.9% 81,016 - - Administration - Parking - 287,725 0.0% 287,725 - - Administration - Municipal Court 964,592 994,970 96.9% 30,378 867,564 867,564 Administrative Services- Social Services Grants 254,205 257,688 98.6% 3,483 244,398 244,398 Administrative Services- Economic & Cultural Grants 1,304,744 1,433,226 91,0% 128,482 1,225,712 1,225,712 Administrative Services- Miscellaneous 185,715 194,000 95.7% 8,285 114,764 114,764 Administrative Services- Band 114,017 120,390 94.7% 6,373 106,951 106,951 Administrative Services - Parks 8,856,000 8,856,000 100.0% 0 - - Police Department 12,316,387 12,453,656 983% 147,269 11,521,226 11,521,226 Fire and Rescue Department 13,149,854 13,279,668 99.0% 129,814 11,248,905 11,248,905 Public Works- Cemetery Division 663,518 704,551 94.2% 41,033 619,998 619,998 Community Development- Planning Division 2,547,191 2,730,822 93.3% 183,631 2,332,338 2,332,338 Community Development- Building Division 1,327,542 1,390,632 95.5% 63,090 1,259,069 1,259,069 Transfers (Debt Service& Cemetery) 192,824 192,824 100.0% - 151,000 151,000 Contingency - 1.041,000 0.0% 1,041,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 42,769,931 45,441,100 941% 2,671.169 30,831,639 30,831,639 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 234,584 (2,482,272) 109.5% 2,716,856 447,122 447,122 Fund Balance , Jul 1, 2013 3,385,678 3259.706 103.9% 125,972 2,938,556 2,938,556 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 $ 3,620,262 $ 777,434 4657% S 2,842,828 S 3.385,678 $ 3,385,678 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 702.406 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 2,917.856 o 211 -I s , 7 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 6/3012015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 & FY 2013 (24 Months) 2013-2015 Expended Balance YTD EOY 250 Community Development Block Fund Intergovernmental $ 331,332 S 453,579 73.0% $ (122,247) $ 305,860 $ 305,860 Total Revenues and Other Sources 331,332 453,579 73.0% (122,247) 305,860 305,860 Personal Services 67,560 68,033 99.3% 473 69,697 69,697 Materials and Services 263,776 406,735 64.9% 142,959 236,786 236,786 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 331,336 474,768 69.8% 143,432 306,483 306,483 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (4) (21,189) 00% 21,185 (623) (623) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 33,801 21,189 159.5% 12,612 34,424 34.424 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 S 33797 $ NIA $ 33,797 S 33,801 $ 33.801 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 33,797 Unassigned Fund Balance $ - R-i2-dGo~ 9 8 12 1, -1 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 6/3012015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 & FY 2013 (24 Months) 2013-2015 Expended Balance YID EOY 255 Reserve Fund Interest on Investments S 16,699 $ 15,000 111.3% $ 1,699 $ 11,078 $ 11,078 Interfund Loan 250,000 510,000 49.0% (260,000) - - Operating Transfers In - - N/A - 499,000 499,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 266,699 525,000 50.8% 1,699 510,078 510,078 Interfund Loan (Health Benefits Fund) 900,000 900,000 100.0% - - - - - - Operating Transfer out 190,000 190,000 100.0% Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,090,000 1,090,000 100.0% - - - Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (823,301) (565,000) -45.7% (258,301) 510,078 510,078 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 1,019,580 1,019,910 100.0% (330) 509.502 509.502 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 $ 196.279 $ 454,910 43.1% $ (2586311 S 1,019.580 $ 1,019,580 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 196,279 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 0 9 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 6/30/2015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 & FY 2013 (24 Months) 2013-2015 Expended Balance YTD EOY 260 Street Fund Taxes S 115,161 $ 46,000 250.4% $ 69,161 $ 108,818 $ 108,818 Intergovernmental 2,347,988 3,363,166 69.8% (1,015,178) 3,695,790 3,695,790 Charges for Services - Rates 4,038,568 4,021,600 100.4% 16,968 3,793,748 3,793,748 Charges for Services- Misc. Service Fees 57,612 40,000 144.0% 17,612 40,968 40,968 System Development Charges 245,552 130,000 188,9% 115,552 510,910 510,910 Assessments 126,991 20,000 635,0% 106,991 84,590 84,590 Interest on Investments 48,418 20,000 242.1% 28,418 37,191 37,191 Miscellaneous 356,423 220,000 162.0% 136,423 174,117 174,117 Other Financing Sources - - NIA - 1,189.603 1,189.603 Total Revenues and Other Sources 7,336,712 7,860,766 933% (524,054) 9,635,735 9,635,735 Public Works - Steel Operations 5,036,308 7,628,710 66.0% 2592,402 5,740,775 5,740,775 Public Works- Street Operations Debt 237,823 341,750 69.6% 103,927 - - Public Works- Storm Water Operations 1,079,458 1,247,230 86.5% 167,772 1,225,863 1,225,863 Public Works- Storm Water Operations Debt 26,317 26,317 100.0% 0 - - PublicWorks - Transportation SDC's 91,028 446,613 20.4% 355,585 202,984 202,984 Public Works - Storm Water SDC's 4,670 80,600 53% 75,930 177,974 177,974 Public Works- Local Improvement Districts - - N/A - 107,317 107,317 Contingency - 215,000 0.0% 215,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 6,475,604 9,986,220 64.8% 3,510.616 7,454,913 7,454,913 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 861,108 (2,125,454) 140.5% 2,986,562 2,180,822 2,180,822 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 4,417,122 3,185,314 138.7% 1,231,808 2.236,300 2,236,300 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 $ 5,278,230 $ 1,059,860 498.0% S 4.218370 S 4.417,123 $ 4,417,122 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 5,278.230 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 0 r~~~~,.1-12'11 .a~9 . 10 12 111 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 613012015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 & FY 2013 (24 Months) 2013-2015 Expended Balance YTD EOY 280 Airport Fund Charges for Services - Rates $ 274,192 S 268,800 102.0% $ 5,392 $ 236,998 $ 236,998 Interest on Investments 953 1,000 95.3% (47) 962 962 Other Financing Sources - 7,500 0.0% (7,500) - - Interfund Loan NIA 19,000 19,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 275,145 277,300 99.2% (2,155) 256,960 256,960 Materials and Services 133,293 170,310 783% 37,017 123,275 123,275 Capital Outlay 44,962 48,000 931% 3,038 - - Debt Service 77,072 77,072 100.0% 0 77,072 77,072 Interfund Loan 19.000 19,000 100.0% - - - Contingency - NIA - - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 274,327 314,382 87.3% 40,055 200,347 200,347 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 818 (37,082) 102.2% 37,900 56,614 56,613 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 _ 116,696 101,550 114.9% 15,146 60,083 60,083 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 $ 117,514 S 54,468 182.3% $ 53,046 $ 116,695 S 116,696 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 117,514 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 0 12 r~a~.a~ eoo.z~.~s 11 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 6130/2015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 & FY 2013 (24 Months) 2013-2015 Expended Balance YTD EOY 410 Capital Improvements Fund Taxes S 993,068 $ 926,300 107.2% S 66,768 $ 886,675 $ 886,675 Intergovernmental 520,240 792,500 65.6% (272,260) 197,377 197,377 Charges for Services - Internal 1,857,254 1,857,254 100.0% - 1,857,254 1,857,254 Charges for Services- Misc. Service Fees 127,416 100,000 127.4% 27,416 73,208 73,208 System Development Charges 97,839 50,000 1957% 47,839 94,549 94,549 Interest on Investments 21,667 27,000 80.2% (5,333) 42,098 42,098 Miscellaneous 47,712 21,500 221.9% 26,212 13,983 13,983 Other Financing Sources - 3.429,000 0.0% (3,429,000) 3,566,439 3,566.439 Total Revenues and Other Sources 3,665,196 7,203,554 50.9% (3,538,358) 6,731,583 6,731,582 Public Works - Facilities 2,109,209 2.406,460 87.6% 297,251 5,701,498 5,701,498 Administrative Services- Open Space (Parks) 816,727 3,929,000 20.8% 3,112.273 568,105 568,105 Transfers (Debt Service Fund) 83,479 466,900 17.9% 383,421 83,935 83,935 Interfund Loan (Equipment Fund) 1,000 1,000 100.0% - 416,000 416,000 Contingency 199,000 0.0% 199000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 3,010.415 7,002,360 410% 3,792.945 6,769,538 6,769,537 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 654,781 201,194 325.4% 453,587 (37,955) (37,955) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 2,094,706 1,689,114 124.0% 405,592 2,132,661 2,132,661 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 $ 2,749,487 $ 1,890,308 145.5% $ 859,179 $ 2,094.706 S 2,094,706 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 2,749,487 Unassigned Fund Balance $ (0) 12 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 6130/2015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Acluals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 & FY 2013 (24 Months) 20132015 Expended Balance YTD EOY 530 Debt Services Taxes $ 1,019,824 S 956,176 106.7% $ 63,648 $ 1,863,798 $ 1,863,798 Charges for Services - Internal 2308,600 2,308,600 100.0% - 2,308,600 2,308,600 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 132,076 149,040 88.6% (16,964) 148,684 148,684 Assessments - 252,000 0.0% (252,000) - - Interest on lnvestrnents 8,161 20,000 40.8% (11,839) 10,584 10,584 Miscellaneous 6 58,604 0.0% (58,598) 339,084 339,084 Interfund Loan - - N/A - 364,795 364,795 Transfer In(CIP) 275,303 658,724 41.8% (383,421) 83,935 83,935 Other Financing Sources N/A - 71,851 71,851 Total Revenues and Other Sources 3,743,970 4,403,144 85.0% (659,174) 5,191,331 5,191,331 Materials and Services 6,294 15,000 42,0% - 55,676 55,676 Debt Service 3,661,939 4,533,084 80.8% 871,145 4,794,284 4,794,284 Interfund Loan (Central Service Fund) 364,795 370,000 98.6% 5,205 - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 4,033.028 4,918,084 82.0% 876,350 4,849,960 4,849,960 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (289,057) (514,940) 43.9% 225,883 341,371 341,371 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 1,150,619 1,121,533 102.6% 29,086 809,248 809,248 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 S 861,562 $ 606,593 142.0% $ 254.969 $ 1,150,619 $ 1,150,619 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 861,562 Unassigned Fund Balance S - r~a, o a.ao g 13 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 6/30/2015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 & FY 2013 (24 Months) 2013-2015 Expended Balance YTD EOY 670 Water Fund Taxes $ 80 S - N/A $ 80 $ 90 $ 90 Intergovernmental 160,220 138,585 N/A 21,635 2,306,790 2,306,790 Charges for Services - Rates 11,913,085 12,222,171 97.5% (309,086) 10,263,284 10,263,284 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 164,472 160,929 102.2% 3,543 175,508 175,508 System Development Charges 597,443 300,000 199.1% 297,443 757,808 757,808 Interest on Investments 56,607 20,000 283.0% 36.607 36,140 36,140 Miscellaneous 34,573 10,000 345.7% 24,573 486,517 486,517 Other Financing Sources 1,724,546 2,787,000 61.9% (1062,454) 2,547,791 2,547,791 Total Revenues and Other Sources 14,651,026 15,638,685 93.7% (987,659) 16,573,928 16,573,928 Administration - Conservation 442,021 489,010 90.4% 46,989 285,730 285,730 Fire- Forest Lands Management Division 889,478 1,025,850 86.7% 136,372 2.945,813 2,945,813 Public Works - Water Supply 4,819,863 5,351,820 90,1% 531,957 685,015 685,015 Public Works- Water Supply Debt 44,787 44,985 99,6% 198 - - PublicWorks - Water Treatment 2,289,201 2,570,700 89.0% 281,499 2,078,460 2,078,460 Public Works - Water Treatment Debt 467,434 467,437 100.0% 3 - - PublicWorks - Water Operations 5,364,675 6,130,680 87.5% 766,005 4,600,274 4,600,274 Public Works- Water Operations Debt 662,801 662,995 100.0% 194 - - PubllcWorks - Reimbursement SDC's - - N/A - 96,007 96,007 Public Works- Improvement SDC's 507,905 582,750 87.2% 74,845 77,410 77,410 Public Works - Debt SDC's 241,845 241,845 100.0% 0 240,508 240,508 Debt Service - - N/A - 939,539 939,539 Interfund Loan (Equipment) 150,000 150,000 100.0% - 400,000 400,000 Contingency - 102,990 0.0% 102,990 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 15,880,009 17,821,062 89.1% 1,941,053 12.348,756 12,348,756 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (1,228,983) (2,182,377) 433% 953,394 4,225,172 41225,172 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 6,437,573 5.741,693 112.1% 695,880 2,212,401 2,212,401 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 $ 5,208,590 $ 3.559,316 1463% $ 1.649,274 $ 6,437,573 $ 6,437,573 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 3,671,864 Unassigned Fund Balance _S1 536 726 r--1 11,112' a Go~9 14 11 J,n I IS City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 6/30/2015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 & FY 2013 (24 Months) 2013-2015 Expended Balance YTD EOY 675 Wastewater Fund Taxes $ 3,972,266 $ 3,469,200 114.5% $ 503,066 S 3,546,700 $ 3,546,700 Charges for Services - Rates 8,796,565 9,028,100 97.4% (231,535) 7,502,005 7,502,005 Charges for Services- Misc. Service Fees 26,500 20,000 132.5% 6,500 28,237 28,237 System Development Charges 193,560 130,000 148.9% 63,560 177,130 177,130 Interest on Investments 42,965 36,000 119.3% 6,965 39,661 39,661 Miscellaneous 6,037 5,000 1201% 1,037 1,652,519 1,652,519 Other Financing Sources 114.043 3,272,000 3.5% (3.157.957) 592,154 592,154 Total Revenues and Other Sources 13,151,935 15,960,300 82.4% (2,808,365) 13,538,406 13,538,406 Public Works- Wastewater Collection 3,854,489 5,298,621 72.7% 1,444132 3,724,875 3,724,875 Public Works - Wastewater Collection Debt 151,071 151,075 100.0% 4 - - PubllcWorks - Wastewater Treatment 4,980,940 6,527,385 76.3% 1,546,445 5,181,244 5,181,244 Public Works- Wastewater Treatment Debt 3,253,029 3,253,250 100.0% 221 - - PublicWorks - Reimbursements SDC's 20,331 117,500 17.3% 97,169 1,471 1,471 Public Works- Improvements SDC's 87,507 1,383,491 6.3% 1,295,984 309,179 309,179 Debt Service - 30,000 N/A 30.000 3,280,974 3,280,974 Contingency - 440,000 0.0% 440,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 12,347,367 17,201,322 71.8% 4,853,955 12,497,743 12,497,743 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 804,569 (1,241,022) 164.8% 2,045,591 1,040,663 1,040,663 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 4,290,774 3,546,633 121.0% 744,141 3,250.111 3,250,111 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 S 5,095,343 $ 2,305,611 221.0% S 2,789732 $ 4,290,774 5 4,290,774 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 2,655,192 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 2,440,150 nnz~azi aapa a~eIl 9 15 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 6130/2015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 & FY 2013 (24 Months) 20132015 Expended Balance YTD EBY 690 Electric Fund Intergovernmental S 335,700 $ 300,000 111.9% $ 35,700 S 273,795 $ 273,795 Charges for Services - Rates 27,210,985 28,660,000 94.9% (1,449,015) 24,986,168 24,986,168 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 278,280 560,000 49.7% (281,720) 479,851 479,851 Interest on Investments 15,714 22,000 71.4% (6,286) 22,493 22,493 Miscellaneous 288,885 384,000 75.2% (95115) 778,913 778,913 Total Revenues and Other Sources 28,129,563 29,926,000 940% (1,796,437) 26,541,220 26,541,220 Administration - Conservation 1,387,220 1,494,890 92,8% 107,670 996,253 996,253 Electric - Supply 12,831,515 13,628,373 94.2% 796,858 12,026,628 12,026,628 Electric - Distribution 12,558,899 13,398,521 917% 839,622 11,899,469 11,899,469 Electric - Transmission 1,876,536 2,177,635 86.2% 301,099 1,718,767 1,718,767 Debt Service 47,771 47,774 100.0% 3 48,857 48,857 Contingency - 923,000 0.0% 923,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 28,701,940 31,670,193 90.6% 2,968,253 26,689,974 26,689,974 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (572,377) (1,744,193) 67.2% 1,171,816 (148,754) (148,754) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 2327,540 2,334,310 99.7% (6.770) 2476,294 2,476.294 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 $ 1,755,163 S 590,117 2974% $ 1,165.046 $ 2,327,540 $ 2.327,540 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds Unassigned Fund Balance S 1,755,163 r.nznazI aepa 1,1 .,i 16 12 1 11 2C 5 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 6130/2015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 & FY 2013 (24 Months) 2013-2015 Expended Balance YTD EOY 691 Telecommunications Fund Charges for Services - Rates $ 3,889,563 $ 3,935,719 98.8% S (46,156) $ 3,827,232 $ 3,827,232 Interest on Investments 2,257 2,000 112.9% 257 5,037 5,037 Miscellaneous 4,750 1,000 475.0% 3.750 13.093 13,093 Total Revenues and Other Sources 3,896,570 3,938,719 98.9% (42,149) 3,845,362 3,845,362 Personal Services 1,299,335 1,325,560 98.0% 26,225 1,168,955 1,168,955 Materials & Services 1,764,465 1,849,283 95.4% 84,818 1,661,625 1,661,625 Capital Outlay 297,337 308,000 96.5% 10,663 127,073 127,073 Debt- Transfer to Debt Service Fund 818,000 818,000 100.0% - 818,000 818,000 Contingency - 113,000 0.0% 113,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 4,179,137 4,413,843 94.7% 234,706 3,775,653 3,775,653 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (282,567) (475,124) 59.5% 192,557 69,709 69,709 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 587,625 506,092 1161% 81,533 517,916 517,916 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 S 305,058 $ 30,968 985.1% $ 274,090 $ 587,625 S 587,625 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds Unassigned Fund Balance $ 305.058 r-~~~ soa-i 17 12 In r115 . 11;2111 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 6/30/2015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 & FY 2013 (24 Months) 2013-2015 Expended Balance YTD EOY 710 Central Service Fund Taxes $ 144,476 S 137,800 104.8% S 6,676 S 124,422 $ 124,422 Charges for Services - Internal 12,037,871 12,048,870 99.9% (10,999) 11,361,600 11,361,600 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 365,186 596,000 61.3% (230,814) 567,600 567,600 Interest on lnveshnenls 21,344 10,000 213.4% 11,344 17,262 17,262 Miscellaneous 219,539 229,390 95.7% (9,851) 225,990 225,990 Interfund Loan (Debt Service) 364,795 370,000 98.6% 5,205 - - Operatng Transfer in 90,000 90,000 1000% - - - Total Revenues and Other Sources 13,243,211 13,482,060 98.2% (228,439) 12,296,874 12,296,874 Administration Department 2,797,218 3,015,362 92.8% 218,144 2,504,247 2,504,247 Information Technology - Info Services Division 2,396,771 2,537,128 94.5% 140,357 1,983,272 1,983,272 Administrative Services Department 3,866,706 4,008,194 96.5% 141,488 3,577,003 3,577,003 City Recorder Division 868,755 888,330 97.8% 19,575 680,174 680,174 Public Works- Administration and Engineering 3,266,434 3,362,420 97.1% 95,986 2,825,649 2,825,649 Intefund Loan - - N/A - 364,795 364,795 Contingency - - N/A - - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 13,195,884 13,811,434 95.5% 615,550 11,935,140 11,935,140 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 47,327 (329,374) 114.4% 376,701 361,734 361,734 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 853,280 721,405 1183% 131,875 491,546 491,546 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 $ 900,607 $ 392,031 229.7% S 508,576 S 853,280 $ 853,280 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds Unassigned Fund Balance $ 900,607 12 1115 F-- R- i2nd ua.,, .1118 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 6/3012015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 8 FY 2013 (24 Months) 2013-2015 Expended Balance YTD EOY 720 Insurance Service Fund Charges for Services - Internal $ 1,480,865 $ 1,464,410 101.1% $ 16,455 $ 1,472,093 $ 1,472,093 Interest on Investments 16,485 10,000 164.8% 6,485 11,762 11,762 Miscellaneous 1.574,390 560,000 281.1 % 1 1,014,390 230,402 230,402 Total Revenues and Other Sources 3,071,740 2,034,410 1510% 1,037,330 1,714,257 1,714,257 Personal Services 179,228 198,080 90,5% 18,853 159,338 159,338 Materials and Services 1,478,170 1,696,500 87.1% 218,330 1,312,004 1312,004 Transfers (Health Benefit Fund) 500,000 500,000 100.0% - - - Contingency 30,000 0.0% 30,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 2,157,398 2,424,580 89.0% 267.183 1,471,342 1,471,342 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 914,343 (390,170) 3343% 1,304,513 242,915 242,915 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 848,858 819,457 103.6% 29,401 605,943 605,943 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 $ 1,763,201 $ 429,287 410.7% $ 1,333.914 $ 848.858 S 848,858 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 1,763.201 Unassigned Fund Balance S 0 1 Includes money reserved for PIERS rate change 7/1/2015 rnznaiz11- itne ob. , 11, 19 12 1, City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 6/3012015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 a FY 2013 (24 Months) 20132015 Expended Balance YTD EOY 725 Health Benefits Fund Chargesfor Services - Internal $ 8,158,032 $ 8,123,710 100.4% 5 34,322 $ - $ - Interest on Investments 3,614 20,000 18.1% (16,385) - - - - Miscellaneous 211,795 211,795 100.0% - - - Interfund Loan (Reserve Fund) 900,000 900,000 100.0% Transfer In (Insurance Fund) 500,000 500,000 100.0% - - - Total Revenues and Other Sources 9,773,441 9,755,505 100.2% 17,936 - - Personal Services - - N/A - - - Materials and Services 9,154,283 9,418,787 97.2% 264,504 - - Interfund Loan 250,000 250.000 100.0% - - - Contingency - - NIA - - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 9,404,283 9,668,787 97.3% 264,504 - - Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 369,158 86,718 425.7% 282,440 - - Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 - 0.0% - - Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 $ 369,158 $ 86,718 425.7% $ 282.440 $ - $ - Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 369,158 Unassigned Fund Balance $ (0) 1 Amount received as refund when closing old plan 12 In F 11 r~a~.., 20 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 6/30/2015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 & FY 2013 (24 Months) 2013-2015 Expended Balance YTD EOY 730 Equipment Fund Intergovernmental $ - $ - NIA $ - $ 201,753 $ 201,753 Charges for Services - Internal 3,606,929 3,277,788 110.0% 329,141 3,522,437 3,522,437 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 44,919 160,437 28.0% (115,518) 157,771 157,771 Interest on Investments 31,805 53,000 60.0% (21,195) 56,815 56,815 Miscellaneous 170,026 113,000 150.5% 1 57,026 56,005 56,005 Interfund Loan (Airport 8 Water Fund) 170,000 169,000 100.6% 1,000 816,000 816,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 4,023,680 3,773,225 106.6% 250,455 4,810,781 4,810,781 Public Works - Maintenance 2,084,345 2,144,460 97.2% 60,115 1,974,595 1,974,595 Public Works- Purchasing and Acquisition 2,359,891 3,113,000 75.8% 753,109 1,318,492 1,318,492 Interfund Loan - - N/A - 19,000 19,000 Contingency - 66,000 0.0% 66,000 - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 4,444,236 5,323,460 815% 879,224 3,312,087 3,312,087 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (420,556) (1,550,235) 72.9% 1,129,679 1,498,694 1,498,694 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 3,357,663 2,831,016 118.6% 526,647 1,858,969 1.858,969 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 $ 2,937,107 $ 1,280,781 229.3% $ 1,656,326 $ 3,357,663 $ 3,357,663 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 2,937,107 Unassigned Fund Balance $ (0) 1 Sale of rolling stock 12 F 1-1 R-02,da s 21 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 6/3012015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 & FY 2013 (24 Months) 2013-2015 Expended Balance YTD EOY 810 Cemetery Fund Charges for Services - Rates $ 47,767 $ 50,000 95.5% $ (2,233) $ 40,336 $ 40,336 Interest on Investments 9,139 10,600 86.2% (1,461) 10,737 10,737 Miscellaneous (145) - N/A (145) Transfer In (General Fund) 1,000 1,000 100.0% - 1,000 1,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 57,761 61,600 93.8% (3,839) 52,073 52,073 Transfers 9,139 10.600 86.2% 1,461 9,631 9,631 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 9,139 10,600 86.2% 1,461 9,631 9,631 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 48,622 51,000 95.3% (2.378) 42,442 42,442 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 874,044 886,744 98.6% (12,700) 831,602 831,602 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 $ 922,666 S 937.744 98.4% S (15 078) $ 874,044 $ 874,044 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 922,666 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 0 Fn-., ama s 22 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 6130/2015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 & FY 2013 (24 Months) 2013-2015 Expended Balance YTD EOY 211 Parks and Recreation Fund Taxes S - $ - N/A $ - $ 8,773,533 $ 8,773,533 Intergovernmental 10,589 - N/A - 33,117 33,117 Charges for Services - Internal 8,856,000 8,856,000 1000% (0) - - Charges for Services -Misc. Service Fees 1,725,966 1,793,633 98.2% (67,667) 1,735,365 1,735,365 Interest on Investments 9,535 26,000 36.7% (16,465) 32,507 32,507 Miscellaneous 47,413 69,000 68.7% (21587) 68,863 68,863 Total Revenues and Other Sources 10,649,503 10,744,633 99.1% (105,719) 10,643,385 10,643,385 Parks Division 7,473,109 7,529,390 99.3% 56,281 7,344,233 7,344,233 Recreation Division 2,507,775 2,547,830 98.4% 40,055 2,217,452 2,217,452 Goff Division 1,026,426 1,052,880 97.5% 26,454 833,621 833,621 Other Financing Uses - Transfers 922,000 922,000 100.0% - 699,000 699,000 Contingency - - N/A - - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 11929310 12,052,100 99.0% 122,790 11,094.306 11,094,306 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (1,279,807) (1,307,467) 21% 27,660 (450,921) (450,921) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 1,783,435 1,973,756 90.4% (190321) 2,214,031 2,214,031 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 $ 503,628 S 666,289 75.6% S (162661) $ 1,783,435 $ 1,783,435 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds Unassigned Fund Balance S 503,628 1 Change in funding through General Fund 2 Payments balanced to meet budgeted FEB n-~ o z~a _r-n. 23 12 1~ F115 1,1122 1 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance 6/30/2015, Second Closing Biennial Percent Sum of Actuals To Date Actuals Budget Collected FY 2012 s FY 2013 (24 Months) 2013-2015 Expended Balance YTD EOY 411 Parks Capital Improvement Fund Charges for Services $ 316,201 S 59,000 535.9% S 257,201 S 165,306 $ 165,306 Intergovernmental 995,061 3,929,000 25.3% (2,933,939) - - Interest on Investments 3,356 4,100 81.9% (744) 4,324 4,324 Miscellaneous 23,441 - NIA 23,441 34,476 34,476 Transfer In (Park Fund) 922,000 922,000 100.0% _ - 350,000 350,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 2,260,059 4,914,100 46.0% (2,654,041) 554,106 554,106 Materials and Services 1,331 2,000 66.6% 669 25,081 25,081 Capital Outlay 2,437,058 4,849,000 503% 2,411,942 574,259 574,259 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 2,438.389 4,851,000 50.3% 2,412,611 599,340 599,340 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (178,330) 63,100 -282.6% (241,430) (45,234) (45,234) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 387,632 239,032 162.2% 148,600 432,856 432,866 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2015 $ 209,302 $ 302,132 69.3% S (92.830) $ 387,632 $ 387,632 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 100,000 Unassigned Fund Balance S 109.302 12 1,11 FY15 ,a,-1 1-1121a19 - 24 111112115