HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-004 Findings - Normal Neighborhood Plan
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
January 19, 2016
In the Matter of Planning Action PL-2013-01858, ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND
Regarding Amendments to the City of Ashland ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan, and )
Land Use Ordinance concerning the adoption of the )
Normal Neighborhood Plan and associated ordinances
implementing the Plan.
PURPOSE:
Implementation of the Normal Neighborhood Plan: The plan is intended to guide future
development associated with approximately 94 acres of unincorporated lands within
Ashland's existing Urban Growth Boundary. As a policy and planning document, the
Normal Neighborhood Plan is an important tool for both elected and appointed officials,
who will use it as a guide to discretionary decisions. The plan is also a good source of
information and guidance to private sector entities involved in property development, as
consistency with desired development outcomes will be a factor in the review of
annexation, rezoning, and site review applications.
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.
The first ordinance amends the comprehensive plan to add Normal Neighborhood Plan
designation to Chapter 2 [Introductions and Definitions], add the Normal Neighborhood
Land Categories to Chapter IV [Housing Element], Change the Comprehensive Plan Map
to establish the boundaries of the Normal Neighborhood Plan area and amend the
boundaries of Conservation Areas within the neighborhood. This ordinance also adopts
the supporting documents (i.e. Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework dated May 2014
as amended), as a support document to the comprehensive plan.
The second ordinance amends the Transportation System Plan (TSP) to incorporate the
Normal Neighborhood Plan's Street and Bikeway Networks into the TSP, and to
establish standards for the new Shared Street designation within the Street Design
Standards section of the municipal code (Chapter 18.4.6).
The third ordinance amends the Ashland Municipal Code creating a new chapterl 8.3.4
Normal Neighborhood District, amends chapter 18.2.020 to add a Normal Neighborhood
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 1
zoning classification, and amends chapter 18.2.1.040 to add a Normal Neighborhood
Special District designation. Properties within the Normal Neighborhood Plan area are
not rezoned by adoption of this ordinance, rather the comprehensive plan designation,
zoning designations, and district development standards are to be applicable to future
developments upon annexation and zone change requests.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
An extensive public involvement process was undertaken to understand existing
conditions, and to develop and refine the plan. In total there have been over 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.
A draft Normal Neighborhood Plan, and draft implementing ordinances, were presented
to the Planning Commission at a public hearing on March 11, 2014 and April 8, 2014.
Following the Planning Commission's public hearings their formal recommendations on
the draft neighborhood plan ordinances were forwarded to the City Council.
The City Council held public hearings on a draft Normal Neighborhood Plan on May 6,
2014, May 20°i, 2014, and continued public testimony and deliberations to a special
meeting on May 29, 2014. During the May 29, 2014 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. A special round table meeting was held (September 18, 2014) where a panel of
neighborhood representatives, developers, and land use professionals was brought
together to provide feedback regarding how the plan could be amended to work from
their individual perspectives. In consideration of public input provided prior to and
during each of the working groups meetings, and a review Planning Commission's
recommendations as presented in the Planning Commission Report dated 4/22/2014, the
working group formulated a summary list of recommended plan amendments (Working
Group memo dated December 2, 2014) for Council's consideration.
A Public Hearing was held at the Planning Commission on July 28, 2015 to review the
final ordinances, which was and continued to August 11, 2015.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 2
A Public Hearing for First Reading of the final ordinances was held at the City Council
on September 1, 2015, continued to September 15, 2015, October 6, 2015, and November
17, 2015. Second Reading of the ordinances was held on December 15, 2015.
Notice of the public hearings was published in The Ashland Daily Tidings on July 8,
2015 prior to the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. Direct mailing
to all properties inside the project area, and those within 500 feet of the plan area were
sent on July 1, 2015. Notice of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and
Land Use regulations was sent to the Department of Land Conservation and Development
on February 25, 2015.
REVIEW CRITERIA
The decision of the City Council together with the recommendation by the Planning
Commission and Transportation Commission was based on consideration and findings of
consistency with the following factors.
A. Consistency with City of Ashland criteria for amending the Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, and legislative amendments to the Land Use
Ordinance. ALUO 18.5.9.B
B. Consistency with City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan
C. Consistency with Oregon Statewide Planning Goals 1-19 as enumerated by OAR
Chapter 660 Division 15
EVALUATION AND COUNCIL FINDINGS:
A. Consistency with City ofAshland criteria for amending the Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, and legislative amendments to the Land Use
Ordinance.
18.5.9.020 Applicability and Review Procedure
Applications for Plan Amendment and Zone Changes are as jollows:
A. Type H. The Type H 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.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 3
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 18.59.020.A,
subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by mounding down
factional 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 III 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 18.5.8,16r annexation information), and urban growth boundary
amendments. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III
procedure.
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.
The area within the boundary of the proposed Normal Neighborhood Plan includes
approximately 94 acres within the Ashland urban growth boundary (UGB), but is
outside the city limits - this area is designated for as Single Family Residential and
Suburban Residential in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and is currently zoned
Jackson County RR-5 Rural Residential. The Normal Neighborhood Plan Zoning
Land Use Overlays map provides for four distinct residential zones upon annexation
to the City; NN-1-5; NN-1-3.5; NN-1-3.5-C; NN-2
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 4
The neighborhood plan allows more specificity than the prior Comprehensive Plan
designations for the plan area, and addresses long-term community goals such as
providing a variety of housing types for a cross section of Ashland's population,
accommodating future population growth within the existing urban growth boundary,
maintaining a compact urban form, having a well-connected and multi-modal
transportation system (i.e. pedestrian, bicycles, auto/truck, freight and transit),
preserving natural features, creating a built environment that respects Ashland's
character, making desirable public spaces and incorporating green development
standards.
The neighborhood planning process was undertaken in response to a series of
changing circumstances that occurred over three decades within the Normal
Neighborhood area following the establishment of the 1982 Comprehensive Plan
designations. Changes to the area include the development of housing and religious
institutions under Jackson County's jurisdiction and approval. The City Council finds
and determines that through adoption of the Normal Neighborhood Plan the City can
better accommodate needed housing types and provide for efficient and orderly
development within the Urban Growth Boundary.
The open space framework for the neighborhood planning process was informed by
the City of Ashland Local Wetlands Inventory and Assessment & Riparian Corridor
Inventory. This technical supporting document was adopted as a technical supporting
document to the Comprehensive Plan in compliance with statewide planning Goal 5,
and was acknowledged by the State of Oregon in March 2007. The presence of
wetlands and riparian areas within the plan area were important factors in identifying
the need for a more focused planning effort within the neighborhood.
The City Council finds and determines that protection of significant natural features
including designated wetlands and riparian areas can better be accomplished through
adoption of the Normal Neighborhood Plan and upon future annexation and
application of more protective city regulations
The City's adopted Transportation System Plan, and the policies identified in the
Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element, informed the neighborhood planning
process. Amendments to the Transportation System Plan are included in the Normal
Neighborhood Plan implementing Ordinance to incorporate the Street Network,
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network, and Shared Street Designation presented in the
neighborhood plan. The City Council finds and determines that all substantive issues
raised regarding the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan changes
were adequately addressed by City staff in the numerous staff reports and staff
responses, and other materials in the record, whether such responses were made orally
at the public hearings or provided in written form as set forth in the record. All staff
reports, staff materials, and other staff responses are hereby accepted by the City
Council and are incorporated herein by this reference.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 5
The Council finds and determines that the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendments, map amendments, Transportation System Plan Map amendments, and
amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance comply with the criteria of ALUO
18.5.9.
B. Conformance with the Ashland Comprehensive Plan
1. The Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework is being adopted as a supporting
document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan concurrent with and as part of this
action on the Normal Neighborhood Plan.
2. The proposed implementation program is consistent with and adequate to carry
out goals and policies in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
3. The Housing Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan includes a goal and
policies that establish the latitude to revise and update residential land
designations to provide for the housing needs of Ashland's population:
Chapter VI Housing Element
GOAL: 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.
The Council finds and determines that Housing Needs Analysis adopted as a
technical supporting document to the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan
(approved September 3, 2013 - ordinance 43085), provides a factual basis in
support of the needed housing types included in the Normal Neighborhood Plan.
The Council finds and determines that The Buildable Lands Inventory adopted as a
technical supporting document to the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan
(approved November 15, 2011- ordinance 93055) provides a basis for evaluation
of the amount of available land within the City Limits and Urban Growth
Boundary, and demonstrates that the urbanization of lands within the Urban
Growth boundary is necessary to accommodate the needed housing types included
in the Normal Neighborhood Plan.
4. The Environmental Resources Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan
identifies goals and policies to ensure urbanization and other land uses preserve the
quality of Ashland's water, protect water resource areas including wetlands and
riparian areas, and protect life and property from flood hazards.
The Normal Neighborhood Plan Open space map includes all presently identified
water resource areas, wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains, and prohibits
development within these environmental resource areas.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 6
The Council Finds that approval of the Normal Neighborhood Plan and
implementing ordinance will not eliminate the requirement of future developments
to meet the Water Resource Protection requirements within the Physical and
Environmental Constraints Chapter of the Ashland's Land Use Ordinance. The
Council finds that new redevelopment within the Normal Neighborhood Plan area
shall not be allowed within FEMA designated 100 year floodplains, thereby
addressing the goal to protect life and property from flooding and flood hazards,
and manage the areas subject to flooding to protect the public interest.
5. The Transportation Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan proactively
plans for a transportation system that is integrated into the community and
enhances Ashland's livability, character and natural environment. Policies within
the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan require adherence to the
grid pattern presented in the plan, require connections to existing streets in
adjacent developed areas whenever such connection are possible, and encourage
the use of alleys and pedestrian paths. In Conformance with the Transportation
Element and the Transportation System Plan adopted in 2012, the transportation
framework presented in the Normal Neighborhood Plan calls for a multi modal
transportation network. The street pattern proposed conforms to the city's
standard block lengths and presents a connected street network pattern, with off-
street pathways, that promotes pedestrian and bicycle travel.
Approval of the Normal Neighborhood Plan does not result in rezoning the land
for urban use. Rezoning occurs after annexation to the City of Ashland or after
approval of an annexation agreement. The City of Ashland has adopted land use
policies and regulations for determining if incremental development will have a
significant affect on transportation facilities. Ashland's land development
regulations require applicants that request annexation for their property to
demonstrate that development enabled by the rezone will not have a significant
adverse effect on existing or planned transportation facilities.
The Council finds and determines that the Street Network, Pedestrian and Bicycle
Network, and Transportation Framework presented in the Normal Neighborhood
Plan are in conformance with the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive
Plan.
6. The Regional Plan Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan includes
policies that establish that land within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) but
outside of the existing City Limits, shall be built, at a minimum residential density
of 6.6 units per acre. As stated within the regional plan element, "the City of
Ashland was the only participating city within the region to not identify urban
reserves as it was determined that existing lands within the city limits and urban
growth boundary were sufficient to accommodate anticipated growth over the
planning period. " Given this position to not identify any Urban Reserve areas,
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 7
with adoption of resolution #2003-037, the City is obligated to accommodate
future growth within the existing Urban Growth Boundary.
The Council finds and determines that the minimum residential density within the
Normal Neighborhood Plan, exclusive of unbuildable natural resource open space
areas, satisfies the committed residential density provisions of the Greater Bear
Creek Regional Plan as adopted in the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
7. Comprehensive Plan general internal consistency. The Council finds and
determines that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is internally
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and associated ordinance changes are
consistent with and implement applicable Ashland Comprehensive Plan Goals
and Policies.
The Council finds that the city may establish Comprehensive Plan designations
and corresponding overlay zones for the district to rezone property prior to
annexation, in recognition of the fact that the effective date of the rezoning is
delayed until the date the property is annexed.
C. Consistency with Oregon Statewide Planning Goals 1-19 as enumerated by OAR
Chapter 660 Division 15
Goal l: Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures
the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
Finding: The City has an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and municipal code that has
been found to be in compliance with Goal 1. The City conducted extensive outreach
throughout the planning process with the goal of engaging as much of the citizenry as
possible. The City exceeded the state and local requirements for notice and made all
meetings open to public review including the meetings of the Normal Neighborhood
Working Group. The City held public meetings and received public testimony before the
transportation commission, housing commission, planning commission and city council
as part of the adoption of the proposed amendments.
An extensive public involvement process was undertaken to understand existing
conditions, and to develop and refine the plan. In total there have been over 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. In addition to advertised public meetings published in the
newspaper, direct mailings to properties within 500' of the project area,, approximately
100 interested parties provided their email contact information and were provided with
electronic meeting announcements and regular updates regarding the plan's review
process.
The design phase of the planning process was initiated in October 2012 with a three day
public design charrette, or workshop (10/23-25/2012). This charrette was broadly
advertised with direct mailings to all residents within the plan area, as well as those
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 8
residents within 200' of the plan area. The City included an article advertising the
charrette meeting in a direct mailing, the City Source newsletter, which was included in
the September 2012 utility bills of all Ashland residents and businesses. The charrette
allowed for the identification of issues and concerns, development of goals and objectives
for the master plan, and creation of a conceptual neighborhood design. Following the
initial design work, a second City Source article was mailed to every utility customer in
the City (September 2013) announcing the October 8, 2013 Planning Commission
meeting, and directing readers to the webpage dedicated to the Normal Neighborhood
Plan, www.ashland.or.us/normalplan, for further information.
In advance of the October 2012 charrette, project objectives and scope of work were
developed and presented at a neighborhood meeting (4/27/2012) and various advisory
commission meetings to obtain public input including discussions with the Housing
Commission (5/23/2012), Transportation Commission (5/24/2012) and Planning
Commission (5/22/2012, 9/25/2012) Following the October 2012 design charrette, to
assist the design team, city staff, and advisory commissions in refining the concept plans
the City held a neighborhood meeting (2/21/2013) which was noticed to all properties
within the vicinity of the Normal Neighborhood, as well as a meeting with the
Meadowbrook Homeowners Association to discuss the plan elements (6/19/2013).
Additional public meetings held to discuss and revise the concept plan included the
following:
• Planning Commission meetings: 2/26/2013; 4/09/2013; 6/25/2013; 9/24/2013;
10/08/2013; 11/26/2013; 2/25/2014
• City Council meetings: 6/18/2013; 8/20/2013; 12/02/2013; 3/17/2014
• Housing Commission meeting: 4/24/2013; 3/27/2014
• Transportation Commission meetings: 9/24/2013; 10/24/2013; 11/14/2013;
3/26/2015
A draft Normal Neighborhood Plan, and draft implementing ordinances, were presented
to the Planning Commission at a public hearing on March 11, 2014 and April 8, 2014.
Following the Planning Commission's public hearings their formal recommendations on
the draft neighborhood plan ordinances were forwarded to the City Council.
The City Council held public hearings on a draft Normal Neighborhood Plan on May 6,
2014, May 20t", 2014, and continued public testimony and deliberations to a special
meeting on May 29, 2014. During the May 29, 2014 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.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 9
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. A special round table meeting was held (September 18, 2014) where a panel of
neighborhood representatives, developers, and land use professionals was brought
together to provide feedback regarding how the plan could be amended to work from
their individual perspectives. In consideration of public input provided during each of the
working groups meetings, and a review Planning Commission's recommendations as
presented in the Planning Commission Report dated 4/22/2014, the working group
reaffirmed and articulated the vision for the neighborhood and 1-ormulated a summary list
of recommended plan amendments (Working Group memo dated December 2, 2014) for
Council's consideration.
A Public Hearing was held at the Planning Commission on July 28, 2015 to review the
final ordinances, which was and continued to August 11, 2015.
A Public Hearing for First Reading of the final ordinances was held at the City Council
on September 1, 2015, continued to September 15, 2015, October 6, 2015, and November
17, 2015. Second Reading of the ordinances was held on December 15, 2015.
Notice of the public hearings was published in The Ashland Daily Tidings on July 8,
2015 prior to the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. Direct mailing
to all properties inside the project area, and those within 500 feet of the plan area were
sent on July 1, 2015. Notice of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and
Land Use regulations was sent to the Department of Land Conservation and Development
on February 25, 2015.
Based on the information contained within this report and facts and findings in support of
the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments the City has conducted the planning
process in compliance with Ashland's adopted review procedures (Ashland Land Use
Ordinance Chapter 18.5.9) and in compliance with statewide planning goal 1.
Goal 2: Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy
framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure
an adequate factual base of such decisions and actions.
Finding: The City has an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and municipal code that has
been found to be in compliance with Goal 2. The City has provided the proper notice as
required by the Comprehensive Plan and City of Ashland Municipal Code. The City has
relied upon the existing Comprehensive Plan and acknowledged technical supporting
document to establish the underlying policy framework. The proposed amendments do
not seek any exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals.
Based on the information contained within the record and facts and findings in support of
the proposed Comprehensive Plan, transportation system plan, and land use ordinance
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 10
amendments the City has conducted the planning process in compliance with statewide
planning goal 2.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Finding: No goal exception is requested or required to Goal 3. The lands that are the
subject of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments were included within the City
of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary in 1982 as a result of a legislative action. The
proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan map took into account the existence of
farm land adjacent to the UGB and proposed to use lower density single family
residential zones, natural resource areas and existing transportation facilities to buffer the
adjacent farm lands from the urbanizable land within the UGB consistent with the intent
of this goal.
Based on the information contained within the record, and facts and findings in support
of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments the City has conducted the planning
process in compliance with statewide planning goal 3.
Goal 4: Forest Lands: To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base
and to protect the state's forest economy by malting possible economically efficient
forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree
species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil,
air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational
opportunities and agriculture.
Finding: The proposed amendments do not impact existing forest land and are therefore
consistent with statewide planning goal 4.
Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Resources, and Open Space: To
protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
Finding: The proposed amendments concern the 94 acre area that have been within the
City's UGB since it was initially adopted in 1982. The amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan map designate these properties appropriately for future development
and further identify natural resource areas including wetlands, creeks, and riparian areas,
and open space to be protected. The proposed amendments include changes to the
transportation system plan identify improvements necessary to support the development
of these new lands. The City has designated Cemetery Creek, Clay Creek, and wetlands
identified on the City's 2007 Local Wetland Inventory as Goal 5 resources and enacted a
Open Space overlay zone to protect the resources. The Open Space Framework included
within the Normal Neighborhood Framework, a technical supporting document to the
Comprehensive Plan, further identifies these areas which are afforded protection through
the implementation of the Normal Neighborhood Plan.
Upon annexation of properties within the plan area the City's Water Resources
Protection ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code chapter 18.3.11) establishes natural
resource protections within the community and there is a development process in place to
ensure that these resources will be protected and when appropriate enhanced. The City of
Ashland development review and annexation requirements dictate that prior to
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 11
annexation a wetland determination, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be
completed in order to ascertain the potential presence of wetlands. If potential wetland
resources are identified during the annexation process, prior to development of a site the
applicant will be required to submit a wetland delineation that has been concurred with
by the Oregon Department of State Lands.
No scenic or historic resources have been identified within the plan area, accordingly no
resources are proposed to be added to the City's inventory.
New parks are identified for development within the UGB and open space areas are
planned for preservation within the parks master plan consistent with the intent of this
goal.
Based on the information contained within the record, and facts and findings in support
of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments the City has conducted the planning
process in compliance with statewide planning goal 5.
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the
quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.
Finding: The City has demonstrated how sanitary sewer and storm water services can be
provided to support development within the UGB. Future development will need to
extend City utilities to serve all new development proposed within the plan area. This
will assure that development that occurs within Plan area upon annexation does not
degrade the water quality of the adjacent resources. Further, upon annexation Ashland's
Water Resources Protection Zone requirements will mandate improvements to the
existing vegetated corridor associated with the designated wetlands and riparian corridors
within the area resulting in a net increase in the quality of the resources consistent with
the intent of this goal. The amendments to the City's TSP will guide development of
lands within the UGB resulting in an interconnected transportation system that provides
for all modes of travel, including increased pedestrian and bicycle connections and
facilities.
The Comprehensive Plan amendments and City of Ashland Code will result in efficient
development of the land within the UGB reducing the need to extend the UGB in the
future consistent with the intent of this goal.
Based on the information contained within the record and fact and findings in support of
the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments the City has conducted the planning
process in compliance with statewide planning goal 6.
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards: To protect people and property from
natural hazards.
Finding: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped 100 year
floodplains associated with Clay Creek and Commentary Creek were wholly included
within the areas designated for open space within the neighborhood plan. The City of
Ashland Flood Plain Corridor Lands and riparian protection zones extend beyond the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 12
boundaries of the FEMA 100 year floodplain, and these areas are additionally protected
from development upon future annexation into the city. The result is that future urban
development, with the exception of needed transportation facilities, within the floodplains
shall not be permitted. The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance, the International Building Code and the International Fire Code all work
together to ensure that future development of the area upon annexation into the City will
be designed, permitted and constructed consistent with statewide planning goal 7.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the
state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary
recreational facilities including destination resorts.
Finding: The UGB was considered when the City of Ashland developed the 2002 City of
Ashland Parks Master Plan. The proposed amendments to the Open Space Framework
included in the Normal Neighborhood Plan seek to designate nearly 25% of the
neighborhood area as open space that will provide additional recreation opportunities for
the immediate community as well visitors and guests. The proposal to include planned
paths within or adjacent to the designated open spaces will provide both needed
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, and access to the natural resources for passive
recreational opportunities. The proposed parks and open space elements of the Normal
Neighborhood Plan reflects the recreational needs of the community and are therefore
consistent with statewide planning goal 8.
Goal 9: Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the
state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity
of Oregon's citizens.
Finding: The Normal Neighborhood area has been designated within Ashland's
Comprehensive Plan as meeting residential land needs since 1982. The City's
acknowledged Economic Opportunity Analysis does not include this area within it's
assessment of land needed for future economic development. However, the area does
provide for housing opportunities necessary to support business expansion and growth.
The City is proposing to designate approximately 2 acres within the plan area to have a
neighborhood serving commercial overlay (NN-1-3.5-C). This site is situated adjacent to
East Main Street and it is of adequate size and configuration to permit small scale
neighborhood serving commercial development. This property will provide the
opportunity for future commercial development compatible with the residential character
of the neighborhood, and is consistent with the intent of this goal. The proposed
amendments are consistent with statewide goal 9.
Goal 10: Housing: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Finding: To inform the Normal Neighborhood planning process the City of Ashland
conducted a "housing needs analysis" (HNA) to determine the amount of land that will be
needed during the 20-year planning period for the UGB. The HNA was adopted as
technical supporting document to the Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance #3085). The HNA
found that the evaluation of existing housing mix, density, and affordability suggested
that the City should plan for a larger share of multiple family housing, and a greater
number of single family housing types on smaller lots to meet future housing demand.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 13
In 2011 the City of Ashland completed a Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) which was
adopted as a technical supporting document to the Comprehensive Plan (Ord #3055).
Although the BLI demonstrated that Ashland could potentially accommodate a 20 year
supply of housing within the existing City Limits through infill of all available parcels,
the land within the Urban Growth Boundary provides additional needed capacity to
accommodate a variety of housing types for the fixture population expected over a 32 year
period. This is consistent with the City of Ashland's commitment to the Greater Bear
Creek Valley Regional Plan and specifically the Regional Plan Element XIV to
accommodate the next approximate 50 years of housing and employment growth within
the existing UGB.
The proposed amendments provide for a range of housing development to meet the
City's needs consistent with the intent of statewide goal 10.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and
efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for
urban and rural development.
Finding: The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are intended to guide the future
development of land within the existing UGB. Statewide goal 11 mandates that Cities
plan for public facilities and services necessary to support the intended development. The
City's water and sewer master plans have been developed, and periodically updated, in
consideration of the full build out of the UGB. These Master Plans identify
improvements to the system necessary to accommodate projected growth over the
planning period. Public facilities necessary to accommodate future growth shall be
sized to accommodate the level of development anticipated within the proposed Normal
Neighborhood Plan. By identifying these improvements and associated costs the City can
plan for the provision of these services including but not limited to updating the City's
corresponding system development charges (SDC's) to assure that adequate revenue is
collected to provide for the improvements needed within the UGB. Identifying the correct
improvements and determining when the improvements will need to occur provides the
City the ability to effectively manage future annexations and development requests and
ensure that services are available in a timely manner. Knowing the ultimate sanitary
sewer and or water improvement that is necessary for the full build out of the UGB also
allows the City to provide services efficiently, reducing the need to replace facilities in
the future to accommodate continued development. The proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendments anticipate the level of development that could occur within the UGB given
the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and corresponding zoning upon
annexation. The amendments identify improvements necessary to support the
development of the UGB. The process provides the City, the development community
and residents an understanding of what improvements will need to occur. The proposed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with consistent with statewide
goal 11.
Goal 12: Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and
economic transportation system
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 14
Finding: The City contracted with SCJ Alliance Consulting Services to prepare an
Existing Conditions Analysis, and a Future Conditions Report for the Normal
Neighborhood Plan to determine the improvements necessary to provide for the
development of the neighborhood consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as defined in
Oregon Administrative Rule OAR 660-012-0000, et seq. The TPR (OAR 660-012-0060)
states that when land use changes, including amendments to acknowledged
Comprehensive Plans, significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility
the local government shall put in place measures to assure that the allowed land uses are
consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards (level of
service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility.
Accordingly, OAR 660-012-0060 requires local jurisdictions to make an assessment of
transportation impacts when plan and land use regulation amendments are proposed.
While the Normal Neighborhood Plan is far from a wholesale change of the existing
Ashland Comprehensive Plan designations, as the cumulative number of dwelling units
that are envisioned by the plan are consistent with the total number of dwellings that
would be provided under the existing Comprehensive Plan designations, an assessment of
significant effect is included to address the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060. It is
important to note that regardless of whether a neighborhood plan is adopted for the
Normal Neighborhood Plan area, the build out of the area under the current
Comprehensive Plan Designation requires a significant investment in public
infrastructure to construct the facilities necessary to accommodate housing developments
in the area.
Transportation impacts have been evaluated and considered since the neighborhood
planning process began in 2012. An Existing Conditions Transportation analysis report
was completed in September 2012. A Future Traffic Analysis report was completed on
November 2013 to evaluate the traffic impacts anticipated with build out of the area. An
Offsite Infrastructure Cost Estimate was completed on April 9, 2015 by Hardy
Engineering to determine the extent, and cost, of street and utility improvements to East
Main Street and the Normal Avenue railroad crossing. Each of these documents is
included in the record.
SCJ Alliance analyzed the vehicular, pedestrian, bicyclist and transit system within their
transportation analysis. Within this report are detailed findings demonstrating how the
proposed transportation system plan, Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan map
amendments comply with the applicable transportation requirements of the state
(Transportation Planning Rule).
The OAR is directed at maintaining a balance between land uses allowed (or adopted) in
a Comprehensive Plan and zoning, and the transportation system that supports those land
uses. Where a proposed change from the adopted Comprehensive Plan, typically called a
land use amendment, would "significantly affect" an existing or planned transportation
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 15
facility, a local government must put in place measures to assure that the land uses being
proposed are consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards
of the surrounding transportation network. The planning rule identifies that a "significant
affect' would be determined by meeting one of the following three key elements. The
following outlines these key elements and indicates whether the proposed project would
have a significant affect or not:
I.Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility
(exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan).
The Normal Neighborhood Plan Sheet Network proposed to change the functional
classification of the portion of Normal Avenue within the neighborhood plan area from
an "Avenue: as adopted in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element
(1996) and Ashland Transportation System Plan (2012), to a "Neighborhood Collector".
The Future "Traffic Analysis (2013 Final Future Conditions Report for Normal Avenue
Neighborhood Plan) projected the average daily vehicle trips at full build out would not
reach the number of vehicle trips threshold for an "Avenue" classification, and therefore
the lower order street classification of "Residential Collector" was sufficient to
accommodate projected impacts of development including anticipated cut through trips
from outside the district.
The functional classification of East Main Street was identified as an Avenue in the
Ashland Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element (1996), however was omitted from
classification within the Ashland Transportation System Plan (2012) as it is presently
outside the Ashland City Limits. The adoption of the Normal Neighborhood Plan
rectifies this mapping error by amending the Street Dedication Map within the Ashland
Transportation System Plan to reinstate the Avenue classification for East Main Street.
2.Change standards implementing a functional classification system.
It is not the intent of the Normal Neighborhood Plan to implement any improvements
within the transportation infrastructure that would be beyond the design standards for the
adopted functional classification of roadways in the adopted City of Ashland
Transportation System Plan (TSP). There are improvements identified at spot locations,
but those types of improvements are within the functional classification of roadways. The
adopted 2012 TSP includes a new Street Classification termed a "Shared Street". The
Normal Neighborhood Plan Street Network identifies potential locations for the use of
Shared Streets and the implementing ordinances provide for amendment of the Street
Design Standards of the Land Use Ordinance (chapter 18..4.6) to include this new
classification.
3.As measured by the end of the planning period identified in the adopted
transportation system plan:
a. Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types of levels of travel
or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or
planned transportation facility.
The land uses included in the Normal Neighborhood Plan area will result in the types of
travel and operation of streets within the roadway system consistent with the functional
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 16
classifications included in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element
(1996), Ashland Transportation System Plan (2012) and Ashland Street Standards
Handbook (1999) as codified in Chapter 18.4.6.040 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
The Ashland TSP (p 5-7).states:
Volumes indicated are not intended to be absolute maximums or minimums. The
function of the street with the roadway system, and the types and intensities of
land use along their routes are other important factors contributing toward their
appropriate designation.
The Chapter 18.4.6.040 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Street Standards (p 19)
provides further clarification:
When determining how to classify a new street.for the purpose of design, careful
attention should be given to considering the street as a whole in the context of the
neighborhood, of the underlying zoning and land uses, and the future amount of
traffic rather than strict adherence to using projected average daily traffic (ADT)
figures alone. Care must be taken not to focus on efficiency and worst case
scenarios. The end goal should be to balance creating a notable, livable,
functional street for the neighborhood, and provide a variety of transportation
options for residents.
Ashland Street is classified as a Boulevard, and Tolman Creek Road, East Main Street,
and Walker Ave. are classified as Avenues. It is the intent of the Normal Neighborhood
Plan for the boulevards and avenues which the previous analysis shows will be impacted
by the annexation and development of the plan area to urban densities, to continue to
operate with the definitions of the functional classifications included in the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element and adopted Street Standards, (Chapter
18.4.6 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance). The "Transportation section of the Normal
Neighborhood Plan Framework Document (Exhibit B to the ordinance amending the
Comprehensive Plan) includes street classifications and illustrated cross sections to
illustrate the proposed transportation facilities within the plan area.
The Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Ashland TSP and Street Standards include an average
daily traffic for Boulevards of 8,000 to 30,000 trips per day, and for Avenues 3,000 to
10,000 trips per day. The following definitions of a Boulevard and Avenue are included
in the chapter 18.4.6.040 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
"Boulevards are major thoroughfares filled with human and vehicular activity.
Design should provide an environment where walking, bicycling, using transit,
and driving are equally convenient and should facilitate the boulevard's use as a
public space. Design should start with the assumption that the busy nature of a
boulevard is a positive factor and incorporate it to enhance the streetscape and
setting. A two-lane, three-lane, or five-lane configuration can be used depending
on the number of trips generated by surrounding existing and future land uses. "
"Avenues provide concentrated pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle
access from neighborhoods to neighborhood activity centers and boulevards.
Avenues are similar to boulevards, but are designed on a smaller scale. Design
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 17
should provide an environment where walking, bicvcling, using transit, and
driving are equally convenient and facilitates the avenue's use as a public space.
A two-lane or three-lane configuration can be used depending on the number of
trips generated by surrounding existing and future land uses. "
There are several additional factors worth noting. The transportation existing conditions
analysis, and Final Future Conditions Report for Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
completed for the neighborhood plan use standard assumptions and methodologies to
assess future land use scenarios and associated trip generation and distribution.
Specifically, the transportation analysis uses a worst-case approach in that it assumes all
but two percent of trips will be made my motor vehicles. In contrast, Ashland has long-
standing Comprehensive Plan and TSP goals and policies emphasizing non-automotive
means of travel, and has therefore concentrated on developing the city in a pedestrian-
oriented compact urban form. This approach has resulted in building a multi-modal
transportation system including multi-use paths, sidewalks, bicycle, and transit facilities.
In keeping with the City's goals and policies, the Normal Neighborhood Plan includes
links to existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities (e.g. Central Ashland Bike Path),
incorporates both on-street and off-street pedestrian and bike facilities, and provides for a
for bus stop along East Main Street in anticipation of future transit service. While current
methodologies to estimate trip generation do not fully account for non-automotive trips, it
is the intent of the Normal Neighborhood Plan to create a land use pattern and
complimentary transportation system that will replace vehicle trips with pedestrian,
bicycle and transit trips. As a result, the ultimate impact on the vehicular facilities,
including streets and intersections, should be less than presented in the Final Future
Conditions Report for Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan.
Mitigation alternatives were developed for all intersections where impacts were greater
than expected under the No-build condition, as well as what improvements would be
necessary to reach jurisdictional standard (either V/C ratio for ODOT facilities, or level-
of-service for City facilities). These mitigation alternatives included an upgrade to East
Main Street to urban street standards including provision for a center turn lanes from
Walker Avenue to Clay St. The Avenue classification for East Main Street, as identified
in the TSP amendment, provides for both capacity and amenity improvements. Using
these parameters, the development would not have a significant effect because
improvements have been identified in the TSP that allow for adequate intersection
operations to meet jurisdictional standard through turn lanes, installation of bike lanes,
and a continuous sidewalk along the south side of East Main St.
There were transportation issues raised during the public hearings, study sessions, and
working group meetings. The City Council finds and determines that all substantive
issues were adequately addressed by City staff in the numerous staff reports and staff
responses, and other materials in the record, whether such responses were made orally at
the hearings or provided in written form as set forth in the record. All staff reports, staff
materials, and other staff responses are hereby accepted by the City Council and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 18
The Council finds that annexation of the subject territory does not automatically transfer
road jurisdiction from Jackson County to the City of Ashland. Separate City Council
action is required to accept jurisdictional control of streets including East Main Street and
Clay Street adjacent to the Normal Neighborhood Project area. As properties are annexed
and proposed for development, transportation and street frontage improvements will be
required as part of the land use review process. No new transportation facilities are
planned for outside of the existing UGB.
The Council finds and determines that the proposed amendments are consistent with the
Transportation Planning Rule. The proposed amendments address the requirements of
statewide planning goal 12.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation: To conserve energy.
Finding: The intent of this goal is to promote development and utilization of land within
the UGB that conserves energy. Many of the specific implementation measures are
targeted at code requirements that implement the Comprehensive Plan, such as lot size,
building height, setbacks, and access to light, wind and air.
The development standards within the proposed Normal Neighborhood District and
existing land use ordinance are consistent with goal 13. This goal can be considered as
part of the decision on what Comprehensive Plan designation to apply within the UGB,
balanced of course with the other statewide planning goals. The proposed land use
designations within the neighborhood plan area have been designed to respect existing
development while also providing the opportunity for densities consistent with the
Greater Bear Creek Regional Plan, Chapter XN of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan,
Regional Plan Element, and the intent of this statewide planning goal. Services for water,
storm water, and sanitary sewer will be designed and located to maximize the efficient
delivery of these services thereby reducing the cost to construct and maintain resulting in
less consumption of energy. Similarly the transportation system will be designed and
constructed to provide for direct connections and minimize out-of-direction travel. New
facilities for pedestrians and bicyclist will be incorporated as part of the design providing
for non-motorized connections to the existing City Limits and transit stops along the
Ashland Street. Therefore the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent
with statewide planning goal 13.
Goal 14: Urbanization: To provide for an 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.
Finding: The primary purpose of goal 14 is to establish and manage urban growth
boundaries within the state of Oregon. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments
do not result in the establishment of a new UGB, nor do the amendments propose to alter
the City of Ashland UGB. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments will result in
amending Comprehensive Plan map designations for land that was included within the
UGB in 1982 to better reflect development that has occurred over the last 33 years, and in
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 19
consideration of natural resources within the plan area.. The proposed designations
include low-density residential, medium-density residential, neighborhood serving
commercial overlays, and open space.
The proposed land use pattern within the UGB allows for efficient use of the land
consistent with the intent of this goal while also respecting existing farm practices and
existing development within the City.
The proposed amendments do not propose to establish or alter a UGB. The proposed
amendments do identify and plan for the provision of urban services necessary to support
development of the subject areas and allow for future annexation into the City. These
amendments do propose to apply a Comprehensive Plan designation, Normal
Neighborhood Plan, and urban services that will result in efficient development in
compliance with the Greater Bear Creek Regional Plan, while at the same time respecting
the transition of the UGB and the redevelopment of areas that are already committed to
urbanization.
The Council Finds the Normal Neighborhood Plan is consistent with the Greater Bear
Creek Valley Regional Plan adopted by Jackson County and incorporated into Chapter
XIV of Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments are therefore consistent
with statewide planning goal 14.
Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain
the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of
lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
Finding: The City of Ashland is not located along the Willamette River. The proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments do not impact the Willamette River Greenway,
therefore, the goal 15 is not applicable to this review.
Goal 16: Estuarine Resources: To recognize and protect the unique environmental,
economic, and social values of each estuary and associated wetlands; and To protect,
maintain, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the long-term
environmental, economic, and social values, diversity and benefits of Oregon's
estuaries.
Finding: The City of Ashland is not located on the coast, there are no estuarine resources
associated with the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, therefore, goal 16 is not
applicable to this review
Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands: To conserve, protect, where appropriate, develop and
where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of all coastal shorelands,
recognizing their value for protection and maintenance of water quality, fish and
wildlife habitat, water-dependent uses, economic resources and recreation and
aesthetics. The management of these shoreland areas shall be compatible with the
characteristics of the adjacent coastal waters; and To reduce the hazard to human
life and property, and the adverse effects upon water quality and fish and wildlife
habitat, resulting from the use and enjoyment of Oregon's coastal shorelands.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 20
Finding: The City of Ashland is not located on the coast, there are no coastal shorelands
associated with the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, therefore, goal 17 is not
applicable to this review.
Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes: To conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and
where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal beach and dune
areas; and to reduce the hazard to human life and property from natural or man-
induced actions associated with these areas.
Finding: The City of Ashland is not located on the coast, there are no beach or dune
resources associated with the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, therefore, goal
18 is not applicable to this review
Goal 19: Ocean Resources: To conserve marine resources and ecological functions
for the purpose of providing long-term ecological, economic, and social value and
benefits to future generations.
Finding: The City of Ashland is not located on the coast, there are no ocean resources
associated with the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, therefore, goal 19 is not
applicable to this review.
OVERALL COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS
The City Council finds and determines the approval criteria for this decision have been
fully met, based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings and
analysis of the Planning Commission and the Normal Neighborhood Working Group, the
detailed findings and analysis set forth in the Normal Neighborhood Plan supporting
documents, together with all staff reports, addenda and supporting materials in the whole
record. The Council finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the City of
Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Specifically the Council finds that the proposed
amendments are consistent with City of Ashland Approval Criteria for Zone Changes,
Zoning Map Amendments, Comprehensive Plan Map Changes, And Transportation
System Plan amendments set forth in ALUO 18.5.9.
Accordingly, based on the evidence in the whole record, the City Council hereby
APPROVES the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law presented herein relating to
the following ordinances amending to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Ashland
Transportation Plan, and Ashland Land Use Ordinance:
• 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
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 21
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.
• 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.
• 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.
Ashland City Council Approval
- tcl- aoi(0
Jo romb g, Mayor _ Date
Signature authorized and approved by the full Council this r1 day of J444lA4'4 2016
Attest:
41
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Date
Approved as to form:
lYaVd Lohman, Ashland City Attorney Date
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 22