HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-11 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyyone wishing too speak at any Planning Commission meetinng is encourageed to do so. If you wish to sppeak,
please risee and, after youu have been reecognized by thhe Chair, give yyour name and complete address for the reccord.
You will then be allowed to speak. Pleaase note that thhe public testimmony may be limited by the CChair and normaally is
not allowed after the Pubblic Hearing is cclosed.
AASHLAND PLLANNING COOMMISSION
REGUULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2014
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM, Cvic Center Cuncil Chamers, 1175 E. Main Street
iioobb
.. ANNOOUNCEMENTTS
II
IIII. CONSSENT AGENDDA
A. Appproval of Minutes
1.February 11, 2014 Reguular Meeting.
IVV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. UNFINNISHED BUSINESS
A. Appproval of Findings for PPA-2013-014221, 270 Northh First Streett.
VI. LEGISSLATIVE PUBBLIC HEARINNG
A. PLLANNING ACCTION #: PL--2013-01858
DEESCRIPTIONN: A proposaal to amend tthe Comprehhensive Plan, Comprehennsive Plan MMap,
Trransportationn System Plaan, and Ashlaand Land Usse Ordinancee and to impllement the NNormal
Neeighborhoodd Plan.
VII. DISCUUSSION ITEMMS
A. Shhort Term Reentals on Owwner Occupieed Propertiess in Single Faamily Zoningg Districts.
B. Meedical Marijuuana Dispenssaries.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Inn compliance wwith the Americaans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
coontact the Commmunity Develoopment office aat 541-488-53055 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-22900). Notificattion 48 hours pprior to the
mmeeting will enaable the City to make reasonaable arrangemeents to ensure aaccessibility to the meeting (228 CFR 35.1022-35.104
ADDA Title 1).
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
February 11, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main
Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Richard Kaplan Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner
Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Melanie Mindlin
Tracy Peddicord
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Mike Morris, absent
ANNOUCEMENTS
Commissioner Kaplan provided an update on the Downtown Parking and Multi-Modal Circulation meeting;
Commissioner Mindlin welcomed Lynn Thompson to the Planning Commission; and Community Development
Director Bill Molnar announced upcoming meeting agenda items will include the Unified Land Use Ordinance, Normal
Neighborhood Final Plan, and Short-Term Home Rentals in R-1 Districts.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes.
1. January 14, 2014 Regular Meeting.
2. January 28, 2014 Joint Study Session.
3. January 28, 2014 Regular Study Session.
The following corrections were made to the minutes:
1)January 14, 2014 Regular Meeting minutes, page 3: First sentence under Short Term Rentals item should
read, “Commissioner Mindlin left the meeting due to a potential public perception of conflict of interest.”
2)January 28, 2014 Joint Study Session minutes: Replace all instances of “Railroad District Master Plan” with
“Railroad Property Master Plan”.
Commissioners Dawkins/Peddicord m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed 6-0. \[Commissioner Thompson abstained\]
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 11, 2014
Page 1 of 8
TYPE I APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING
A.PLANNING ACTION #: 2013-01421
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 270 N First Street
APPLICANT: RNN Properties LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to exceed maximum permitted
floor area (MPFA) in the Railroad Historic District and variances to the required side-yard setbacks for
the construction of a new residence on the property at 270 N First Street. The request includes the
removal of the existing residence. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family
Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09BA TAX LOT: 1300.
Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Dawkins, Miller, Kaplan, Brown and Peddicord declared site visits. Commissioner Dawkins shared an
observation from his site visit and stated the green colored house on the south alley does not conform to the
diagrams in the Historic District Design Standards and it seems very out of place.
Staff Report
Assistant Planner Amy Gunter reviewed the approval criteria for a single family home in the R-2 District. She
explained this is an outright permitted use; however this application requires a conditional use permit because it
exceeds the maximum permitted floor area by 252 square foot and also requires a variance to the side yard
setbacks. Ms. Gunter explained the site is located in the Railroad Historic District and the lot is legal/non-conforming,
it is smaller than the minimum required lot size. She stated there is an existing residence on the site, however it is in
very poor condition and the applicants have already received a demolition permit approval. She stated the applicant’s
propose to construct a new two-story home in nearly the same footprint as the existing residence, and noted the
proposal would widen the side yard setback on the north side from 0 feet to 3 feet.
Ms. Gunter brought attention to the Historic Commission’s review of this proposal and stated they recommended
approval of this application with the addition of the following minor conditions: 1) that there be more space between
the double hung windows, 2) removal of the transom window over the second story doors, and 3) for the second
story doors to be French doors instead of sliders. Ms. Gunter explained this application was administratively
approved November 20, 2013 and following staff’s approval a reconsideration request was filed. The reconsideration
request was denied by the Community Development Director on November 27, 2013 and the appellant then filed
their formal appeal, which is why this action is now before the Planning Commission. In her appeal, the appellant has
raised issue with the size of the home, the choice of materials, not being cohesive with the other homes in the
Historic District, the front yard setback, trees, parking, and open space requirements.
Ms. Gunter provided an overview of the applicant’s proposal and site plan and outlined the related criteria. She
commented on the trees on the site and the arborists report, and clarified the parking as proposed is outright
permitted and is consistent with City standards. Ms. Gunter commented on the maximum permitted floor area and
clarified the ordinance allows applicants to exceed this limitation by up to 25% if they obtain a conditional use permit.
She added this is a discretionary approval intended to provide a higher level of review for proposed structures in the
context of the conditional use permit criteria as well as the Historic District Development Standards. In regards to the
variance request for the side yard setback, Ms. Gunter explained the applicant’s proposal identifies the unusual
circumstance as a narrow lot width and stated this proposal would keep the south setback the same and increase the
north setback to 3 feet. Ms. Gunter also commented on the building’s design elements and clarified the Historic
District Development Standards advocate for design features for new construction that are more contemporary in
design in historic neighborhoods.
Ms. Gunter concluded her presentation and stated staff believes this application meets the criteria for approval of a
conditional use permit as well as the criteria for the setback variance.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 11, 2014
Page 2 of 8
Questions of Staff
Comment was made questioning the use of stucco. Ms. Gunter stated the applicant could address the material
selections during their testimony.
Staff was asked to clarify the lot coverage. Ms. Gunter clarified the R-2 zone allows up to 65% lot coverage and the
applicant’s are proposing 55%, which includes the parking.
Comment was made questioning if there are other residential structures in the vicinity with metal roofs. Ms. Gunter
stated there is an outbuilding at 270 Second Street that has a metal roof and there are two or three more structures
with metal roofs off the alley to the east across Second Street. She added most of the commercial buildings in the
neighborhood have metal roofs as well.
Applicant’s Presentation
Mark Knox, Nisha Jackson, and John Turman addressed the Commission. Ms. Jackson explained they purchased
this home 9 months ago and while they knew it was in bad condition they had hoped they would be able to remodel
it. However after the inspection was completed it was deemed unsafe. She stated some of the challenges they have
faced with designing a new home are the 25 ft. wide parcel and the existing trees. Ms. Jacksons stated they have
worked hard to put together a compact footprint that would allow for a second floor and a second bedroom. She
clarified a metal roof was selected because they would like this home to be LEED certified and a metal roof would
allow for rain collection. She noted the design has gone through several revisions to accommodate the suggestions
of the Historic Commission, and highlighted their decision to increase the setback to 3 ft. off the alley. Ms. Jackson
stated they have followed all of the recommendations and have met the codes, and hopes the Planning Commission
will approve this application, just as the Historic Commission and staff did.
Mr. Knox commented that the lot’s depth is much less than that of a standard historic district lot, and stated the
current house has no sense of entry and is in very poor condition. He noted the appellant’s house is adjacent to the
applicant’s, and they themselves recently went through a major remodel and addition. He stated the appellant’s
parking is located in the right-of-way and is a commercial use with ramps out front, and has changed the character of
the streetscape. Mr. Knox stated the applicant’s proposal is for a residence and the design is very compatible, just as
the Historic Commission and staff has found. He added if the Commission has concerns with the metal roof, it may
still be possible to do a LEED structure with another option, but hopes the Commission will not ask for this.
Ms. Jackson clarified for the Commission that they intend to save the boxwood tree on the site. She stated the
arborist recommended its removal, but that was before he knew they would be doing a slab foundation. She also
clarified the collector for the rain water would be placed in the backyard. When asked about the stucco material
selection, John Thurman (building designer) explained varying materials were selected to break up the massing. He
added in order to obtain LEED certification the slab needs to be wrapped with foam, and stucco siding works well for
this. Mr. Thurman commented on the overall design of the structure and stated the proposed home is located in a
transitional area and is much more appealing than the existing structure. He added the design combines elements of
the more modern commercial structures while keeping some of the elements of the traditional historic homes.
Comment was made expressing concern with the two-story design and whether this is compatible with the
streetscape and the Historic District Design Standards. Mr. Knox noted the adjacent home has two-stories, but the
volume is setback, and commented on the importance of having a varying streetscape with undulation. He added
there are other houses along this stretch that have two stories as well.
Appellant’s Presentation
Patricia Way/260 N First Street /Stated she owns the property next door and shared her concerns regarding bulk,
scale, coverage, and architectural compatibility. Ms. Way stated the proposed home would not contribute to the
character of the Railroad Historic District and would chip away at the integrity of the neighborhood. She commented
on tourism and the draw historic homes and neighborhoods have, and recommended the Commission preserve the
Railroad District character because it promotes tourism. Ms. Way stated the second story of the proposed home
should be stepped back in order to not dwarf the other homes in the neighborhood, and expressed her concern
Ashland Planning Commission
February 11, 2014
Page 3 of 8
regarding the contemporary design of the home. She stated it is not architecturally compatible with the impact area
and cited the Historic District Design Standards. She commented that the stucco siding, metal roof, sliding glass
doors, and steal cable balcony do not match the historic neighborhood, and claimed the applicant’s misinformed and
misrepresented the basis for their conditional use permit. She elaborated that the applicant’s materials included
pictures of homes they stated were within 200 ft. of their property and this is outright false information that the
Historic Commission used to base their opinion and recommendations on. She added the properties to the north,
east and south of this lot are all residential homes, and not commercial businesses as indicated in the applicant’s
materials. Ms. Way submitted a petition signed 77 people who are against this proposal and asked the Commission
to deny the applicant’s conditional use permit.
Comment was made questioning how the petition signatures were obtained and whether any of the individuals reside
on First Street. Ms. Way clarified the petition was placed at Ashland Street Printing for signatures and did not know if
any of the signees live on First Street.
Public Testimony
Colin Swales/143 Eight Street/Stated this is a unique street and noted the curbside sidewalk that was recently
installed. Mr. Swales thanked the applicant for complying with the parking standards and stated all of the other
structures on First Street have placed their parking in the front yards. He stated contemporary houses can look very
complimentary to other designs and thinks the applicant’s have done a magnificent job and encouraged the Planning
Commission’s approval.
Bryan Mikota/147 N Laurel/Stated he loves to walk around Ashland and check out the historical buildings as well as
the new construction. He stated a lot of thought is being put into these new structures and they are improving the
liveliness of the area. Mr. Mikota stated a few of the building near the Co-Op need some work, and this is one of
them. He stated this will be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood and stated he would have the same opinion if he
were a visitor.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked to comment on the appellant’s statement that misleading information was given to the Historic
Commission. Ms. Gunter stated that the applicant had said there was an addition with a metal roof; it is not metal but
since the structure will be demolished, that information didn’t influence the Historic Commission’s decision. Ms.
Gunter also clarified the applicant’s materials included photographs and it was indicated they were on the same
block. She stated there are different ways to define a block and does not believe this influenced the Historic
Commission’s decision.
Staff was asked why two Historic commissioners voted to deny approval. Ms. Gunter stated one of the
commissioners felt the proposal did not meet the compatibility standards, and the other commissioner did not
vocalize her objections during the public hearing.
Applicant’s Rebuttal
Mark Knox/Referenced the Historic District Standards and stated that design can be very subjective, but this is why
there is a seven member Historic Commission made up of architects and designers. Mr. Knox stated they have
followed the design standards and have followed the input from the Historic Commission.
Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the hearing at 8:30 pm.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Miller gave her opinion that the home should conform more to the historic residential character.
Commissioner Kaplan commented on the transitional character of this neighborhood and voiced his support for this
proposal. He added it is not his desire to redesign this structure and will leave that to the Historic Commission.
Commissioner Peddicord agreed with Kaplan. She stated a metal roof is needed for rainwater catchment and
ignoring the applicant’s desire for LEED certification would be negligent on their part. She added a stepped back
second story would be detrimental, and stated the applicant has addressed criteria and issues. Commissioner
Ashland Planning Commission
February 11, 2014
Page 4 of 8
Thompson stated the criteria for the conditional use permit and the variance request have been met, and believes
this is a reasonable request. Commissioner Brown commented on standards for new construction versus
reconstruction and gave his opinion that this design misses the boat in terms of scale and massing. He agreed that
this is a transitional block but feels a stepped back second story would better fit the streetscape. Commissioner
Dawkins disagreed and stated the home does fit the streetscape, as well as all of the criteria. Commissioner Mindlin
stated she is comfortable with many of the elements, but voiced her agreement with Commissioner Brown in term of
mass and scaling. She added ultimately though, the Historic Commission is the appropriate body to address the
design and does not believe this is the time or place to take this up.
Commissioner Dawkins/Peddicord m/s to approve PA-2013-01421 with the conditions proposed by staff. Roll
Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Kaplan, Miller, Peddicord and Mindlin, YES. Commissioners Brown and
Miller, NO. Motion passed 5-2.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING
A.PLANNING ACTION #: 2014-00052
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 87 W. Nevada St. and 811 Helman Street
APPLICANT: Wilma LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request to modify the Development Agreement for the Verde Village Subdivision for
the properties located at 87 W. Nevada Street and 811 Helman Street. The proposed modifications
include: clarifications of the project phasing to make clear which improvements are required with each
phase and to allow either phase to occur first; changes to the energy efficiency requirements of the
development so that all units will be constructed to at least Earth Advantage Gold standards and will be
“Photovoltaic Ready”; and changes to the landscaping and maintenance requirements associated with
construction of the multi-use path. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Suburban Residential and
Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-3.5, R-1-5, R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 04B TAX LOTS:
1100, 1400-1418.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Dawkins, Miller, Brown and Peddicord declared site visits; No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the site and provided an overview of the original land use application.
He explained the approved application was memorialized in a development agreement that was adopted by
ordinance by the City Council in December 2007, and encompassed the following elements:
Annexation, Land Exchange with the City, and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map changes.
Outline Plan approval to develop the property as a 68-unit residential development.
Site Review approval for multi-family development.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit to locate a multi-use path in the Ashland Creek
Riparian Preservation Area.
Exceptions to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on one side of a proposed street, to not
locate a street adjacent to natural features, and to not connect two of the proposed streets.
Variances to reduce the on-street parking requirement to 38 spaces, to reduce the rear yard setback, and to
reduce the required distance between buildings for cottages.
Administrative Variance to have the primary orientation of the buildings to the south in order to maximize
use of solar energy.
Mr. Severson explained the affordable housing development Rice Park was part of the first phase and has already
been completed, and the remainder of the first phase includes the development of a cottage community with a private
drive. The second phase of this development includes single family homes, completion of the Bear Creek Greenway
connection to Nevada Street, and sidewalk installation along Nevada to Oak Street. Mr. Severson explained the
applicant’s are here tonight requesting three modifications to their original development agreement:
Ashland Planning Commission
February 11, 2014
Page 5 of 8
Project Phasing: The applicants propose to make the project a true two phase project that would split the
infrastructure of the development in phases rather than front loading the majority of the infrastructure into
the first phase. Mr. Severson stated either phase could be built first, or they could be built simultaneously.
He noted the applicants have agreed to provide permanent facilities to serve Rice Park and the connection
to the dog park in Phase I; and the greenway connection and sidewalk on Nevada would be tied to the
Sanders Way improvements in Phase II.
Energy Efficiency: The applicants are requesting to change the energy efficiency requirements to be more
compatible with technological changes and easier to administer by going with an established program with
third party verification. Mr. Severson stated the units would have to obtain a minimum of Earth Advantage
Gold/Photovoltaic Ready certification, and these would be 15% more energy efficient than the current code
requirements and 20%-30% better than the codes that were in place when the subdivision was approved.
Multi-Use Path: The riparian corridor mitigation plantings would be reduced to install 10-foot buffer plantings
on the subdivision side plus the 10-foot path, 4 ft. of landscaping on either side of the path, and re-
vegetation of any additional areas of disturbance associated with the path installation. Mr. Severson
reviewed the cross-section illustrations for the riparian landscaping plan and clarified the applicants will be
responsible for maintaining the improvements they install for a three year period.
Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and stated staff supports a favorable recommendation to the City Council
with the recommendations outlined in the staff report.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked about strengthening the language in the development agreement regarding the multi-use path
landscaping and riparian corridor restoration to make the expectation about working with the Parks Department
clearer.
Staff was asked if Sander Way would be installed if Phase II never happens. Mr. Severson clarified Sander Way
would only serve the units built along that road, so if Phase II never occurs and those homes are not built, the
installation of Sander Way would not be vital.
Staff was asked to clarify the distinction between “Phase 1” and “Phase 2” (uppercase) and “phase one” and “phase
two” (lowercase). Mr. Severson recommended the applicants speak to this during their presentation.
Comment was made that the timetable does not reflect all of the elements identified in the development agreement
and it was questioned if this should be a concern.
Staff was asked whether there is any financial surety for this development and Mr. Severson clarified the City has
trust deeds on several of the single family lots.
Commissioners Kaplan/Miller m/s to extend meeting. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
Applicant’s Presentation
Valri Williams and Greg Williams/Explained when the original development agreement was prepared they were
very new to development and the concept of a development agreement was new to the City of Ashland. Ms. Williams
stated six years have passed since the development agreement was prepared and they have realized there are
some issues that need to be addressed. Ms. Williams explained the detailed plan for the multi-use path and riparian
area is already in place, and they intend on using this plan but whiting out the areas beyond the four foot buffer. She
stated the Parks Department does not want trees installed in the middle of the blackberry bushes and are concerned
about the maintenance cost, and noted there are trees growing there now that weren’t there at the time of the
development agreement. Ms. Williams stated their request is to evaluate the vegetation when they get ready to do
the multi-use path. Regarding the project phasing, Ms. Williams explained the use of “Phase” was used to identify the
physical location on the development, and “phase” was added to identify the first phase that is actually constructed.
She commented on the energy efficiency requirements and explained they realized during the construction of Rice
Park that the elements outlined in K-3 were very onerous. As an alternative, they would like to move to the Earth
Ashland Planning Commission
February 11, 2014
Page 6 of 8
Advantage program and require all homes to be a minimum of Earth Advantage Gold. It was noted that this is still
going to be one of the most energy efficient neighborhoods in the state.
Comment was made questioning if the applicants would be placing solar panels on some of the units. Mr. Williams
explained the units will be solar ready but they personally will not be building the homes, but rather will be selling the
lots and it will be the new owner’s decision as to whether to install the PV panel. He added all of the homes will be
passively solar heated, which is a huge benefit in itself.
Ms. Williams spoke to the timeline and explained this document was intended to be a guideline as to when key things
should be done, but does not list every action. She added the timeline is not all inclusive and the development
agreement sets the precedent.
Comment was made recommending the City’s legal department take a close look at the development agreement and
make sure the document fully reflects the applicant’s commitments.
Comment was made questioning if the applicants have placed money in escrow for the riparian corridor
improvements. Ms. Williams clarified there is a bond with the City for the riparian area and they are not allowed any
vertical construction until the path is installed, which provides a strong incentive to make sure this gets done.
Public Testimony
Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Stated this was a hugely ambitious project when it was approved and what they
saw is not ultimately what they will get. Mr. Swales stated the value of the land was greatly increased by the prior
approval, and yet there is no indication that this project will ever happen. He questioned what might happen if this
was not completed and asked if the area would be de-annexed and the land swap reversed. Mr. Swales stated the
City is in a bind but voiced his disagreement with extending the completion timeframe for this proposal. He
recommended the Commission look out for the City’s best interest and asked that the development agreement be
looked at in detail. He added it is the developer’s job to comply with the terms they originally agreed to.
Commissioners Dawkins/Kaplan m/s to extend the meeting to 10:30 pm. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked to clarify what will be provided to the City Council. Mr. Severson answered the package of materials
will include a council communication, a revised ordinance, and the exhibits associated with the changes (which will
include the Planning Commission’s recommendation.)
Staff was asked if they are comfortable with the proposed modification to the riparian area. Mr. Severson suggested
the Commission could consider strengthening this language by changing it to read, “planting of additional trees both
inside and outside the pathway corridor to be selected and placed after consultation based on recommendations from
the Parks Department staff.”
Applicant’s Rebuttal
Mr. Williams stated this property has been in his family for 100 years and it is beautiful land. He added the University
of Oregon deemed it as was one of the best places in Ashland’s to have solar homes.
Deliberations and Decision
Comment was made that serious floods can occur every 10 years and it could be a waste to install a lot of plantings
along the creek. Statement was made expressing support for the applicants to work with the Parks Department and
enhancing the area to maintain a more natural look. Comment was made that their recommendation should be clear
that the applicants must conform to what the Parks Department says.
Mr. Severson recommended the following wording: “That the revised plan (replacing Sheet R-1 from December 1,
2008) to be provided prior to pathway installation shall illustrate the proposed pathway installation and the redefined
limits of the slope stabilization and associated revegetation and shall include the planting of additional trees both
Ashland Planning Commission
February 11, 2014
Page 7 of 8
inside and outside the pathway corridor to be selected and placed based on the recommendations of Parking
Department staff as to the number, type, and placement.” The Planning Commission voiced support for this revision.
Commissioner Mindlin asked if the group had any concerns with the modification to the phasing and no issues were
raised.
Commissioner Mindlin asked if the group had any concerns with the modification to the energy efficiency standards
and no issues were raised.
Commissioners Miller/Thompson m/s to recommend Council’s approval of the project with the conditions
recommended by staff including the modified language to Condition #31, and recommend the documents be
reviewed by the Legal Department to ensure the applicants commitments are properly reflected. Roll Call
Vote: Commissioners Kaplan, Brown, Dawkins, Thompson, Miller, Peddicord, and Mindlin, YES. Motion
passed 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 11, 2014
Page 8 of 8
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
_________________________________
FINDINGS
PA-2013-01421, 270 N First St
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 11, 2013
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING ACTION #2013-01421, A )
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO EXCEED )
MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA (MPFA) IN THE RAILROAD HISTORIC )
FINDINGS,
DISTRICT AND VARIANCES TO THE REQUIRED SIDE-YARD SETBACKS )
CONCLUSIONS,
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY AT )
& ORDERS
270 FIRST STREET. THE REQUEST INCLUDES THE REMOVAL OF THE )
EXISTING RESIDENCE. )
)
APPLICANTS:
RNN PROPERTIES LLC )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This matter came before the Planning Commission as an appeal of an Administrative Decision pursuant to the
Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance, AMC 18.108.070. The application was administratively approved
on November 20, 2013. A re-consideration request was filed on November 26, 2013, and the request was denied by
the Community Development Department Director on November 27, 2013. An appeal request was timely received
on December 2, 2013 from Patricia Way, an adjacent property owner, and Patrick Harvard, a citizen.
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #1300 of Map 39 1E 09 BA is located at 270 First Street, within the Ashland Railroad
Addition historic district, and is zoned Low Density Multi-Family Residential (R-2). The property is
rectangular with an area of 2,300 square feet. The property was created prior to current zoning
regulations and is smaller than the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The property is
considered a legal, non-conforming lot.
2) The application involves demolishing the existing 524 square foot residence and outbuilding and
constructing a new, two-story 1,300 square foot residence. The proposed home requires a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) within a
Historic District by 24 percent or 252 square feet. The application includes a request to reduce
the standard six-foot side yard setbacks to three-feet on both the north and south sides. The
proposal, including the design for the new residence, is outlined on the plans on file at the
Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in Chapter 18.104.050 as follows:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use
is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are
not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact
area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When
PA #2013-01421
March 11, 2014
Page 1
evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the
impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle,
and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
4) The criteria for a Variance are described in Chapter 18.100.020 as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan of the City.
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on February 11,
2014 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission
approved the application for Conditional Use Permit to exceed Maximum Permitted Floor Area in
the Historic District and Variances to the required side yard setbacks.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
PA #2013-01421
March 11, 2014
Page 2
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Commission finds that the applicant has not proposed to remove any trees which are
regulated under the Ashland Municipal Code, AMC 18.61. The removal of trees six-inches in
diameter at breast height or less in a residential zone is outright permitted and does not require
approval or permits by the city.
2.3 The Commission finds that the proposed development of a single family home in the R-2
zoning district complies with all applicable city ordinances, with the exception of the variance to
the required side yard setbacks. The Commission finds that the proposed residence is in
conformance with relevant Comprehensive Plan policies.
The Commission finds that sufficient public utilities are in place to service the proposed
residential use, and exist on the site and within the adjacent public right-of-ways. The property is
served by a four-inch water main, a six-inch sanitary sewer main, and a twelve-inch storm drain
located in the First Street right-of-way. The Public Works/Engineering Department has
indicated that these facilities, which already serve the existing home, are adequate to serve the
new residence. The existing electrical service is a 200-amp overhead service dropped from a
nearby pole; the Electric Department has indicated that this service is adequate to serve a new
residence.
The Commission finds that First Street is classified as a residential neighborhood street. The
Commission finds that the First Street right-of-way between A and B Streets is 70 feet in width,
and that the current improvements in place including sidewalks, curb, gutters and paving along
The alley to the north of the subject parcel is also paved. The
Commission finds that the generation of traffic from the proposed home is consistent with that of
the target use of the property.
The Commission finds that proposed single family residential unit will not create any adverse
environmental impacts such as dust, odors, air quality; or any additional generation of noise,
light or glare.
The Commission finds the target use of the property is one residential unit. The Commission
finds that proposed residence will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the
impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone.
The Commission finds generation of traffic from the proposed home is consistent with that of the
target use of the zone, and less than that generated by the adjacent business uses.
The Commission finds that the proposed building is similar in scale, bulk and coverage when
compared to the target use of the zone. The proposed site development will cover approximately
55 percent of the lot area, less than the allowed 65 percent coverage.
The Commission finds that the proposed residence is architectural compatibility with the impact
PA #2013-01421
March 11, 2014
Page 3
area; more specifically the Commission finds that the proposed residence complies with the
Historic District Development Standards in the following manner. The height of 22-feet is
similar to buildings in the vicinity and is less than the allowed height of 30-feet. The
Commission finds that the scale (i.e. height, width and massing) is consistent with the relatively
tall, narrow residences found in the immediate vicinity and throughout the Railroad Historic
District. The Commission finds that the proposed single gable roof, smaller gable roof over the
front porch and shed roof over a small bay on the north side adjacent to the alley varies the
massing. The second story will be setback from the front façade by three feet with a proposed a
roof top deck. The Commission finds that second story setback and the smaller gables provide
variation in the façade, and address the Historic District Design Standards in regards to varying
the massing of the building. The Commission finds that the proposed front yard setback is
consistent with the existing setback of the adjacent buildings and in conformance with AMC
18.68.110 where the front yard for the lot need not exceed the average yard of the abutting
structures. The Commission finds that the proposed gable, 6/12 pitch roof, is similar to the
existing residence and consistent with other residences in the immediate vicinity. The
Commission finds that the metal roof is consistent with adjacent buildings in the immediate
vicinity. The Commission finds that the proposed double hung windows are consistent with the
primary window pattern in the neighborhood. The Commission finds that the proposed base with
a half-inch revel provides a well defined base which is consistent with the standards. The
Commission finds that the proposed building form which is tall and narrow with a gabled roof is
consistent with the form of the adjacent historic buildings and those found throughout the
Railroad District. The Commission further finds that the covered front porch enhances the façade
and provides definition to the location of the front door. The Commission finds that the proposed
building design is contemporary but has connection through the roof form, materials, rhythm of
openings, massing and overall design. The Commission finds that the proposed design complies
with the Historic District Development standard seeking architectural features that represent our
own time yet enhance the nature and character of the Historic District, and that the proposed
exterior material choices are found throughout the historic districts.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that Variance request to reduce the required six-foot
setbacks to three-feet complies with the Ashland Municipal Code. The Commission finds that
the 25-foot wide lot is unique and unusual. Within 200-feet of the subject property there is only
one other 25-foot wide parcel and it is directly adjacent to the south. The Commission finds that
the existing structure does not comply with setbacks and the proposed residence will be
providing an increase in setbacks on the north side and maintaining the setbacks on the south
side reducing the non-conforming setback on the north. The Commission finds that -
foot width represents unique of unusual circumstances which have not been self-imposed. The
Commission finds the benefits of the variance provide a setback from the alley where none exists
and permits the construction of a modest sized single family residence.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
proposal for Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area and Variances to the
required side yard setbacks is supported by evidence contained within the whole record.
PA #2013-01421
March 11, 2014
Page 4
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2013-01421. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2013-01421 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
here.
2) That building permit submittals shall include:
a) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with
those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit
are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an
application to modify the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and
approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
th
b) That all recommendations of the Historic Commission from their November 6, 2013
meeting, where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff
Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
c) That the transom window proposed over the second story French door facing First Street
shall be removed from the plans.
d) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar
Setback Standard B in the formula \[(Height 16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar
Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow
producing point(s) and their height(s) from the identified natural grade.
e) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and
circulation areas shall be submitted with the building permit. The lot coverage shall be
limited to no more than the 65 percent allowed in the R-2 zoning district.
f) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate
adjacent proprieties. Light fixture type and placement shall be clearly identified in the
building plan submittals.
3) That hinged patio doors shall installed on the patios, not sliding doors.
4) That if the 13-inch DBH Box Elder tree perishes within 36-months of the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy a mitigation tree of similar size and stature at maturity shall be
replanted on site as mitigation.
Planning Commission approval by Date
Melanie Midlin, Chair
PA #2013-01421
March 11, 2014
Page 5
PUBLIC HEARING
_________________________________
NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
March 11, 2014
PLANNING ACTION:
PL-2013-01858
APPLICANT:
City of Ashland
LOCATION:
Normal Neighborhood District Boundary
ZONE DESIGNATION:
Jackson County RR-5 (Rural Residential 5 acres)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
City of Ashland Single-Family and Suburban
Residential
Jackson County Rural Residential Lands
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
Chapter 18-3.13 Normal Neighborhood District
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS:
Goal 2 Land Use Planning
Goal 14 Urbanization
OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS):
Chapter 197 Comprehensive Land Use Planning
Coordination
REQUEST:
To amend the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, Transportation
System Plan, and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan
.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning, as well as Chapter 197 of the
Oregon Revised Statues requires a land use planning process and policy framework as
a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land. Specifically, plans and
implementation measures such as ordinances controlling the use and construction are
permitted as measures for carrying out Comprehensive Plans.
Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 14, Urbanization, directs communities to plan for
the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate
urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure
efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. The existing
Comprehensive Plan designation for the Normal Neighborhood Plan area was
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 12
established in 1981. hanges in
the Citypopulation demographics, land availability, housing supply and type, and
water resource protection standards over the decades warrant a re-evaluation of the
areas 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
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 final draft plan
concluded the TGM funded portion of the project in September 2013.
The neighborhood planning process has involved considerable public involvement
including a resident survey, two neighborhood meetings, three public open houses,
two Planning Commission site visits, individual stakeholder meetings with property
owners and nearby residents, and numerous Planning Commission, Transportation
Commission, Housing Commission and City Council study sessions. The design
phase of the planning process was initiated in October 2012 with a three day public
design charrette, or workshop. The charrette allowed for the identification of issues
and concerns, development of goals and objectives for the master plan, and creation
of a conceptual neighborhood design. Following the October 2012 charrette, plan
options were developed and presented at study sessions and public open houses to
obtain public input to assist the design team, city staff, and the Planning Commission
to further refine the plan concept. The final Normal Neighborhood Plan, and draft
implementing ordinances, were completed in February 2014 and initially presented to
th
the Planning Commission at a study session on February 25, 2014.
The issues and opportunities identified during the first public workshop and key
participants meetings were used to create the project goals and objectives as listed
below:
Maximize land use efficiency by concentrating housing in a strategically
located area within the City Urban Growth Boundary.
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 12
Create a development pattern of blocks and streets that supports a balanced,
multi-modal transportation system that offers a full range of choices to its
occupants and that supports active transportation opportunities like walking,
bicycling or using transit in those areas planned for transit service;
Provide a range of housing choices and a variety of open space, public space,
and green infrastructure improvements, in a way that preserves and enhances
Design a local street grid for the Project Area including connections to existing
and planned street, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities beyond the project area that
overcome the challenges to connectivity and better integrate the area into the
Ashland transportation system;
Provide for pedestrian and bicycle routes and facility improvements within the
plan area that will provide safe access to local schools, activities,
neighborhoods, and destinations;
Apply those principles of low impact development to minimize the extent and
initial cost of new infrastructure and to promote the benefits of stormwater
management;
Provide developable alternatives at planned densities that will eliminate the
need for expansion of the urban growth boundary; and
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by implementing transportation and land use
plans that encourage reductions in vehicle miles traveled.
Background Studies
To inform the neighborhood planning process a number of studies were completed
and previously presented to the Planning Commission in support of this project
including:
A Buildable Lands Inventory
(approved November 15, 2011- ordinance #3055)
provided a basis for evaluation of the amount of available land within the City
Limits and Urban Growth Boundary.
A Housing Needs Analysis,
(approved September 3, 2013 - ordinance #3085)
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.
Infrastructure Framework
o
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 12
Sustainability Framework
o
Mobility Framework
o
Greenway and Open space Framework
o
Housing and Land Use Framework
o
The traffic engineering firm SCJ Alliance completed an Existing Traffic
Conditions technical memorandum (dated September 12, 2012) , and a
Future Traffic Analysis (dated November 19, 2013) to investigate current and
future traffic conditions in the Normal Neighborhood Plan study area.
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The Normal Neighborhood Plan District is situated between East Main Street to the
north and the railroad tracks to the south, Clay Street to the east and the Ashland
Middle School to the west. Currently, the 94 acre area has a mix of Comprehensive
Plan designations including single family residential and suburban residential, and is
presently outside the City of Ashland (City) city limits but within the City Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB).
This area constitutes the largest remaining area of residentially designated land that is
suitable for medium- to high-density development which remains largely vacant or
redevelopable. The plan area contains 35 properties ranging in size between 0.38
acres up to 9.96 acres. There are 26 property owners within the plan area with a
number owning multiple parcels. Residential development in the plan area has
historically been low density large lot single family homes consistent with Jackson
sidential zoning standards.
The Normal Neighborhood Plan District includes significant natural features
including Cemetery Creek, Clay Creek, and three designated wetlands (W9,W12,
W4) that are included on the City of Ashland 2007 Local Wetland Inventory (LWI).
The local wetland inventory was approved by the Department of State Lands (DSL)
which means the LWI is part of the Statewide Wetland Inventory. The mapped
wetland boundaries are estimated boundaries, they have not been surveyed, and there
are inherent limitations in mapping accuracy as hydrology conditions change over
time. The City of Ashland will require applicants for annexation with potential
wetlands on their property to obtain a wetland delineation by a qualified consultant
and submit it to DSL and the City prior to development.
The Normal Neighborhood Plan is comprised of Normal Neighborhood Plan
Framework document, official Normal Neighborhood Plan maps, and the proposed
Normal Neighborhood District land use ordinance amendments (Ch. 18-3.13).
Collectively these documents provide the underlying conceptual and regulatory
structure fodevelopment. Development of this area is expected to
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 12
occur in an incremental way, as individual parcels propose annexation for specific
housing developments. An adopted neighborhood plan allows individual
development proposals to better coordinate the provision of streets, pedestrian
connections, utilities, storm water management, and open space. Such an approach
can ultimately help reduce development costs through appropriate sizing of needed
facilities, provision of easements, and secured street access. Additionally a
significant benefit of an adopted plan is a clear expectation and understanding
regarding the level of development anticipated by both developers and neighboring
residents. In this way the development and annexation process for all properties with
the plan area is streamlined while ensuring the City can accommodate its future
growth in a systematic and efficient manner.
The proposal involves Comprehensive Plan Map amendments, Transportation System
Plan amendments, as well as amendments to the proposed Ashland Unified Land Use
Ordinance (ULUO. The proposed implementation plan includes:
Adopting the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework document as a
supporting document
Adoption of official Normal Neighborhood Plan maps:
Land Use Designations Map (NN-01, NN-02, NN-03, NN-03C)
o
Street Network
o
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network
o
Street network: Green Streets
o
Open Space Network
o
Amending the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map to create a designation for
the Normal Neighborhood Plan District, and revised boundaries for the
Conservation Areas within the plan area.
Amending the Transportation System Plan (TSP) as follows:
Amend the Street Dedication Map (TSP Figure 10-1) to incorporate
o
the plan area proposed Street Network, and reclassification of
to be a Neighborhood Collector.
Amend the Planned Intersection and Roadway Improvement Map
o
(TSP Figure 10-3) to include East Main Street as a Planned Roadway
Project.
Amend the Planned Bikeway Network Map to incorporate the planned
o
multiuse trails within the Normal Neighborhood Plan.
Amend the Street Standards to incorporate Shared Streets.
The draft Unified Land Use Ordinance will be revised through a separate
legislative planning action to include a new Chapter 18-3.13 Normal
Neighborhood District, to guide and direct both public and private
improvements. Additionally, multiple section of Chapter 18 will be amended
to provide reference to, and consistency with, the proposed Chapter 18-3.13
Normal Neighborhood District.
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 5 of 12
II. Project Impact
A. Approval Process and Noticing
The proposal involves Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan
amendments, as well as additions and revisions to the Ashland Unified Land Use
Ordinance (ULUO) necessary to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan. The
Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the package of amendments, and
the City Council makes the final decision.
Approximately 200 written notices (postcards) were mailed to property owners in and
surrounding the Normal Neighborhood District boundary regarding the Planning
th
Commission public hearing (March 11, 2014) and City Council public hearing (May
th
6, 2014). A notice was published in the newspaper and a meeting announcement
was emailed to residents and workshop/open house participants that provided their
email addresses to the City. Meeting announcements and plan materials are posted on
the project web page www.ashland.or.us/normalplan
B. Proposal Impact
The Planned Housing Types and Land Use Designations
The proposed Normal Neighborhood District will contain four residential zones, NN-
01, NN-2, NN-03, and NN-O3-C. The use regulations and development standards set
forth in the proposed land use ordinance (Ch. 18-3.13) for these zones are intended to
provide a significant degree of flexibility as to the form and character of individual
developments. Affordable housing with the plan area would be provided by future
development as a condition of annexation consistent with current requirements. The
Normal Neighborhood Land Use Zones map establishes the proposed designations for
the properties within the district.
NN-01:
The Land Use designation NN-01 is intended to provide single family dwellings,
accessory residential units, and cottage housing with a base density of 5 units per
housing type is to be consistent with the standards proposed in
the Unified Land Use Ordinance as proposed under a separate legislative planning
action.
NN-02
The NN-02 designation provides housing opportunities for individual households
through development of a mix of single-dwelling housing, duplexes, townhomes,
accessory residential units, and pedestrian oriented clustered housing with a base
density of 10 units per acre. Clustered housin
where
multiple compact detached or attached dwellings are grouped around common
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 6 of 12
open space. Through the consolidation of common open space and or parking
cluster housing developments can often achieve a housing density comparable to
attached row houses or low-rise apartments, yet with a lower profile retaining the
appearance of traditional single-family homes.
NN-03
The NN-03 land use designation is intended to
through development of multi-dwelling housing with a base density of 15 units
per acre.
NN-03-C
The NN-03-C zone is a residential designation consistent with NN-03, however it
would additionally allow for limited neighborhood serving commercial uses such
as a coffee shop on the ground floor.
Greenway and Open Space
establish
Map. As proposed these areas are to include
designated floodplain boundaries, wetlands identified in the 2007 Local Wetland
Inventory, and wetland and riparian buffer areas identified in the Water Resource
Protection Zone ordinance. Precluding development in these areas will reduce or
prevent the detrimental effects of flood waters, support native vegetation, provide
habitat and a travel corridors for wildlife, and promote environmental quality by
absorbing, storing, and releasing storm water. The Open Space Network Map shows
the areas intended to be preserved as natural areas or open space within the district
which absent of any environmental constraints would additionally provide
recreational amenities to the districts residents.
Streams and wetlands will be maintained as amenities with access to area residents
due to the carefully considered transportation network that ensures that these areas are
not hidden in back yards. Accommodation of the pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile
circulation along the edges of the riparian zones and designated wetlands provides
visual and physical access and increases the buffer zones between pockets of
development enhancing the character of openness within the plan area.
Transportation
The Normal Neighborhood Plan includes a transportation framework that would be
implemented by the proposed amendments to the Transportation System Plan (TSP)
and Normal Neighborhood District Standards as . The transportation framework
includes a street network, a pedestrian and bicycle framework, and a green street
framework. The general location of future roads and paths is addressed by the
Normal Neighborhood Plan Street Network Map, although design and engineering at
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 7 of 12
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
Map in the
Normal Neighborhood District area.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Network map includes facilities incorporated into the
streets, as well as off-road multi-use paths including the establishment of two paths
crossings Cemetery Creek, paths or shared streets along the west side of Cemetery
Creek, a path connecting the terminus of the existing Normal Avenue to East main
Street, and a connection from the plan area to the eastern boundary of the Ashland
Middle School property. The proposed multi-
Planned Bikeway Network Map in the Normal Neighborhood District area.
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 ibut rather a
Neighborhood Collector designation would suffice. Neighborhood Collectors are
expected to accommodate 1500 to 5000 vehicle trips per day and as such this lesser
classification would adequately accommodate expected use.
The Normal Neighborhood plan also introduces a street type that was recently
included in the Transportation System Plan: the . 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 use of rear lane alleys helps to reduce the extent of paved areas, and will support
a complete grid of finely-grained urban blocks. These alleys will provide the primary
access to garages and backyards. The specific alley locations within the designated
blocks is left to future development site design considerations, subject to the
maximum block length and parking access standards. As such those potential alley
locations most subject to adjustment are not included in the Street Network map but it
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 8 of 12
is expected that future development will provide alleys to meet access management
and connectivity standards.
The Future Traffic Analysis report by SCJ Alliance found that all existing
intersections in vicinity of the project are expected to continue to function within
operational standards in the year 2038 at full build out of the neighborhood plan area.
The report recommended that East Main Street should be improved to comply with
existing City standards at which point that the improved Avenue could accommodate
vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic, and that each of the proposed street
intersections with East Main Street would function within applicable operational
standards.
Plan Amendments
A minor and major amendment process is included in the proposed Chapter 18-3.13
Normal Neighborhood District, which will be the land use ordinance chapter
governing the future development of properties within the plan area. The proposed
amendment process provides flexibility to address unforeseen changes in conditions
such as shifts in demand for types of uses, and physical or natural constraint
challenges in individual developments.
Major amendments provide for a change in a land use overlay, modification
of the street layout plan or other transportation facility, reduction or
elimination of designated Conservation Areas, a change in the applicable
standards, and any other changes not listed.
Minor amendments include shifting the location of streets, alleys or paths
more than 50 feet, adjustments to the boundaries of designated Conservation
Areas, and changes in dimensional standard requirements not including
building height and residential density.
C. Discussion Items
The attached Normal Neighborhood Plan maps, Framework Document, and draft land
use ordinance (18-3.13), have been revised to include items the Planning
Commission has discussed over the past several months. A summary of the
highlights of the latest revisions as follows.
Designation of open space lands as protected conservation areas.
Provisions allowing the transfer of housing density out of the water resource
protection zones.
Establishment of a minor amendment process to allow final open space
locations to be moved to correlate with natural features (future wetland
locations and boundaries), and a major amendment process if a proposal
would reduce the contiguous acreage of conservation area/open space as
represented in the plan.
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 9 of 12
Flexibility to allow shared streets to alternatively be developed as alleys or
multiuse paths where appropriate adjacent to water protection zones.
Inclusion of mandatory standards relating to storm water management.
Alignment of streets and zoning to correlate with existing property lines.
A change in the street designation of the previously proposed alley in the
North west portion of the plan area (Wetland 12) to be a shared Street,
thereby allowing the potential to be alternatively developed as a multiuse path
if necessary to preserve wetlands or open space.
Clarification to the description of Pedestrian Oriented Cluster Housing within
the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework document.
III. Procedural Required Burden of Proof
18.108.060 Standards for Type III Planning Actions:
1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes subject to the
Type III procedure as described in subsection A of this section may be approved if in
compliance with the comprehensive plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of
the following:
a. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing,
supported by the Comprehensive Plan; or
b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan
designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances;
or
c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; or
d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning
district to another zoning district, will provide 25% of the proposed base density as
affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in 18.106.030(G);or
e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment
or industrial zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City of
Ashlands commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan,
and will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with
the approval standards set forth in 18.106.030(G).
The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be determined by
rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar
legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period
of not less than 60 years. Sections D and E do not apply to council initiated actions.
18.108.170 Legislative Amendments
A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make
other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 10 of 12
changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within
the authority of the Council.
B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application
of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the
proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days
after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed
amendment.
C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning
Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first
considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee.
D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public
hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold
a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief
description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation
in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing.
E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered
by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such
request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission,
new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
The planning process which resulted in the Normal neighborhood Plan involved a wide
variety of participants including the general public, property owners and neighboring
residents. Staff believes the revisions that have been made in the development of the
implementation package over the last 15 months have refined and improved the
neighborhood plan, and are largely consistent with the original plan goals and objectives.
Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map amendments, adoption of
the official Normal Neighborhood Plan Maps, and adoption of the Normal Neighborhood
Plan Framework as a technical supporting document of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends the Transportation System Plan be amended to incorporate the Normal
Neighborhood Street network as proposed. The Transportation Commission
recommended that the proposed Neighborhood Collector be the sole vehicular connection
to East Main Street, thereby recommending elimination of two of the three intersections
as proposed in the draft plan.
The proposed Normal Neighborhood District Land Use ordinance will be reviewed as
part of the broader Unified Land Use Ordinance amendment process. However, given
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 11 of 12
the interrelated nature of the Normal Neighborhood Plan elements, the Planning
hearing. Staff recommends approval of the Normal Neighborhood District Land Use
ordinance.
Attachments
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework Document (March 2014)
Normal Neighborhood Plan maps:
Comprehensive Plan Map amendment
o
Land Use Zones
o
Street Network
o
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network
o
Street network: Green Streets
o
Open Space Network
o
Normal Neighborhood District Chapter 18 Code Amendments (draft dated 3/11/14)
Letters:
Open City Hall public comments as of 3/5/14
o
Hunter letter dated 2/25/14
o
o
Public letters submitted relating to prior iterations of the draft plan are not physically attached to
this Staff Report, however they remain available online at www.ashland.or.us/normalplan
including the following electronically linked letters:
DeMarinis letter and exhibit (10/31/2013)
DeMarinis letter and exhibits (10/8/13)
Meadowbrook Home Owners (Anderson) letter and exhibits (10/8/13)
Ashland Meadows (Skuratowicz) letter (10/8/13)
Koopman letter and exhibits (10/8/13)
Lutz letter (9/26/2013)
Vidmar letter (7/29/13)
Carse letter (6/27/13)
Gracepoint letter (6/12/13)
Vidmar letter (4/26/13)
Shore letter (4/10/13)
Marshall letter (4/10/13)
Horn letter (3/05/13)
Filson letter (2/25/13)
Vidmar letter (2/25/203)
Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report bg
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 12 of 12
Nbsdi!3125
Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!Qmbo
Gsbnfxpsl!Epdvnfou
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
| Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland Consulting | Nevue Ngan
Bdlopxmfehfnfout
Transportation. This project is funded in part, by federal
Laurence Qamar
Growth Management (TGM) Program, a joint program
John McDonald
Jason Franklin, Derek Chisholm, Anne
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users ( ), local government,
Ben Ngan, Olena Turula, Jason Hirst
The contents of this document do not necessarily
and Development and the Oregon Department of
of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation
This project is funded by the Transportation and
Brandon Goldman, Bill Molnar
Joseph Readdy
Brian Vanneman
Usbotqpsubujpo!boe!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
Rbnbs!Bsdijufduvsf!'!Upxo!Qmboojoh!!!!!
Psfhpo!Efqbsunfou!pg!Usbotqpsubujpo
Marcy McInelly
Kptfqi!Sfbeez!Bsdijufdu-!Jod!!!!!
and State of Oregon funds.
Mfmboe!Dpotvmujoh!Hspvq!!!!!
Djuz!pg!Btimboe!
Ofwvf!Ohbo!!!!!
Djuz!pg!Btimboe
Vsctxpslt-!Jod
Qspkfdu!Ufbn
Qbsbnfusjy
Sylvester
\]
II
III
Nbsdi!3125!}!Usbotqpsubujpo!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
3:3:3:
3:41
!
VSF
!
!
Z
FS
JU
!
DU
BUFS
X
M
J
TBOJUBSZ!TF
C
SV
UBJOB
!
NX
U
!
T
XBUFS
TUPS
B
GS
VT
O
6/!JT
7/!
Ubcmf!pg!Dpoufout
234567::232627282829
262326
J\[F!TPMBS!
!
IBSSFUUF
N
!UP!NBYJ
!
!
T
!
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
!
!QPJOU
QT
D
!
T
PSUVOJUJF
E
JU!TUP
!BO
!
F
TT
TQBD
E
DDF
!
T
!
!
BDLHSPVO
ET
SBO
TF
!
!
!
B
PSUBUJPO
BSMBZ!TUSFFU!
Q
V
!
O
E!
U
!
!
Q
!
T
!F
E
E
P
T
JUJPOFOU!
PQ
!
FOU!TUBO
!
MBO JU!TFSWJDF!BO
CKFDUJWF
!
T!
E!
!
O!
PSLPSL
!
!
!
!
C
!
U!QMBO!
E!
T
T
BCJMJUZ
ETQ
N
SFB
F BO
!
P
PO
Q
DUJ MJHO
SJFOUBUJPO
BO X
X!
Z!
SBO
!
Z
D
F!
FU
T
U
B
!
D
H!JOH!
BUVSBM!
P
QN
UJOH!
E
F
QSPKFDU!
N
B
Z
VT
OB
SPEV
U
NBJO!BO
GJWF!GSBTUSFFU!TUSFFU!
QDUJWF!
JU
E
EFWFMP
X
JO
PODF
!
T
PS
M
T
O
E
J SBO
3/!IPVT
PV
T
SFF
BGG
BO
YJ
5/!NPC
OU
FDMIOBPU
2/!JH
4/!
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
35363738393:
!
fjhicpsippe!Tusffu!xjui!Ejbhpobm!Qbsljoh
| Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland Consulting | Nevue Ngan
!
!
fjhicpsippe!Tusffu!xjui!Nfejbo
ogsbtusvduvsf!0!Tupsnxbufs!Ejbhsbn
!
!
tf!Qbui
zqf;!Tibsfe!Tusffu
!
bof
V
M
zqf;!Nvmuj.
fbs!
jhvsft
S
OOzqf;!
zqf;!zqf;!
J
ibssfuuf!
U
G
Tusffu!
UUUU
jtu!pg!
Tusffu!Tusffu!Tusffu!Tusffu!
D
M
3456789:21212222232527282:31323334
!
of.Tjefe!Qbsljoh
!
of.Tjefe!Qbsljoh!bu!Xfumboe
!
xp.Tjefe!Qbsljoh
!
xp.Tjefe!Qbsljoh
!
.14*
P
fjhicpsippe!Rvfvjoh!Tusffu!xjui!
OO
ybnqmf!Nvmujqmf.Exfmmjoh!Efwfmpqnfou!)
!
U
fjhicpsippe!Tusffu!xjui!
sffo
!
jfx
H
!
foufs!
W
P
gufs!
U
wfovf!xjui!
wfovf!xjui!
jfx
!
!
spttjoh
qfo!Tqbdf!Ejbhsbn
W
gufs!
B
!
fgpsf!boe!
!!!
D
ibssfuuf!Npcjmjuz!Tlfudift
spvoe!b!
.12.13.14
!
mmvtusbujwf!Qmbo
B
fgpsf!boe!D
OOOOOO
zqf!Tusfbncfe!
!
Xfumboet!boe!Tusfbnt
!
mmpxfe!Xjuijo!mmpxfe!Xjuijo!mmpxfe!Xjuijo!
fuxpslB
B
psnbm!
psnbm!
!
sfb
B
C
mvtufs!Exfmmjoh!
btu!Nbjo!Tusffu!
!
poft
B
Djuz!pg!Btimboe!
Qspkfdu!Tuvez!
O
O
zqf;!!
OO
qfo!Tqbdf!
C
O
zqf;!zqf;!
sffl!Esjwf!
zqf;!
!
JP
\[
Tusffu!Nbq
ibssfuuf!ibssfuuf!
tf!
bcmf
UUU
Tusffu!UUTusffu!Tusffu!
V
BBBTusffuTusffu
boe!
HVSFT
tft!tft!tft!
U
tf!
DMDFDFVVVVDPD
GJ
\]
IV
1
\[
Bqqmz!uiptf!qsjodjqmft!pg!mpx!jnqbdu!efwfmpqnfou!up!njojnj{f!uif!fyufou!boe!jojujbm!dptu!pg!ofx!jogsbtusvduvsf!
nblft!ju!qpttjcmf!up!cvjme!vqpo!uif!bcvoebodf!pg!obuvsbm!gfbuvsft!tusfbnt-!xfumboet-!boe!usfft!uibu!tvqqpsu!uif!
Nbsdi!3125!}!Usbotqpsubujpo!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
bddpnnpebuf!bo!fyufotjwf!sbohf!pg!ipvtjoh!uzqft!gps!gbnjmjft!pg!bmm!tj{ft!boe!jodpnft/!Dpnqbdu!vscbo!gpsn!bmtp!
Eftjho!b!mpdbm!tusffu!hsje!gps!uif!Qspkfdu!Bsfb!jodmvejoh!dpoofdujpot!up!fyjtujoh!boe!qmboofe!tusffu-!qfeftusjbo-!
Qspwjef!gps!qfeftusjbo!boe!cjdzdmf!spvuft!boe!gbdjmjuz!jnqspwfnfout!xjuijo!uif!qmbo!bsfb!uibu!xjmm!qspwjef!tbgf!
boe!cjdzdmf!gbdjmjujft!cfzpoe!uif!qspkfdu!bsfb!uibu!pwfsdpnf!uif!dibmmfohft!up!dpoofdujwjuz!boe!cfuufs!joufhsbuf!
dibsbdufs!pg!uijt!vojrvf!qmbdf/!Cz!dsfbujoh!b!tztufn!pg!hsffoxbzt!boe!qspufdujoh!boe!foibodjoh!fyjtujoh!obuvsbm!
Qspwjef!efwfmpqbcmf!bmufsobujwft!bu!qmboofe!efotjujft!uibu!xjmm!fmjnjobuf!uif!offe!gps!fyqbotjpo!pg!uif!vscbo!
gfbuvsft!uif!qmbo!boujdjqbuft!b!qmbdf!uibu!xfmdpnft!obuvsf!jo/!Eftqjuf!uif!dibmmfohft!up!dpoofdujwjuz!qptfe!cz!
Dsfbuf!b!efwfmpqnfou!qbuufso!pg!cmpdlt!boe!tusffut!uibu!tvqqpsut!b!cbmbodfe-!nvmuj.npebm!usbotqpsubujpo!
Qspwjef!b!sbohf!pg!ipvtjoh!dipjdft!boe!b!wbsjfuz!pg!pqfo!tqbdf-!qvcmjd!tqbdf-!boe!hsffo!jogsbtusvduvsf!
Sfevdf!hsffoipvtf!hbt!fnjttjpot!cz!jnqmfnfoujoh!usbotqpsubujpo!boe!mboe!vtf!qmbot!uibu!fodpvsbhf!
jnqspwfnfout-!jo!b!xbz!uibu!qsftfswft!boe!foibodft!uif!bsfbt!dsfflt!boe!xfumboet<
mjlf!xbmljoh-!cjdzdmjoh!ps!vtjoh!usbotju!jo!uiptf!bsfbt!qmboofe!gps!usbotju!tfswjdf<
bddftt!up!mpdbm!tdippmt-!bdujwjujft-!ofjhicpsippet-!boe!eftujobujpot<!
uif!bsfb!joup!uif!Btimboe!usbotqpsubujpo!tztufn<
sfevdujpot!jo!wfijdmf!njmft!usbwfmfe/!
efwfmpqnfou!pg!uijt!qmbo/
hspxui!cpvoebsz<!boe
ckfdujwft
OUSPEVDUJPO
Hspxui!Cpvoebsz/!
Jouspevdujpo
pg!bmm!bhft/!
P
Qspkfdu!
!!!!!!!!
J¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
Dmbz!Tusffu
| Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland Consulting | Nevue Ngan
Opsnbm!Bwfovf
Btimboe!Njeemf!Tdippm
Djuz!pg!Btimboe!
Nbsdi!3125!}!Usbotqpsubujpo!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
Dmbz!Tusffu
Dmbz!Dsffl
Xfumboe!X5
Dfnfufsz!Dsffl
Xfumboe!X23
Opsnbm!Bwfovf
Xfumboe!X:
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
| Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland Consulting | Nevue Ngan
mmvtusbujwf!Qmbo
J
ibssfuuf!
D
Jouspevdujpo
qvcmjd!b!dpodsfuf!qbui!gps!fohbhjoh!xjui!uif!qmbo-!boe!hvjef!uif!efwfmpqnfou!pg!uif!
dpodfqu!qmbo!jogpsnfe!uif!vmujnbuf!Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!Qmbo-!dpnnvojuz!joqvu!
gps!dpnnvojuz!ejtdvttjpo!bu!bo!joufotjwf!nvmuj.ebz!qmboojoh!qspdftt!jo!Btimboe/!
tfqbsbuf!dpodfquvbm!gsbnfxpslt!joufoefe!up!hvjef!bobmztjt!boe!jowftujhbujpo!pg!
dpodmvefe!xjui!b!qvcmjd!qsftfoubujpo!pg!b!ofx!esbgu!jmmvtusbujwf!qmbo!gps!gvuvsf!
Evsjoh!uif!gpvs.ebz!eftjho!dibssfuuf!uif!eftjho!ufbn!dpmmbcpsbufe!xjui!Djuz!
Hsffoxbz!boe!Pqfo!Tqbdf
Ipvtjoh!boe!Mboe!Vtf
sbnfxpslt
Djuz!pg!Btimboe!
Jogsbtusvduvsf
Tvtubjobcjmjuz
Npcjmjuz
G
jwf!
qmbo/!
!!!!!
G¸¸¸¸¸
\]
4
5
\[
qbuit!boe!usbjmt-!xjui!opeft!pg!bddftt!boe!dpoofdujpo!up!uif!obuvsbm!
Nbsdi!3125!}!Usbotqpsubujpo!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!Qmbo!jt!b!cmvfqsjou!gps!qspnpujoh!b!wbsjfuz!
Ipvtjoh!nblft!tfotf!gps!uif!Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!!
bt!upxoipnft-!nvmuj.exfmmjoh!sftjefoujbm-!bqbsunfout-!qfeftusjbo.
xjmm!cf!dibsbdufsj{fe!cz!b!dpoofdufe!ofuxpsl!pg!tusffut!boe!mboft-!
ofuxpsl!xjmm!bmtp!dpoofdu!up!uif!mbshfs!ofuxpsl!pg!sfhjpobm!usbjmt-!
fnqmpznfou!jodmvejoh!epxoupxo/!Ipvtjoh!jt!tvqqpsufe!cz!uif!
pg!ipvtjoh!uzqft!xijmf!qsftfswjoh!pqfo!tqbdft-!tusfbn!dpssjepst-!
sbohf!pg!ipvtjoh!jodmvejoh!tjohmf.gbnjmz-!buubdife!ipvtjoh!tvdi!
ipvtjoh!bt!b!mboe!vtf!nblft!tfotf!gspn!cpui!qpmjdz!boe!nbslfu!
Btimboe!sfnbjot!b!wfsz!qpqvmbs!dipjdf!gps!gbnjmjft!boe!sfujsfft/!
uif!djuz!bsf!fyqfdufe!up!dpoujovf!up!hspx!jo!uif!efdbeft!bifbe/!
cfdbvtf!cpui!uif!qpqvmbujpo!boe!uif!ovncfs!pg!ipvtfipmet!jo!
tjuft!dpnqsfifotjwf!qmbo!eftjhobujpot!boe!cbtf!{pojoh/!Xijmf!
qbuit-!boe!tusffut!cfzpoe!uif!cpvoebsjft!pg!uif!ofjhicpsippe/xjui!tdippmt-!sfubjm!boe!dpnnfsdjbm!foufsqsjtft-!boe!qbslt!boe!
qfstqfdujwft-!ju!tipvme!cf!qmboofe!gps!boe!efwfmpqfe!xjui!bo!
!VTF
BOE
!M
BOE
!
Land Uses
JOH
Housing
T
PV
I
tf
V
boe!
M
pvtjoh!boe!
I
Asland Normal Neighborhood Plan
jpsebop
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
Creek Drive
H
pn!
U
mmvtusbujpo!cz!
J
| Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland Consulting | Nevue Ngan | Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland
Consulting | Nevue Ngan
Normal Plan Visualizations
tf
V
boe!
M
pvtjoh!boe!
I
jnbhf!boe!dibsbdufs!pg!uif!tjohmf.exfmmjoh!ofjhicpsippe/!\[pof!OO.14!jt!joufoefe!
joufoefe!up!dsfbuf-!nbjoubjo!boe!qspnpuf!tjohmf.exfmmjoh!ofjhicpsippe!dibsbdufs/!
B!nbslfu!bobmztjt!pg!uif!qmbo!bsfb!tipxt!uibu!ju!jt!b!xfbl!
up!qsftfswf!mboe!boe!pqfo!tqbdf!boe!qspwjef!ipvtjoh!pqqpsuvojujft!gps!joejwjevbm!
tupsf-!jt!qpttjcmf/!!Tvdi!ofjhicpsippe!tfswjoh!cvtjofttft!xpvme!cf!mpdbufe!xjuijo!
cf!nfu!jo!npsf!dfousbm!mpdbujpot!boe!ofbs!fyjtujoh!fnqmpznfou!ivct!tvdi!bt!uif!
pqfo!tqbdf!sfdsfbujpobm!pqqpsuvojujft!gps!joejwjevbm!ipvtfipmet!uispvhipvu!uif!
bqqspyjnbufmz!611!exfmmjoh!vojut!boe!bspvoe!pof.uipvtboe!sftjefout-!tp!tnbmm!
qspwjef!ipvtjoh!pqqpsuvojujft!gps!joejwjevbm!ipvtfipmet!uispvhi!efwfmpqnfou!
joufoefe!up!qspufdu!fowjsponfoubmmz!tfotjujwf!xbufs!sftpvsdf!mboet!boe!qspwjef!
boe!efwfmpqnfou!tuboebset!bsf!joufoefe!up!dsfbuf!boe!nbjoubjo!ijhifs!efotjuz!
Efwfmpqnfou!Qmbo!xjmm!qsftfswf!ofjhicpsippe!dibsbdufs!cz!qspwjejoh!uisff!
epxoupxo-!Tpvuifso!Psfhpo!Vojwfstjuz-!boe!uif!Dspnbo!Njmm!Ejtusjdu/!
Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!!Efwfmpqnfou!Qmbo!bsfb/!
uif!mjnjufe!dpnnfsdjbm!pwfsmbz!bsfb/
Commercial | Retail
Djuz!pg!Btimboe!Djuz!pg!Btimboe!
pvtjoh!Uzqft
I
\]
6
7
\[
Bo!Bddfttpsz!Sftjefoujbm!Voju!jt!b!tnbmm!mjwjoh!
efubdife!ps!buubdife!up!uif!exfmmjoh!tusvduvsf/!Tjohmf!Exfmmjoh!Sftjefoujbm!Vojut!Sftjefoujbm!vojut!nbz!cf!bssbohfe!tjef.cz.tjef-!mjlf!spxipvtft-!fbdi!xjui!jut!pxo!
tqbdf!jo!uif!gpsn!pg!tjef!zbset!boe!cbdlzbset-!boe!tfu!cbdl!gspn!uif!qvcmjd!tusffu!
mjwjoh!gbdjmjujft!po!pof!mpu/!Ju!jt!tfqbsbufe!gspn!bekbdfou!exfmmjoht!cz!qsjwbuf!pqfo!b!sftjefoujbm!cvjmejoh!uibu!dpoubjot!uxp!exfmmjoht-!fbdi!xjui!tfmg.dpoubjofe!mjwjoh!gbdjmjujft/!Jo!bqqfbsbodf-!if
jhiu-!nbttjoh!boe!mpu!qmbdfnfou!uif!Epvcmf!Exfmmjoh!
!!B!Epvcmf!Exfmmjoh!Sftjefoujbm!Voju!jt!
Nbsdi!3125!}!Usbotqpsubujpo!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
Sftjefoujbm!Vojut!nbz!cf!mpdbufe!xjuijo!uif!tjohmf.gbnjmz!sftjefoujbm!tusvduvsf!ps!
B!Tjohmf!Exfmmjoh!Sftjefoujbm!Voju!jt!b!cf!tpme!bt!dpoepnjojvnt!ps!sfoufe!bt!bqbsunfout/!Epvcmf!Exfmmjoh!Sftjefoujbm!
jo!b!tfqbsbuf!tusvduvsf/!Bddfttpsz!Sftjefoujbm!Vojut!xjmm!cf!qfsnjuufe!jo!uif!OO.
efubdife!sftjefoujbm!cvjmejoh!uibu!dpoubjot!b!tjohmf!exfmmjoh!xjui!tfmg.dpoubjofe!
exfmmjoht!bsf!hspvqfe!bspvoe!dpnnpo!pqfo!tqbdf!boe!bsf!tfqbsbufe!gspn!pof!
bopuifs!cz!tjef!zbset!up!qspwjef!qsjwbdz!boe!tjohmf!gbnjmz!ipnf.uzqf!tdbmf!boe!
Epvcmf!Exfmmjoh!Sftjefoujbm!Voju!jt!tvckfdu!up!bmm!pg!uif!tbnf!tfucbdlt-!ifjhiu!
ps!dpnnpo!hsffo!cz!b!gspou!zbse/!Bvup!qbsljoh!jt!qspwjefe!jo!fjuifs!b!hbsbhf!
Vojut!xjmm!cf!qfsnjuufe!jo!uif!OO.12-!OO.13!boe!OO.14!{pojoh!ejtusjdut/
boe!qbsljoh!sfrvjsfnfout!bt!tjohmf!exfmmjoht!jo!uif!tvsspvoejoh!cbtf!{pof/!
Qfeftusjbo.Psjfoufe!Dmvtufsfe!Sftjefoujbm!Vojut!xifsf!nvmujqmf!dpnqbdu!
dibsbdufs/!Cvjmejoh!uzqft!jo!uif!Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!!xjmm!jodmvef;
xjmm!cf!qfsnjuufe!jo!uif!OO.12!ps!OO.13!{pojoh!ejtusjdut/
Single Dwelling Residential Units
12-!OO.13!boe!OO.14!{pojoh!ejtusjdut/
Double Dwelling Residential Units
Accessory Residential Units
tf
jpsebop
East Main Street
V
boe!
H
pn!
U
mmvtusbujpo!cz!
M
pvtjoh!boe!
J
I
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
Normal Plan Visualizations
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
| Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland Consulting | Nevue Ngan
Cluster housing around a center green.
pddvqz!b!tjohmf!cvjmejoh!ps!nvmujqmf!cvjmejoht!po!b!tjohmf!mpu/!Exfmmjoht!nbz!ublf!uif!gpsn!pg!buubdife!sftjefoujbm!
bsfbt!joufsobm!up!uif!mpu/!Nvmujqmf!Exfmmjoh!Sftjefoujbm!Vojut!xjmm!cf!qfsnjuufe!jo!uif!OO.13!boe!OO.14!{pojoh!
vojut!nbz!cf!tpme!bt!dpoepnjojvnt!ps!sfoufe!bt!bqbsunfout/!Bvup!qbsljoh!jt!qspwjefe!jo!b!tibsfe!tvsgbdf!bsfb!ps!
tf
V
boe!
!!!Nvmujqmf!Exfmmjoh!Sftjefoujbm!Vojut!bsf!nvmujqmf!exfmmjoht!uibu!
M
pvtjoh!boe!
I
exfmmjoh!tusvduvsf-!boe!bddfttjcmf!gspn!bo!bmmfz/!!Buubdife!Sftjefoujbm!Vojut!xjmm!cf!
tjohmf!exfmmjoht!xjui!tfmg.dpoubjofe!mjwjoh!gbdjmjujft!po!pof!mpu-!buubdife!bmpoh!pof!
tibsfe!xbmmt/!!Exfmmjoh!vojut!nbz!cf!tpme!bt!dpoepnjojvnt-!tpme!bt!exfmmjoht!po!
Qfeftusjbo.Psjfoufe!Sftjefoujbm!Dmvtufst!xjmm!cf!qfsnjuufe!jo!uif!OO.13!ps!OO.
Sftjefoujbm!Dmvtufst!bsf!nvmujqmf!exfmmjoht!hspvqfe!bspvoe!dpnnpo!pqfo!tqbdf!
ipnft/!!Dmvtufsfe!Sftjefoujbm!Vojut!nbz!cf!tfqbsbufe!gspn!pof!bopuifs!cz!tjef!
nbz!cf!qspwjefe!jo!b!hbsbhf!po!uif!tbnf!mpu-!fjuifs!efubdife!ps!buubdife!up!uif!
joejwjevbm!mput-!ps!sfoufe!bt!bqbsunfout/!Bvup!qbsljoh!jt!uzqjdbmmz!qspwjefe!jo!b!!!!Buubdife!Sftjefoujbm!Vojut-!ps!spxipvtft-!bsf!ps!cpui!tjefxbmmt!up!bo!bekbdfou!exfmmjoh!voju/!Qsjwbuf!pqfo!tqbdf!n
bz!ublf!uif!tfu!cbdl!gspn!uif!qvcmjd!tusffu!ps!dpnnpo!hsffo!cz!b!gspou!zbse/!Bvup!qbsljoh!
tibsfe!tvsgbdf!mpu-!ps!mput-!boe!jt!bddfttjcmf!gspn!bo!bmmfz!ps!dpnnpo!esjwfxbz/!
!!!Qfeftusjbo.Psjfoufe!
zbset!uibu!qspwjef!qsjwbuf!pqfo!tqbdf!ps!cf!buubdife!up!pof!ps!npsf!vojut!xjui!
uibu!qspnpuf!b!tdbmf!boe!dibsbdufs!uibu!jt!wfsz!dpnqbujcmf!xjui!tjohmf.gbnjmz!
qfsnjuufe!jo!uif!OO.13!jo!tfmfdufe!mpdbujpot!ps!OO.14!{pojoh!ejtusjdut/
Pedestrian-Oriented Clustered Residential Units
Multiple Dwelling Residential Units
Attached Residential Units
uboebset
Djuz!pg!Btimboe!
14!{pojoh!ejtusjdut/
T
fwfmpqnfou!
ejtusjdut/
E
\]
8
9
\[
Nbsdi!3125!}!Usbotqpsubujpo!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
Jowftunfou!Qbsuofstijq-!Mpx!Jodpnf!Ipvtjoh!Uby!Dsfejut!)MJIUD*-!gvoejoh!gspn!tubuf!bhfodjft!tvdi!bt!uif!Efqbsunfou!pg!Ivnbo!Tfswjdft!)EIT*-!IVE!tpvsdft-!boe!
jpsebop
H
pn!
U
mmvtusbujpo!cz!
J
tf
V
boe!
M
pvtjoh!boe!
I
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
puifst/
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
| Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland Consulting | Nevue Ngan
tft!Bmmpxfe!jo!OO.14
BDSF
!
FS
T!Q
VOJU
!
FMMJOH
;!26!EX
JUZ
T
FO
!E
F
T
CB
V
tf
V
boe!
M
pvtjoh!boe!
tft!Bmmpxfe!jo!OO.13
BDSF
!
FS
T!Q
I
VOJU
!
FMMJOH
;!21!EX
JUZ
T
FO
!E
F
T
CB
V
Qfsnjuufe
tft!Bmmpxfe!jo!OO.12
BDSF
pef!
!
FS
D
tf!
T!Q
V
boe!
VOJU
!
M
!Gps!efubjmfe!vtf!ubcmf!tff!
FMMJOH
Djuz!pg!Btimboe!
;!6!EX
tf!Ubcmf
ibqufs!29.4/24*
JUZ
T
FO
!E
F
T
CB
D
V)
V
\]
10
Nbsdi!3125!}!Usbotqpsubujpo!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
ibssfuuf
D
qfo!Tqbdf!Ejbhsbn!Qspevdfe!bu!
P
gpsnt!pg!sfdsfbujpo!jodmvejoh!cjse.xbudijoh-!ijljoh-!cjljoh-!boe!fyqmpsjoh/!Qspufdufe!boe!sftupsfe-!uiftf!sjqbsjbo!
uif!ofjhicpsippet!ejtujodujwf!dibsbdufs-!qspnpuft!fowjsponfoubm!rvbmjuz-!boe!qspwjeft!pqqpsuvojujft!gps!nboz!
dpssjepst!boe!xfumboet!xjmm!tvqqpsu!obujwf!wfhfubujpo-!qspwjef!ibcjubu!gps!xjmemjgf-!boe!qspnpuf!fowjsponfoubm!
bvupnpcjmf!djsdvmbujpo!bsf!bddpnnpebufe!cfzpoe!uif!fehft!pg!uif!tusfbn!cfet!boe!xfumboet!up!qspwjef!wjtvbm!
cpvoebsz/!Ju!jt!bo!jtpmbufe!xfumboe!xjui!op!tvsgbdf!xbufs!dpoofdujpo!up!puifs!xbufs!cpejft/!Xfumboe!X:-!uif!
buusbdu/!Jo!beejujpo!up!qspufdujpo!pg!uiftf!fyjtujoh!obuvsbm!sftpvsdf!bsfbt-!uif!Qmbo!qspwjeft!vtbcmf-!dpoofdufe!
pqfo!tqbdf!gps!ofjhicpst!boe!sftjefout!pg!Btimboe/!Jo!uif!dpoufyu!pg!uif!hsffoxbz!boe!pqfo!tqbdf!tztufn-!
Xbufs!Sftpvsdf!Qspufdujpo!Bsfbt!)XSQB*!bsf!ftubcmjtife!cz!uif!Djuzt!Mboe!Vtf!Psejobodf/!Gps!mpdbmmz!
qbdf
T
qfo!
P
sffoxbz!boe!
Xfumboe!X:-!uif!mbshf!xfumboe!fbtu!pg!Btimboe!Njeemf!Tdippm<!
H
rvbmjuz!cz!bctpscjoh-!tupsjoh-!boe!sfmfbtjoh!tupsnxbufs/!
Dfnfufsz!Dsffl!boe!jut!bttpdjbufe!xfumboe!X5-!boe
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
Xfumboe!X23-!bo!jtpmbufe-!mjofbs!xfumboe<
F
TQBD
!
O
F
Q
!P
BOE
Z!
Obuvsbm!Bsfbt
B
Dmbz!Dsffl
X
O
FF
S
!!!!
H
¸¸¸¸
\]
12
13
\[
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
qpufoujbm!up!cf!bo!bnfojuz!gps!uif!qmbo!bsfb!boe!uif!djuz!cz!qspwjejoh!dpoofdujwjuz/!Pqqpsuvojujft!gps!sftupsbujpo!
fodpvsbhfe!gps!uiptf!tusffut!uibu!bcvu!b!xfumboe-!tusfbn-!ps!obuvsbm!bsfb/!Jo!beejujpo-!uif!Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!
Tupsnxbufs!nbobhfnfou!jt!dsjujdbm!up!nbjoubjojoh!uif!ifbmui!boe!gvodujpo!pg!uif!fyjtujoh!tusfbnt!boe!xfumboet/!
gbdjmjujft/!Jnqfswjpvt!tvsgbdft!tipvme!cf!njojnj{fe<!boe!hsffo!tusffut-!txbmft!boe!sftjefoujbm!tvsgbdf!tupsnxbufs!
tdjfodf!mfbsojoh!dfoufs!xftu!pg!Xbmlfs!Bwf/!Ju!bmtp!qspwjeft!bo!pqqpsuvojuz!up!dsfbuf!b!ejtujodu!eftujobujpo!pqfo!
jnqspwf!uifjs!vujmjuz!gps!nbobhjoh!tupsnxbufs-!nbyjnj{f!uifjs!wbmvf!bt!ibcjubu-!boe!foibodf!uifjs!qvsqptf!bt!b!
bo!pqqpsuvojuz!gps!b!mbshf!pqfo!tqbdf!bsfb-!boe!qpufoujbm!gps!pvuepps!fevdbujpo!bttpdjbufe!xjui!uif!tdippm!boe!Bmuipvhi!uif!fyufou!pg!Dmbz!Dsffl!xjuijo!uif!qspkfdu!bsfb!jt!mftt!uibo!uibu!pg!Dfnfufsz!
Dsffl-!ju!tujmm!ipmet!uif!
tusffu!bsf!eftjhofe!boe!nbobhfe!bt!tupsnxbufs!gbdjmjujft!xifsfwfs!qsbdujdbcmf!boe!dvsc.mftt!tusffu!tfdujpot!cf!
bmpoh!Dmbz!Dsffl!jo!uif!qmbo!bsfb!xjmm!qspwjef!ibcjubu-!tvqqpsu!ibcjubu!dpoofdujwjuz!up!uif!opsui!boe!tpvui-!
Xfumboe!)X5*!jt!4/97!bdsft!jo!tj{f!boe!jt!cjtfdufe!cz!Dfnfufsz!Dsffl/!Dfnfufsz!Dsffl!boe!uijt!bttpdjbufe!
xfumboe!xjmm!tfswf!bt!pof!qbsu!pg!uif!fowjsponfoubm!opsui.tpvui!gsbnfxpsl!vtfe!up!hvjef!uif!qbuufso!pg!
xfmm!bt!b!gsbnfxpsl!gps!cjlf!boe!qfeftusjbo!dpoofdujpot!xjuijo!uif!tjuf!boe!cfzpoe!uif!ofjhicpsippe/!
qspwjef!sfdsfbujpo!pqqpsuvojujft!boe!dpoofdu!qfeftusjbot!boe!cjdzdmjtut!up!uif!sfhjpobm!usbjm!tztufn/!
| Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland Consulting | Nevue Ngan
Qmbo!qspqptft!uibu!qfsnfbcmf!qbwjoh!cf!jotubmmfe!jo!uif!qbsljoh!{poft/!
tqbdf!uibu!xjmm!bodips!uif!ofjhicpsippe!bu!jut!xftu!foe/
qbdf
T
qfo!
sfdsfbujpobm!bnfojuz!gps!uif!dpnnvojuz/!
P
sffoxbz!boe!
H
Djuz!pg!Btimboe!
tqbdf!psjfout!ofx!jnqspwfnfout!jo!uif!pqfo!tqbdf!gsbnfxpsl!
Nbsdi!3125!}!Usbotqpsubujpo!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
tusfbn!dspttjoht!bsf!ofdfttbsz!gps!tusffu!ofuxpsl!dpoofdujwjuz-!
ejsfdujpo!ibwf!cffo!njojnj{fe!up!uif!fyufou!qpttjcmf/!Xifsf!
qvcmjd!bsu!ps!tnbmm.tdbmf!bdujwf!sfdsfbujpobm!pqqpsuvojujft!gps!
Jo!beejujpo!up!uif!hsffoxbzt!bttpdjbufe!xjui!xbufs!sftpvsdf!
xf!sfdpnnfoe!uibu!uif!csjehjoh!pg!fbdi!tusfbn!cfe!cf!bt!
qspufdujpo-!uif!qmbo!jodmveft!puifs!pqfo!tqbdf!gfbuvsft/!B!
bdsptt!uif!tjuf!uibu!tvqqpsu!uif!obuvsbm!opsui.tpvui!hsbjo!
ovncfs!pg!qpdlfu!qbslt!nbz!cf!qspqptfe!xijdi!ifmq!up!
Tusffu!dspttjoht!pg!xfumboet!boe!tusfbnt!jo!uif!fbtu.xftu!
dpoofdujwjuz!cfuxffo!bmm!xfumboet!boe!tusfbn!dpssjepst/!
fbtu.xftu!gps!uif!qvsqptf!pg!dsfbujoh!ofx!dpoofdujpot!
mjhiu!boe!obsspx!bt!qsbdujdbcmf/!
qbdf
T
qfo!
P
sffoxbz!boe!
H
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
\]
14
15
\[
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
fbtu.xftu!cpvmfwbset;!Fbtu!Nbjo!Tusffu!boe!Btimboe!Tusffu/!Dpoofdujpot!gspn!uif!Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!!xjmm!
Tusffu!qspwjeft!b!tjohmf!uispvhi!mbof!jo!fbdi!ejsfdujpo!boe!fyijcjut!b!svsbm!dibsbdufs!xjui!mjnjufe!bddftt!boe!dvsc.
b!ofx!tusffu!uzqf!joup!uif!sbohf!pg!Btimboe!tusffut;!uif!Tibsfe!Tusffu/!B!Tibsfe!Tusffu!jt!b!wfsz!mpx!tqffe!tusffu!
mfohuit!cf!b!nbyjnvn!pg!411!up!511!gffu!xjui!b!nbyjnvn!qfsjnfufs!pg!2-311!up!2-711!gffu!up!qspwjef!hppe!
boe!Fbtu!Nbjo!Tusffu/!Btimboe!Tusffu!qspwjeft!uxp!usbwfm!mboft!jo!fbdi!ejsfdujpo!xjui!tjhobmt!boe!mfgu!uvso!mboft!uiftf!tuboebset/!Bmuipvhi!xbmlbcjmjuz!jt!b!nbkps!gpdvt!pg!uif!qmbo-!tpnf!wbsjbujpot!g
spn!uiftf!tuboebset!nbz!
Tusffu!dpoofdujwjuz!uispvhi!uif!Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!Qmbo!bsfb!xjmm!sfevdf!usbwfm!efnboe!po!uif!bekbdfou!
tp!op!efwfmpqnfou!jt!boujdjqbufe!voujm!tvdi!ujnf!bt!uif!mboet!up!uif!opsui!bsf!jodpsqpsbufe!joup!uif!VHC/
Bmm!tusffut!ibwf!cffo!eftjhofe!up!lffq!usbwfm!tqffet!jo!uif!sbohf!pg!31!nqi!cz!jouspevdjoh!fmfnfout!tvdi!
| Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland Consulting | Nevue Ngan
fyufoe!up!uif!fbtu!up!Dmbz!Tusffu!cz!xbz!pg!Dsffl!Esjwf!boe!puifs!gvuvsf!tusffu!dpoofdujpot/!
tvsgbdf!cz!zjfmejoh!up!uif!tmpxftu!boe!nptu!wvmofsbcmf!qsftfou!bu!b!hjwfo!npnfou/!!
xbt!eftjhofe!up!tvqqpsu!uif!gvmm!sbohf!pg!joufoefe!ipvtjoh!dipjdft/vmujnbufmz!cf!sfrvjsfe!jo!psefs!up!gvmmz!qspufdu!obuvsbm!sftpvsdft/!
Npcjmjuz
usffu!Ofuxpsl
Z
JMJU
C
P
!!
N T¸¸
Djuz!pg!Btimboe!
Nbsdi!3125!}!Usbotqpsubujpo!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
Npcjmjuz!tlfudift!qspevdfe!bu!dibssfuuf
51!nqi/!Fbtu!Nbjo!Tusffu!dboopu!cf!dpotjefsfe!qbsu!pg!uif!qfeftusjbo!djsdvmbujpo!ofuxpsl!voujm!jnqspwfnfout!
Fbtu!Nbjo!Tusffu!qmbdf!cjdzdmjtut!bu!sjtl!bt!tqffet!bsf!qptufe!bt!51!nqi/!Fbtu!Nbjo!Tusffu!dboopu!cf!dpotjefsfe!
efwfmpqnfou!qbuufso/!Eftqjuf!uif!joifsfou!cpvoebsz!dpoejujpot!uibu!mjnju!dpoofdujwjuz-!tvdi!bt!Btimboe!Njeemf!
Bwfovf!boe!Dmbz!Tusffu/!Fbtu!Nbjo!Tusffu!ibt!tipvmefst!xijdi!qmbdf!qfeftusjbot!bu!sjtl!bt!tqffet!bsf!qptufe!bt!
qbsu!pg!uif!cjdzdmf!djsdvmbujpo!ofuxpsl!voujm!jnqspwfnfout!up!uif!tusffu!jodmvef!uif!mpxfs!tqffet!boe!cjdzdmf!
vscbo!gpsn!uibu!sftvmut!gspn!nbljoh!uif!ivnbo!tdbmf!uif!gvoebnfoubm!pg!eftjho!bsf!lfzt!up!uif!qmboojoh!boe!
Bdujwf!usbotqpsubujpo!jt!gvoebnfoubm!up!uif!Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!!vscbo!eftjho!qmbo/!Bdujwf!usbotqpsubujpo!
nfbot!vtjoh!ivnbo.qpxfsfe!usbotqpsubujpo!bt!b!dpowfojfou!dipjdf!gps!nboz!pg!uif!bdujwjujft!pg!ebjmz!mjwjoh/!
Fyjtujoh!nvmuj.vtf!usbjmt!jo!uif!wjdjojuz!jodmvef!uif!Dfousbm!Cjlf!Qbui!bmpoh!uif!sbjmspbe!dpssjeps!uibu!svot!
Tjefxbmlt!fyjtu!bmpoh!uif!fyufou!pg!Btimboe!Tusffu!boe!Upmnbo!Dsffl!Spbe-!boe!bmpoh!qpsujpot!pg!Xbmlfs!
pg!qbslt!boe!pqfo!tqbdf/!Ipmjtujd!uijoljoh!boe!b!nvmuj.ejtdjqmjobsz!bqqspbdi!up!tusffu!ofuxpsl-!tupsnxbufs-!
jogsbtusvduvsf-!boe!qbslt!boe!pqfo!tqbdf!xjmm!tvqqpsu!b!npsf!buusbdujwf!boe!eftjsbcmf!ofjhicpsippe-!sfevdf!
ofuxpsl!dpotjtufou!xjui!bepqufe!Djuz!qmbot!boe!dpef/!Fyjtujoh!gbdjmjujft!jo!uif!tuvez!bsfb!jodmvef;!
up!uijt!tusffu!jodmvef!uif!tjefxbmlt!opsnbmmz!bttpdjbufe!xjui!vscbo!efwfmpqnfou/!
Npcjmjuz
jogsbtusvduvsf!dptut-!boe!nbyjnj{f!mboe!efwfmpqnfou!qpufoujbm/!
mboft!opsnbmmz!bttpdjbufe!xjui!vscbo!efwfmpqnfou/!
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
cmpdl!mfohui!boe!bddftt!nbobhfnfou!tuboebset/!
Bdujwf!Usbotqpsubujpo
!!!
¸¸¸
\]
16
17
\[
Ibnjmupo!Dsffl!Dpssjeps!qbsbmmfmjoh!Upmnbo!Dsffl!Spbe/!Cpui!
pg!uiftf!qspqptfe!dpssjepst!xpvme!dpoofdu!up!b!gvuvsf!qspqptfe!
svot!cfuxffo!Btimboe!boe!Dfousbm!Qpjou-!dvssfoumz!ufsnjobujoh!
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
dpmmfdups!fyufoejoh!gspn!uif!sbjmspbe!dspttjoh!bu!Opsnbm!Bwfovf!!
nbyjnj{f!uif!tpmbs!ifbu!hbjo!jo!uif!xjoufs!po!uif!tpvui!tjef!boe-!
xjui!uif!dpncjofe!vtf!pg!tibejoh-!njojnj{joh!tpmbs!ifbu!hbjo!jo!
dpoofdujpot!up!Fbtu!Nbjo!Tusffu!pddvs!cfuxffo!Dfnfufsz!Dsffl!
pmbs!
pddvst!bu!uif!fyjtujoh!tusffu!dpoofdujpo!tfswjoh!Btimboe!Njeemf!
fyufotjpo!pg!uif!Cfbs!Dsffl!Hsffoxbz!uibu!xpvme!cf!mpdbufe!
Vtf!Dpef/!Jo!qbsujdvmbs-!uif!dpef!tqfblt!up!jodpsqpsbujoh!cpui!
qbttjwf!boe!bdujwf!tpmbs!tusbufhjft!jo!uif!eftjho!boe!psjfoubujpo!
mpdbujpobm!dpotusbjout!qfsnju-!cvjmejoht!tipvme!cf!psjfoufe!up!
cpvoebsz!pg!uif!Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!Qmbo!bsfb-!boe!uif!
bsf!qspqptfe!gps!uif!Dmbz!Dsffl!dpssjeps!bmpoh!uif!fbtufso!
efejdbufe!nvmuj.vtf!qbui!dpoofdujpot!up!Fbtu!Nbjo!Tusffu!up!
bu!uif!Btimboe!Eph!Qbsl!ofbs!uif!Ifmnbo!Tusffu0Ofwbeb!
pqqpsuvojujft!gps!cvjmejoht-!dpotjtufou!xjui!uif!Djuzt!Mboe!
Tusffu!joufstfdujpo/!Usbjm!efwfmpqnfou!boe!jnqspwfnfout!
wfijdvmbs!qpjout!pg!bddftt!up!Fbtu!Nbjo!Tusffu/!Pof!pg!uiftf!
T
qqpsuvojujft!up!Nbyjnj{f!
opsui!pg!uif!Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!Qmbo!bsfb/!
usffu!Bddftt!Qpjout
| Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland Consulting | Nevue Ngan
T
btu!Nbjo!boe!Dmbz!
P
usffu!Bmjhonfou!
uif!tvnnfs/
yqptvsf
Npcjmjuz
TFF
Djuz!pg!Btimboe!
Nbsdi!3125!}!Usbotqpsubujpo!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
gvsuifs!cjljoh!boe!xbmlljoh!dpoofdujwjuz/!Bt!Fbtu!Nbjo!Tusffu!jt!b!eftjhobufe!djuz!cpvmfwbse-!jut!bddftt!tqbdjoh!gps!
tusffut!boe!esjwfxbzt!jt!411!gffu/!Bddftt!tqbdjoh!bmpoh!Dmbz!Tusffu!jt!211!gffu/!Ipxfwfs!jut!bqqspqsjbuf!uibu!cmpdl!
bsfb-!boe!bmpoh!Btimboe!Tusffu!up!uif!tpvui/!Jo!cpui!jotubodft-!uif!xbmljoh!ejtubodf!cfuxffo!uif!tjuf!boe!fyjtujoh!
mfohui!boe!qfsjnfufs!tuboebset!qspwjef!uif!ofdfttbsz!hvjebodf!up!uif!tqbdjoh!pg!beejujpobm!dpoofdujpot!up!Dmbz!
cf!tqbdfe!op!npsf!uibo!2-111!gffu!bqbsu/!Tifmufst-!tfbujoh-!usbti!sfdfqubdmft!boe!xbjujoh!bsfbt!tipvme!dpogpsn!
efwfmpqnfou!pg!uif!Tpvuifso!Psfhpo!Vojwfstjuz!dbnqvt!boe!puifs!tdippm!gbdjmjujft!bmpoh!Xbmlfs!Bwfovf!boe!
up!Djuz!boe!SWUE!tuboebset/!Wfijdvmbs!djsdvmbujpo!uispvhi!uif!Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!Qmbo!bsfb!tipvme!opu!
Usbotju!tfswjdf!jt!dvssfoumz!qspwjefe!bmpoh!Upmnbo!Dsffl!Spbe!up!uif!fbtu!pg!uif!Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!Qmbo!
usbotju!spvuf!bmjhonfou!jt!hsfbufs!uibo!uif!sfbtpobcmf!usbotju!bddftt!xbmljoh!ejtubodf!pg!½!njmf!up!b!cvt!tupq/!
jo!dpowfstbujpot!bcpvu!qspwjejoh!beejujpobm!usbotju!tfswjdf/!Qpufoujbmmz-!uijt!tfswjdf!dpvme!cf!psjfoufe!upxbse!
jodmvef!npsf!joufotfmz!efwfmpqfe!qpsujpot!pg!Fbtu!Nbjo!Tusffu/!Bu!b!njojnvn!cvt!tupqt-!jo!uif!bsfb!tipvme!
pg!uif!Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!Qmbo!bsf-!uif!Djuz!tipvme!fohbhf!uif!Sphvf!Wbmmfz!Usbotju!Ejtusjdu!)SWUE*!
Npcjmjuz
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
qsfdmvef!uif!qspwjtjpo!pg!ejsfdu!usbotju!tfswjdf/!
upqt
T
fswjdf!boe!Usbotju!
T
Usbotju!
Tusffu/!
\]
18
19
\[
uif!fyufou!pg!jnqfswjpvt!tvsgbdft!jo!uif!Opsnbm!
Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!Dpmmfdups!jt!uif!tqjof!pg!
uif!ofjhicpsippe!boe!dpoofdut!gspn!uif!tpvui!
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework Tusffu/!Ju!jt!eftjhofe!up!ejtdpvsbhf!dvu.uispvhi!
Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!Dpmmfdups!xjui!
Joufstfdujpot!nbz!cf!ofdlfe.epxo!xjui!cvmc.
qmbo-!uif!ofjhicpsippe!dpmmfdups!tusffu!tljsut!
foibodf!tbgfuz!gps!bmm!npeft;!dbst-!cjlft-!boe!
qfeftusjbot/!Tqffet!xjmm!cf!tmpx!boe!cjdzdmft!
fehf!pg!uif!qspkfdu!bsfb!opsui!up!Fbtu!Nbjo!
Qfsnfbcmf!qbwjoh!jo!uif!qbsljoh!mboft!boe!
uijt!sftupsfe!xfumboe!nbz!ibwf!tusffu!fehf!
xfumboet!boe!tusfbnt/!Jo!uif!dfoufs!pg!uif!
Ofjhicpsippe!boe!tvqqpsut!xfumboe!boe!
pvut!up!jnqspwf!tbgfuz!gps!qfeftusjbot/!
fumboe!
xjmm!tibsf!uif!usbwfm!mboft!xjui!dbst/!
| Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland Consulting | Nevue Ngan
X
jefe!Qbsljoh!bu!
sfdibshf!uijt!xfumboe/!
tusfbn!ifbmui/!
T
Pof.
Npcjmjuz
Djuz!pg!Btimboe!
Nbsdi!3125!}!Usbotqpsubujpo!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
Npcjmjuz
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
uif!fyufou!pg!jnqfswjpvt!tvsgbdft!jo!uif!Opsnbm!
uxp.tjeft!pg!uif!tusffu/!Tqffet!xjmm!cf!tmpx!boe!
Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!Dpmmfdups!xjui!
Ofjhicpsippe!Dpmmfdups!xjmm!ibwf!qbsljoh!po!
Joufstfdujpot!nbz!cf!ofdlfe.epxo!xjui!cvmc.
cjdzdmft!xjmm!tibsf!uif!usbwfm!mboft!xjui!dbst/!
Qfsnfbcmf!qbwjoh!jo!uif!qbsljoh!mboft!boe!
Ofjhicpsippe!boe!tvqqpsut!xfumboe!boe!
pvut!up!jnqspwf!tbgfuz!gps!qfeftusjbot/!
Jo!tpnf!bsfbt!pg!uif!qmbo-!Opsnbm!
jefe!Qbsljoh!
tusfbn!ifbmui/!
T
Uxp.
\]
20
21
\[
obsspxt!up!sfevdf!jojujbm!boe!mjgf.dzdmf!dptut!boe!
dspttft!pof!pg!uif!tusfbncfet-!uif!tusffu!tfdujpo!
uif!dsfflt/!Tqffet!xjmm!cf!tmpx!boe!cjdzdmft!xjmm!
njojnj{f!uif!jnqbdu!pg!csjehf!dpotusvdujpo!po!
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
Xifsf!b!ofjhicpsippe!dpmmfdups!ps!tusffu!
tibsf!uif!usbwfm!mboft!xjui!dbst/!
| Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland Consulting | Nevue Ngan
usfbncfe!Dspttjoh!
T
Npcjmjuz
usffu!xjui!Ejbhpobm!Qbsljoh
Djuz!pg!Btimboe!
T
Ofjhicpsippe!
Nbsdi!3125!}!Usbotqpsubujpo!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
| Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland Consulting | Nevue Ngan
Djuz!pg!Btimboe!
Nbsdi!3125!}!Usbotqpsubujpo!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
Npcjmjuz
sftjefout!boe!djuj{fot!up!qbsl!ofbscz!boe!wjtju!uiftf!obuvsbm!
qmboufst!jo!uif!qbslspxt!sfevdft!uif!fyufou!pg!jnqfswjpvt!
foibodf!tbgfuz!gps!bmm!npeft;!dbst-!cjlft-!boe!qfeftusjbot/!
bmufsobujwf!up!uif!!uzqjdbm!Ofjhicpsippe!Tusffu!xifsf!
Joufstfdujpot!nbz!cf!ofdlfe.epxo!xjui!cvmc.pvut!up!
usffu!xjui!Ejbhpobm!Qbsljoh
tvsgbdft!jo!uif!Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!!boe!tvqqpsut!
Tusffut!uibu!bcvu!Dmbz!Dsffl!nbz!cf!mpdbujpot!gps!bo!
ejbhpobm!qbsljoh!jt!bddpnnpebufe!boe!fodpvsbhft!
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
Cjdzdmft!xjmm!tibsf!uif!usbwfm!mboft!xjui!dbst/!
jnqspwf!tbgfuz!gps!qfeftusjbot/!
xfumboe!boe!tusfbn!ifbmui/!
T
Ofjhicpsippe!
\]
24
| Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland Consulting | Nevue Ngan
Djuz!pg!Btimboe!
Nbsdi!3125!}!Usbotqpsubujpo!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
| Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland Consulting | Nevue Ngan
Djuz!pg!Btimboe!
Nbsdi!3125!}!Usbotqpsubujpo!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
29
\[
uif!Fbtu!Nbjo!Tusffu!bmjhonfou!boe!bo!9.jodi!nbjo!uibu!svot!bmpoh!uif!gvmm!fyufou!pg!Dsffl!Esjwf!boe!qbsu!pg!Dmbz!
Op!Djuz!pg!Btimboe!tbojubsz!tfxfst!fyufoe!up!uif!qspkfdu!bsfb<!bmm!fyjtujoh!ipnft!jo!uif!qspkfdu!tuvez!sfmz!po!tfqujd!
Tupsnxbufs!qmboufst-!npsf!fohjoffsfe!uibo!sbjo!hbsefot-!tupsnxbufs!qmboufst!bsf!eftjhofe!up!bddfqu!tupsnxbufs!
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
tztufnt!gps!ejtqptjoh!pg!uifjs!xbtuf/!B!tjohmf!9.jodi!tfswjdf!tuvc!dpoofdut!uif!Ufnqmf!Fnfl!Tibmpn!bu!2911!Fbtu!
Op!Djuz!pg!Btimboe!xbufs!tfswjdft!fyufoe!up!uif!qspkfdu!bsfb!boe!bmm!fyjtujoh!ipnft!jo!uif!qspkfdu!tuvez!bsfb!hfu!
efwfmpqnfou!)MJE*!ufdiojrvft!gpdvtfe!po!dpouspmmjoh!tupsnxbufs!bu!jut!tpvsdf!sbuifs!uibo!npwjoh!tupsnxbufs!
Cjp.sfufoujpo!dfmmt-!dpnnpomz!lopxo!bt!sbjo!hbsefot-!bsf!sfmbujwfmz!tnbmm.tdbmf-!mboetdbqfe!efqsfttjpot!xjui!
Nbjo!Tusffu!up!uif!23.jodi!tbojubsz!tfxfs!uibu!svot!jo!uif!Cfbs!Dsffl!Bmjhonfou/!Puifs!qspyjnbuf!tfxfs!mjoft!
dpotusvdujpo!boe!sfevdf!mjgf.dzdmf!dptut!xijmf!nbjoubjojoh!obuvsbm!fdptztufn!gvodujpot;!tupsnxbufs!sfufoujpo-!
Jnqmfnfoubujpo!pg!tupsnxbufs!nbobhfnfou!jo!uif!Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!!tipvme!fnqibtj{f!mpx.jnqbdu!
jodmvef!9.jodi!tfxfs!mjoft!uibu!svo!jo!uif!Xbmlfs!Tusffu-!Dsffl!Esjwf-!boe!Dmbz!Tusffu!bmjhonfout/!
| Parametrix | Urbsworks | Qamar Architecture & Town Planning | Leland Consulting | Nevue Ngan
xifsf!qsbdujdbcmf-!up!obuvsbm!gfbuvsft!tvdi!bt!uif!xfumboet-!Dmbz!Dsffl!ps!Dfnfufsz!Dsffl/!
dpotjefsfe!gps!jnqmfnfoubujpo!jo!uif!Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!Qmbo!bsfb!jodmvef;!
Jogsbtusvduvsf
F
qppsmz!esbjojoh!tpjmt/!
USVDUVS
fxfs!
upsnxbufs
T
bojubsz!
T
SB
bufs
Tusffu/!
G
O
!!!!
J
XTT¸¸¸¸
!
ogsbtusvduvsf0!Tupsnxbufs!Ejbhsbn!
ibssfuuf
Djuz!pg!Btimboe!
D
Qspevdfe!bu!
J
Nbsdi!3125!}!Usbotqpsubujpo!Hspxui!Nbobhfnfou
Hsffo!sppgt!bsf!qbsujbmmz!ps!dpnqmfufmz!dpwfsfe!xjui!qmbout/!Hsffo!sppgt!ifmq!njujhbuf!uif!ufoefodz!gps!vscbo!bsfbt!up!ibwf!ijhifs!
tvtubjobcjmjuz!bsf!cvjmu!joup!fbdi!pg!uif!gsbnfxpslt!gps!uif!Opsnbm!Ofjhicpsippe!;!Ipvtjoh!boe!Mboe!Vtf<!Hsffoxbz!boe!Pqfo!
Obuvsbm!Sftpvsdft!Dpotfswbujpo!Tfswjdf!boe!b!Dvtupn!Tpjm!Sftpvsdf!Sfqpsu!gps!Kbdltpo!Dpvouz!tipx!uibu!uif!tpjmt!jo!uif!bsfb!qfsnjuufe!mboe!vtft!jt!gvoebnfoubmmz!tvtubjobcmf!cfdbvtf!dpnqbdu!vscbo!gpsn
!fodpvsbhft!bdujwf!usbotqpsubujpo!bt!b!dpowfojfou!
xfumboet!boe!sftupsbujpo!pg!uif!dsffl!ibcjubu!csjoht!obuvsf!jo!xijmf!ju!bmtp!qspwjeft!mpxfs!jnqbdu!boe!mftt!dptumz!tpmvujpot!up!
Ofjhicpsippe!Qmbo!jt!dpotjtufou!xjui!uif!gsbnfxpsl!pg!uif!VT!Hsffo!Cvjmejoh!Dpvodjm!MFFE!Ofjhicpsippe!Efwfmpqnfou!
boe!uif!Tvtubjobcmf!Tjuft!Jojujbujwf!)TJUFT*/!Cpui!uif!MFFE!OE!sbujoh!tztufn!ftubcmjtife!VTHCD!boe!TJUFT!ftubcmjti!tfut!
eftjho!boe!fohjoffsjoh!pg!gvuvsf!tupsnxbufs!tztufnt!dpowfoujpobm!boe!mpx.jnqbdu!bmjlf/!Qsfmjnjobsz!ebub!gspn!uif!VTEB!
tvtubjobcmf!eftjho!boe!dpotusvdujpo!xjmm!cf!b!qsfsfrvjtjuf!gps!efwfmpqnfou-!ju!jt!bmm!uif!npsf!fttfoujbm!uibu!uif!fmfnfout!pg!
hfofsbmmz!esbjo!wfsz!qppsmz/!B!efubjmfe!bttfttnfou!pg!tpjmt!nvtu!cf!b!qbsu!pg!qsf.efwfmpqnfou!hfpufdiojdbm!jowftujhbujpot/!
sbjogbmm!up!tupsn!tfxfst!xijdi!dbo!cf!tnbmmfs!jo!tj{f!boe!mftt!dptumz!up!fohjoffs!boe!cvjme/!
Jogsbtusvduvsf
Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework
Tqbdf<!Npcjmjuz<!boe!Jogsbtusvduvsf/!
mjgf!boe!sfevdjoh!fofshz!dptut/
Z
JMJU
C
UBJOB
T
TV
!!
¸¸
\]
30
Ashland
Middle
School
Walker
Elementary
School
02004008001,200Feet
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
\[
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Conservation Area
3/11/2014
Ashland
Middle
School
Walker
Elementary
School
Normal Neighborhood Plan
0200400800Feet
Land Use Designation Overlay Zones
\[
NN-01
NN-03-C
NN-02
Conservation Areas
3/11/2014
NN-03
Ashland
Middle
School
Shared Streets may be
alternatively developed
as alleys or multi-use paths.
Improved crossing will require
an application for an at grade
railroad crossing beapproved.
Walker
Elementary
School
Normal Neighborhood Plan
02004008001,200Feet
Street Network
\[
Neighborhood Collector
Alley
Neighborhood Street
Multi-Use Path
Shared Street
3/11/2014
Ashland
Middle
School
Walker
Elementary
School
Normal Neighborhood Plan
02004008001,200Feet
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network
alley
\[
shared street
streets with sidewalks
ââââââââââââââ multi-use path
ââââââââ
avenue with sidewalks & bikelanes
central bike path
3/11/2014
Ashland
Middle
School
Walker
Elementary
School
02004008001,200Feet
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Street Network - Green Streets
\[
green streets
conservation areas
3/11/14
Ashland
Middle
School
Walker
Elementary
School
Normal Neighborhood Plan
02004008001,200Feet
Open Space Network
\[
natural area/open spacegreen streets
pocket park
ââââââââââââââ
multi-use path
3/11/2014
Normal Neighborhood District
Draft
March 11, 2014
Chapter 18 Code Amendments
18-3.13.010 Purpose
18-3.13.020 Applicability
18-3.13.030 General Requirements
18-3.13.040 Use Regulations
18-3.13.050 Dimensional Regulations
18-3.13.060 Site Development and Design Standards
18-3.13.070 Conservation Area overlay
18-3.13.080 Review and Approval Procedure
18-3.13.010 Purpose
The neighborhood is designed to provide an environment for traditional neighborhood living. The
Normal Neighborhood Plan is a blueprint for promoting a variety of housing types while preserving open
spaces, stream corridors, wetlands, and other significant natural features. The neighborhood
commercial area is designated to promote neighborhood serving businesses with building designs that
reflect the character of the neighborhood and where parking is managed through efficient on-street and
off-street parking resources. The neighborhood will be characterized by a connected network of streets
and alleys, paths and trails, with connection to the natural areas, wetlands, and streams. This network
will also connect to the larger network of regional trails, paths, and streets beyond the boundaries of the
neighborhood. The development of the neighborhood will apply principles of low impact development to
minimize the extent and initial cost of new infrastructure and to promote the benefits of storm water
management.
18-3.13.020 Applicability
This chapter applies to properties designated as Normal Neighborhood District on the Ashland Zoning
Map, and pursuant to the Normal Neighborhood Plan adopted by Ordinance \[#number (date)\].
Development located within the Normal Neighborhood District is required to meet all applicable
sections of this ordinance, except as otherwise provided in this chapter; where the provisions of this
chapter conflict with comparable standards described in any other ordinance, resolution or regulation, the
provisions of the Normal Neighborhood District shall govern.
18-3.13.030 General Regulations
A. Conformance with the Normal Neighborhood Plan
. Land uses and development, including
construction of buildings, streets, multi-use paths, and conservation shall be located in accordance
with those shown on the Normal Neighborhood Plan maps adopted by Ordinance \[#number (date)\].
Page 1 of 10
B. Performance Standards Overlay.
All applications involving the creation of three or more lots
shall be processed under chapter 18-3.8 Performance Standards Option.
C. Amendments.
Major and minor amendments to the Normal Neighborhood Plan shall comply
with the following procedures:
1. Major and Minor Amendments
a. Major amendments are those that result in any of the following:
i. A change in the land use overlay designation.
ii. A change in the maximum building height dimensional standards in section 18-3.13.050
iii. A change in the allowable base density, dwelling units per acre, in section 18-3.13.050.
iv. A change in the Plan layout that eliminates a street, access way, multi-use path or
other transportation facility.
v. A change in the Plan layout that eliminates or reduces an area designated as a
conservation or open space area.
vi. A change not specifically listed under the major and minor amendment definitions.
b. Minor amendments are those that result in any of the following:
i. A change in the Plan layout that requires a street, access way, multi-use path or
other transportation facility to be shifted fifty (50) feet or more in any direction as
long as the change maintains the connectivity established by Normal Avenue
Neighborhood Plan.
ii. A change in a dimensional standard requirement in section 1 8-3.13.050, but not
including height and residential density.
iii. A change in the Plan layout that changes the boundaries or location of a conservation
or open space area to correspond with a delineated wetland and water resource
protection zone provided there is no reduction in the contiguous area preserved.
2. Major Amendment Type II Procedure
. A major amendment to the Normal Neighborhood Plan is
subject to a public hearing and decision under a Type II Procedure. A major amendment may be
approved upon finding that the proposed modification will not adversely affect the purpose of
the Normal Neighborhood Plan. In addition to complying with the standards of this section for
a major amendment shall demonstrate 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.
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.
Page 2 of 10
e.The proposed amendmentis a necessaryto 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 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).
18-3.13.040 Use Regulations
A. Plan overlay zones
. There are four Land Use Designation Overlays zones within the Normal
Neighborhood Plan are intended to accommodate a variety of housing opportunities, preserve natural
areas and provide open space.
1. Plan NN-01zone
The use regulations and development standards are intended to create,
maintain and promote single-dwelling neighborhood character. A variety of housing types are
allowed, in addition to the detached single dwelling. Development standards that are largely the
same as those for single dwellings ensure that the overall image and character of the single-dwelling
neighborhood is maintained.
2. Plan NN-02 zone
. The use regulations and development standards are intended to create,
maintain and promote single-dwelling neighborhood character. A variety of housing types are
allowed including multiple compact attached and/or detached dwellings. Dwellings may be grouped
around common open space and be separated from one another by side yards to provide privacy
and single family home-type scale and character. Development standards that are largely the same
as those for single dwellings ensure that the overall image and character of the single-dwelling
neighborhood is maintained.
3. Plan NN-03 zone
. The use regulations and development standards are intended to create and
maintain a range of housing choices, including multi-family housing within the context of the
residential character of the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan.
4. Plan NN-03C zone.
The use regulations and development standards are intended is to provide
housing opportunities for individual households through development of multi-dwelling housing with
the added allowance for neighborhood-serving commercial mixed- uses so that many of the activities
of daily living may be met within the Normal Neighborhood. The public streets within the vicinity of
the NN-03-C overlay are to provide sufficient on-street parking to accommodate ground floor
neighborhood business uses.
Page 3 of 10
B. Normal Neighborhood Plan Residential Building Types.
The development standards for the
Normal Neighborhood Plan will preserve neighborhood character by incorporating four distinct land use
overlay areas with different concentrations of varying housing types.
1. Single Dwelling Residential Unit.
A Single Dwelling Residential Unit is a detached residential building that contains a single dwelling
with self-contained living facilities on one lot. It is separated from adjacent dwellings by private open
space in the form of side yards and backyards, and set back from the public street or common green
by a front yard. Auto parking is generally on the same lot in a garage, carport, or uncovered area.
The garage may be detached or attached to the dwelling structure.
2. Accessory Residential Unit.
An Accessory Residential Unit is a secondary dwelling unit on a lot where the primary use is a
single-family dwelling, either attached to the single-family dwelling or in a detached building located
on the same lot with a single-family dwelling, and having an independent means of access.
3. Double Dwelling Residential Unit .
(Duplex)
A Double Dwelling Residential Unit is a residential building that contains two dwellings located on a
single lot, each with self-contained living facilities. Double Dwelling Residential Units must share a
common wall or a common floor/ ceiling and are similar to a Single Dwelling Unit in appearance,
height, massing and lot placement.
4. Attached Residential Unit
. An Attached Residential Unit is single dwelling located on an
individual lot which is attached along one or both sidewalls to an adjacent dwelling unit. Private open
space may take the form of front yards, backyards, or upper level terraces. The dwelling unit may be
set back from the public street or common green by a front yard.
5. Clustered Residential Units - Pedestrian-Oriented.
Pedestrian-Oriented Clustered Residential
Units are compact dwellings that are grouped around common open space and generally separated
from one another by side yards to provide privacy and single family home-type scale and character.
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.
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..
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.
Page 4 of 10
Table 18-3.13.040 Land Use NN-01 NN-02 NN-03 NN-03-C
Descriptions
Single family Multi-family Multi-family Multi-family
Residential low density High Density High Density
Residential Residential Residential
with
Commercial
Residential Uses
Single Dwelling Residential Unit
P P N N
(Single-Family Dwelling)
Accessory Residential Unit P P P P
Double Dwelling Residential Unit
N P P P
(Duplex Dwelling)
Cottage Housing P N N N
Clustered Residential Units N P P P
Attached Residential Unit N P P P
Multiple Dwelling Residential Unit
N P P P
(Multi family Dwelling)
Manufactured Home on Individual Lot P P P P
Manufactured Housing Development N P P P
Neighborhood Business and Service Uses
Home Occupation P P P P
Retail Sales and Services, with each building limited to
N N N P
3,500 square feet of gross floor area
Professional and Medical Offices, with each building
N N N P
limited to 3,500 square feet of gross floor area
Light manufacturing or assembly of items occupying
six hundred (600) square feet or less, and contiguous N N N P
to the permitted retail use.
Restaurants N N N P
Day Care Center N N N P
Assisted Living Facilities N C C C
Public and Institutional Uses
Religious Institutions and Houses of Worship C C C C
Public Buildings P P P P
Community Gardens P P P P
Openspace and Recreational Facilities P P P P
P = Permitted Use; CU = Conditional Use Permit Required; N = Not Allowed
1. Permitted Uses.
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.
Page 5 of 10
2.Conditional Uses.
the requirements of chapter 18-5.4 Conditional Use Permits.
3. Prohibited Uses.
Uses not listed in the Land Use Table, and not found to be similar to an allowed
use following the procedures of section 18-1.5.040 Similar Uses, are prohibited.
18-3.13.050 Dimensional Regulations
A.
The lot and building dimensions shall conform to the standards in Table 1 8-3.13.050
below.
Table 18-3.13.050 Dimensional Standards NN-01 NN-02 NN-03
NN-03-C
Base density, dwelling units per acre 5 10 15
Minimum Lot Area, square feet
1
5,000 3500 3000
(applies to lots created by partitions only)
Minimum Lot Depth, feet
1
80 80 80
(applies to lots created by partitions only)
Minimum Lot Width, feet
1
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
X X X
222
Minimum Front Yard to unenclosed front porch, feet
Currently under discussion as part of the ULUO update
to be consistent
6 6 6
Minimum Side Yard
0 0
33
Minimum Side Yard abutting a public street 10 10 10
Minimum Rear Yard 10 ft per Bldg Story, 5 feet per Half Story
Setback and yard requirements shall conform to the
Solar Access
Solar Access standards of chapter 18-4.10.
Maximum Building Height, feet / stories 35 / 2.5 35 / 2.5 35 / 2.5
Maximum Lot Coverage, percentage of lot 50% 65% 75%
Minimum Required Landscaping, percentage of lot 50% 35% 25%
See section 18-4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design
Parking
Requirements
Minimum Outdoor Recreation Space, percentage of lot na 8% 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 width of a public easement whichever is greater.
3 Minimum Side Yard for Attached Residential Units (Feet)
B.Density Standards
Development density in the Normal Neighborhood shall not exceed the densities
,
established by Table 18-3.13.050 except where granted a density bonus under chapter 18-3.8
Performance Standards Options and consistent with the following:
Page 6 of 10
1 General Density Provisions.
a. The density in NN-01, NN-02, NN-03 and NN-03-C zones shall 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 section18-5.7.050F.
c. Units less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the
purposes of density calculations.
d. Accessory residential units consistent with standards described in section 18-2.3.040 are not
required to meet density or minimum lot area requirements.
2. Residential Density Bonuses
.
a. The maximum bonus permitted shall be 40 percent.
b. Cottage Housing. In the NN-01 zone, developments meeting the standards of section 18-2.3.090
Cottage Housing shall receive a density bonus of two cottage housing units for each single-
family home allowed by the base density of the district and is exempt from the 40 percent
maximum bonus.
18-3.13.060 Site Development and Design Standards.
The Normal Neighborhood District Design
Standards provide specific requirements for the physical orientation, uses and arrangement of buildings; the
management of parking; and access to development parcels. Development located in the Normal
Neighborhood District shall 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.
The design and construction of streets and public
improvements shall be in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards. A change in the design of a
street in a manner inconsistent with the Normal Neighborhood Plan requires a minor amendment in
accordance with section 18-3.13.030.B.
1. Conformance with Street Network Plan:
New developments shall provide avenues,
streets, alleys, multi-use paths, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements consistent with
the design concepts within the mobility chapter of the Normal Neighborhood Plan
Framework and in conformance with the Normal Neighborhood Plan Street Network Map.
a. Streets designated as Shared Streets on the Normal Neighborhood Plan Street
Network Map may be alternatively developed as alleys, or multiuse paths provided
the following:
i. Impacts to the water protection zones are minimized to the greatest extent feasible.
Page 7 of 10
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 shall 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 shall be developed 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 shall
conform to the standards set forth in section 18-4.3, and as follows:
a. Automobile access to development is intended to be primarily provided by alleys.
b. Curb cuts along a Neighborhood Collector or shared street shall be limited to one per
block, or one per 200 feet where established block lengths exceed 400 feet.
4. Required On-Street Parking
: On-street parking is a key strategy to traffic calming and is
required along the Neighborhood Collector and Neighborhood Streets.
B. Site and Building Design Standards.
1. Lot and Building Orientation:
a. Lot Frontage Requirements: Lots in the Normal Neighborhood are required to have their Front
Lot Line on a street or a Common Green.
b. Common Green. The Common Green provides access for pedestrians and bicycles to
abutting properties. Common greens are also intended to serve as a common open
space amenity for residents. The following approval criteria and standards apply to
common greens:
i. Common Greens must include at least 400 square feet of grassy area, play area, or
dedicated gardening space, which must be at least 15 feet wide at its narrowest
dimension.
2. Cottage Housing
.: Cottage housing developments are allowed within the Normal Neighborhood
subject to the applicable standards of chapter 18-2.3.090 Cottage Housing and as follows:
a. Cottage housing developments are allowed within the NN-01 zone subject to the applicable
provisions of the underlying zone and review through Chapter 18-3.8 Performance Standards
Option.
Page 8 of 10
i. In the NN-01 zones, two cottage house units developed consistent with the requirements of
chapter 18-2.3.090 shall be allowed in place of each single-family home allowed by the base
density of the district where a density bonus is approved under section 18-3.8.050.B.5.
.
3. Conservation of Natural Areas.
Development plans shall preserve water quality, natural
hydrology and habitat, and preserve biodiversity through protection of streams and wetlands.
In addition to the requirements of 18-3.10 Water Resources, conserving natural water systems
shall be considered in the site design through the application of the following guidelines:
a.Designated stream and wetland protection areas shall be considered positive design
elements and incorporated in the overall design of a given project.
b.Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance habitat.
c. Create a long-term management plan for on-site wetlands, streams, associated habitats and
their buffers.
4. Storm Water Management.
Natural water systems regulate water supply, provide biological
habitat, and provide recreational opportunities. Development shall reduce infrastructure costs
and adverse environmental effects of storm water run-off by managing run-off from building roofs,
driveways, parking areas, sidewalks and other hard surfaces through implementation of
appropriate storm water management practices as follows
a. When required by the City Engineer, the applicant shall 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 shall be site specific and
shall account for conditions such as soil type, vegetative cover, impervious areas, existing
drainage patterns, flood plain areas and wetlands.
b. Future Peak Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed the pre-development peak flow.
The default value for pre-development peach flow shall be .25 CFS per acre.
c. Detention volume shall be sized for the 25 year, 24 hour peak flow and volume.
d. Development shall incorporateone 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 of pervious or semi-pervious surfaces that allow water to infiltrate soil.
iv. Design grading and site plans that create a system that slows the stormwater, maximizing
time for cleansing and infiltration.
v. Maximizing the length of overland flow of storm water through bioswales and rain gardens,
vi. Use structural soils in those environments that support pavements and trees yet are free
draining.
vii. Plant deep rooted native plants.
Page 9 of 10
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 shall 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-O3-C zone shall have
parking primarily accommodated by the provision of on-street parking spaces, and
are not required to provide off-street parking or loading areas, except for residential
uses where one space shall be provided per residential unit.
18-3.13.65 Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards
An exception to the requirements Site Development and Design Standards shall follow the procedures and
approval criteria adopted under section 18-4-1.030, unless authorized under the procedures for a major
amendment to plan.
1 8-3.13.070 Conservation Area Overlay
All projects containing land identified as Conservation Areas on the Normal Neighborhood Plan Land Use
Zone Map shall dedicate those areas as: common areas, public open space, or private open space
protected by restrictive covenant. It is recognized that the master planning of the properties as part of the
Normal Neighborhood Plan imparted significant value to the land, and the reservation of lands for
conservation purposes is proportional to the value bestowed upon the property through the change in
zoning designation and future annexation.
18.3.13.080. Review and Approval Procedure.
All land use applications shall be reviewed and processed
in accordance with the applicable procedures of Part 18-5.
Page 10 of 10
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan:
1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and
2) What is your overall impression of the plan?
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of March 5, 2014, 10:13 AM
As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily
representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of March 5, 2014, 10:13 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan:
1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and
2) What is your overall impression of the plan?
Introduction
The City of Ashland is in the final stages of developing a plan for the future neighborhood at the north end of
Normal Avenue and is seeking additional citizen input. The proposed Normal Neighborhood Plan reflects nearly
two years of public participation and neighborhood involvement.
Neighborhood planning is the opportunity to think ahead and determine a vision for the future of the
neighborhood. Having an adopted plan in place will ultimately provide for the coordination of streets, pedestrian
connections, utilities, storm water management and open space. The final plan is intended to provide a clear
expectation and understanding for both developers and neighboring residents regarding future development.
Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan
http://www.ashland.or.us/SIB/files/NormalPlanDocument_20140225.pdf :
1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and
2) What is your overall impression of the plan?
City officials will read the statements made on Open City Hall and consider them in their decision making
process. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on March 11th, 2014 in the City
Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street.
If you have questions please contact Brandon Goldman at (541)552-2076 or brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us.
Written comments may also be submitted via email or mailed to:
City of Ashland
Community Development Department
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of March 5, 2014, 10:13 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 2 of 8
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan:
1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and
2) What is your overall impression of the plan?
As of March 5, 2014, 10:13 AM, this forum had:
Attendees:193
On Forum Statements:12
All Statements:17
Minutes of Public Comment:51
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of March 5, 2014, 10:13 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 3 of 8
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan:
1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and
jonathan seidler inside AshlandMarch 5, 2014, 9:17 AM
I have attended all the study groups and have come away with a couple of disturbing facts that none here have
alluded to. First is the total size of the proposed annexation. 90+ acres creates a guaranteed scenario of
piecemeal development. This has been addressed as fact during comment time from developers at the study
groups. It is a fact not disputed and over how many years the plan becomes realized is anyones guess. Real
estate being very cyclical and risky in itself provides the scenario of abandoned efforts and a checkerboard
effect of muddy half developed blocks amongst finished efforts. It has been put forth at the meetings that it is
likely development would migrate in a southern direction from E. Main as primary services would begin there as
it is the most cost effective starting point and the lure of the most profitable sales. The next point that has been
made numerous times is the whereabouts of, if any, of wetlands. The developers have made numerous
assertions that there are NO wetlands and that the "creeks" are presently irrigation flows during season and
that their flows can be manipulated as so to make their presence as minimum and as invisible as possible.
I would hope the council will address the fact of how large this annexation is and how little experience it has
with one this size. I hope the council will only annex proposals ready to proceed with a guarantee that
incidentals are in place to incorporate and promote to connecting properties for their future development. I hope
the council does NOT back down on promoting wet land creation and preservation. If a developer then feels
that he/she is losing their economic viability then they can raise their prices accordingly and see if the risk pans
out in the market they've entered. People here need to understand that annexation does not
mean that Ashland owns the land. Creating market gardens,sporting ovals,stomping grounds,etc, are all at the
expense of the developers so it is likely the proposals will attract minimum expense when costs are considered.
Angelina McClean inside AshlandMarch 3, 2014, 10:07 PM
I appreciate the effort that has been made so far to try to accommodate so many different interests in the
community.
Personally, I would like to see this area as undeveloped as possible. I don't know how realistic that is, but I am
interested to know if considerations and studies have been or will be made concerning the environmental
impacts that more development will have on this area.
Specifically, I am concerned about the wetlands and if the proposed buffer zones are adequate. How did this
area fare after the heavy rains we had recently, and how would that differ once it is developed?
I am also curious about wildlife impact studies. I have heard there are owls, foxes, and other sensitive wildlife in
the area. Is their habitat and mobility being taken into consideration? Do any species, like birds or waterfowl rely
on this area for migration or overwintering?
However this project plays out, I would like to add my support to the few who have already suggested a
community garden. Natural, open spaces, parks, and community gardens are all things that will increase the
value of our community far into the future. Lately I have seen articles about food forest plans that are cropping
up in places like Seattle and Austin. I tried to paste a photo of the plans for the Austin food forest, but am only
able to link to the webpage. It's worth considering.
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of March 5, 2014, 10:13 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 4 of 8
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan:
1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and
The article is at: www.austinchronicle.com
The plans for the food forest are at:
http://festivalbeachfoodforest.weebly.com/food-forest-plans.html
Margaret Garrington inside AshlandMarch 3, 2014, 4:16 PM
Provide multi use path connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians separate from streets. Link East Main bike
path via a multi use path through the Normal neighborhood to the existing bike path to the south, and also
create a western path link to the middle school. Shared streets are inconsistent with safety concerns when you
have the opportunity to create separate transportation byways.
Also designate place holders for public art and require developers to set aside a certain percent of development
costs for multi use paths, parks, and public art.
Jan Vidmar inside AshlandMarch 3, 2014, 10:31 AM
Jan Vidmar inside Ashland
I support the Normal Plan with two caveats. The proposed development of land adjacent to Cemetery Creek,
just close to the railroad tracks, is currently designated NN-02. It makes more sense to have single family
homes, similar to the homes currently built along Normal. In other words, like facing like and designated NN-
01. Ashland has very few "below the boulevard" neighborhoods with large yards.
My second concern is the flow of Cemetery Creek. Although the creek is not always visible, walking through
the wetland area is a soggy affair. A wetland does not always present itself with lakes, stream flow and ducks.
Cemetery Creek should be considered a pathway for drainage. At times, after a hard rain, the creek flows and
the water has a way to proceed from the hills to the valley floor. Any development that blocks that flow
potentially puts home owners in flood peril. The current Normal Plan has homes and roads that would
potentially impede this water flow.
Michael Shore outside AshlandFebruary 28, 2014, 2:19 PM
The process that arrived at this plan was fueled in part by a grant of money from the state.
Part of the motive for this plan was described as finding a way to comply with rules laid out by the state
pertaining to sprawl.
Any plan like this would bump into the freedom of use that property owners would like to assume as rights vs
the ability of either the state or the town to exert some controls on that use.
This is a perfect set up for a turf battle. In an effort to find a middle ground some interested parties were invited
to the "table", some were not.
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of March 5, 2014, 10:13 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 5 of 8
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan:
1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and
Certain developers made it clear that they would move forward to get the most value out of the land. I presume
that value would be measured in dollars extracted.
Some factions thought that with the "right amount" of preservation and beautification , controlled density would
be abided....... so long as the density was not in proximity to them.
What ever you believe about the power of special interests in determining policy, in this plan you can find
evidence of owners and developers and government entities striving to get what they want.
I think it is good for citizens to work hard to arrive at compromise. However some citizens represented ideas
without the so called authority of ownership. Are mere residents and neighbors people who have legitimate
claims to voice in the outcome? Are land owners the only legitimate voices in this decision?
During the discussions some important points were raised and important questions went unanswered.
Streets, safety,sewage, water, cost of fire protection, actual connectivity to public transit, cost of maintaining the
proposed "natural" areas, these were all costs and conditions left hanging.
Meanwhile some suggestions regarding the loss of beauty, habitat and ground water recharging area were
received as charming but crank notions un related to the pragmatic business of real estate investment or
satisfaction of State mandates.
The plan arises from a need to control a blight called sprawl. The proponents say that at least there needs to be
a plan because without a plan chaotic growth will be worse.
I believe Ashland should annex the land and create a demonstration farm providing organic food for the local
institutions, training and employment for the local interested citizens and yes some low income housing for
those who choose to work and learn full time in the created facility.
I believe over time we will look back on a plan that decreased Ashland's dependence on imported food,
increased Ashland's influence on food quality with a civic pride in non GMO local seeds and maintained the
beautiful view and free space of the Normal area acres with the pleasure that comes from seeing a secured
and precious conservation plan in action. The Ashland Organic project would be one more reason for tourists,
eco tourists, to visit and be enriched by our embrace of sustainable culture.
Barry Vitcov inside AshlandFebruary 28, 2014, 11:58 AM
I'm happy to see how the latest version of the Normal Neighborhood Plan has changed the area immediately
north of Creek Drive to NN-02. This makes sense as it better blends the Meadowbrook Park Estates community
to whatever might be developed in that area. I'm also pleased with the amount of open space in the plan.
However, the NN-02 designated areas to the land west of Meadowbrook Park Estates and the adjacent open
space does not seem appropriate. I believe that entire area, with the possible exception of the NN-02
designation that abuts North Main Street, ought to be designated NN-01. It doesn't make sense to me to have a
swathe of higher density housing cut through what is now larger single-family parcels. There are increasingly
fewer opportunities for families to purchase homes with significant yard space in Ashland, and I think it would
be a good idea to reserve some potential for that type of property.
Barbara Comnes inside AshlandFebruary 28, 2014, 10:13 AM
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of March 5, 2014, 10:13 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 6 of 8
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan:
1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and
The plan does not directly address possible changes in railroad crossings. I live north of the Railroad District
across the tracks and am very interested in seeing the 4th Street rail crossing be developed at least for
pedestrians, if not for cars. I am concerned that the Normal Neighborhood Plan could remove the possibility of
developing the 4th Street crossing. The distance between safe rail crossings with sidewalks and access to
people with mobility issues in this part of town is one mile, which seems unacceptable for this most central
location that blends housing with commercial activity, promoting a green lifestyle.
Priscilla Hunter inside AshlandFebruary 28, 2014, 7:04 AM
There are a couple of confusing items in your plan that I thought you'd like to know about.
1. In your list of housing types, your second category is a Double Dwelling Residence Unit, which I believe one
would also call a duplex. You describe it as a pair of self-contained living facilities existing in either a side-by-
side or a stacked configuration. I point out first that this housing type also exists in an "L" configuration. (This
category appears to be a form of the Attached Residential Unit, your category 5, which seems to refer to the
triplex or, as suggested by one of your photos, even the quatriplex structure, without reaching the housing
capacity of the Multiple Dwelling Residential Unit, your category 6).
2. The third residential unit type listed in your plan is an Accessory Residential Unit (you describe it as a small
living unit sharing a lot with a Single Dwelling Residential Unit). It is apparently a structure one would call a
cottage, and, although you don't mention that word in your description of it, it does seem to be the same thing
as what you call Cottage later in your report. It is clearly not the same thing as your second category in this list
of housing forms, a Double Dwelling Residential Unit or your fifth category, an Attached Residential Unit. You
have apparently listed the Accessory RU (cottage) as zoned for NN-01, NN-02, and NN-03. Later in your chart
showing target housing density in each zoning district, the Cottage is the second category you have listed.
However it does not appear to be included as a permitted structure in zones 02 and 03, which seems to
contradict what you have said about the Accessory RU in the earlier part of your plan.
I hope you find this helpful information.
Brian Kolodzinski inside AshlandFebruary 27, 2014, 9:44 PM
I support the project overall but was surprised when I got to the end and read there was no city water or sewer
service. Is this true for all developments in that part of town? I also hope there would not be too many roadways
over streambeds. The natural layout of the area should be incorporated into the design of the neighborhoods as
much as permissible. In addition to the open spaces, it would be nice to see some community gardens for
residents that are residing in the higher density dwellings.
Steve Read inside AshlandFebruary 27, 2014, 7:26 PM
First a question: Who or what is driving this project, ie. what needs does it fulfill. Did the neighborhood request
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of March 5, 2014, 10:13 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 7 of 8
Normal Neighborhood Plan
Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan:
1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and
changes?
Second: The story about the trains blocking emergency vehicles must be a really old one as there have been
almost no trains for 10 years or so. Inserting that scare tactic into the discussion destroys the credibility of the
entire project. If you will use scare tactics to sell your project then I will never support it. Your credibility has
been damaged.
Jim Curty outside AshlandFebruary 27, 2014, 5:15 PM
I stand in opposition to the plan. Roadways have been planned without listening to the owners. The size of
wetland W9 is grossly overstated. As a representative of land that will be procured for roads... we feel that use
of our land is being decided without our future plans being taken into consideration. (Two roads across the
land!) We do not want to stand in the way of progress, but the plan means our land will no longer be able to be
developed in any way that would enhance our mission.
Donald Stone inside AshlandFebruary 27, 2014, 4:00 PM
I have no objection to the plan. However, my concern would be whether or not the residents of the Normal
Neighborhood have been active in wanting and requesting these changes. If not, and they are simply "victims"
of another City Administration pie in the sky "improvement plan" similar to the Plaza renovation, then I would
favor the City just butting out and considering that it likely ain't broke so don't try to fix it.
Don Stone
395 Kearney St
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of March 5, 2014, 10:13 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 8 of 8
DISCUSSION ITEM
_________________________________
SHORT TERM HOME RENTALS
Memo
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
DATE: March 11, 2014
RE:
Hosted short-term in single family zoning districts
SUMMARY
On November 4, 2013, the City Council discussed the issue of potentially permitting short term
rentals on owner-occupied properties in single-family zoning districts, and requested that the
Commission forward recommendations for Council consideration. Staff is soliciting Planning
Commission feedback on potential code amendments that would allow a hosted or owner-
occupied property within a single-
accommodation unit. As part of considering this type of use, which currently is not permitted in
single family zoning districts, a number of code amendments should be evaluated that would
regulate size of accommodation, location, type (i.e. attached or detached), management, parking
and the approval process. Additional standards as well could be generated by the Commission
and through the public hearing process. Lastly, in addition to neighborhood impacts, the potential
effects on the supply of long term housing rentals should be considered as different standards are
evaluated.
BACKGROUND:
The City has had an ongoing problem with illegal lodging facilities in all of its residential zones.
These facilities, which operate without conditional use permits or business licenses and without
paying transient occupancy tax, will often advertise on web sites such as VRBO.com or
AirBnB.com, making them relatively easy to find for code enforcement purposes. Since May of
2012, when the City began more vigorous code enforcement efforts with regard to illegal lodging
facilities, about 60% to 70% of the code enforcement actions have been targeted at facilities in
R-1 zones.
In January 2014, the Planning Commission initiated a new discussion of potentially permitting
short term accommodations in single family zoning districts. This meeting presents an
opportunity to continue the discussion, specifically focusing on aspects of a potential code
amendment that would allow for limited operations comprised of a single accommodation on a
ty. Additionally, the Commission has been asked to evaluate the existing code
within 200-feet of a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector.
In a prior Council communication, staff noted that there are currently 5,305 parcels in R-1 zones.
on a short
term basis, if legal, would be equal to the number of illegal units investigated by City code
compliance since May of 2012, then that would be approximately 80 units or approximately
1.5% of the parcels in R-1. There are currently 2,710 parcels in R-1 zones located within 200
feet of an arterial or major street. If the same percentage
would be approximately 40 units. The number, however, could be smaller if a CUP is required.
POTENTIAL PROPOSAL:
Given recent code
zoning districts, R-2 and R-3, staff and the Commission should assume that any allowance for
short term rentals in the single family zoning district, R-1, would be limited to owner or host-
or host.
Some
rentals in single family (R-1) neighborhoods. According to their literature, the Ashland Host
Occupied Short Term (HOST) Rental Advocacy is a community group comprised of Ashland
residents who feel that their proposal fills a niche for a portion of travelers interested in visiting
Ashland. While staff is not at the point of advocating for the proposal, it does represent a
accommodation per property. Ashland HOSTS suggest that their proposal is similar to the
operation of a home occupation use, with the exception that hours of operation for a home
occupation limits customers between the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Home occupations are a
permitted use in all single family zones.
Due to a dramatic increase in the number of houses, apartments and bedrooms being rented
informally on a short-term basis, the City of Portland as well is considering a similar proposal.
Their amendments would allow renting one to two bedrooms in the house, apartment or
condominium where the operator lives as their primary residence.
NEXT STEP:
Staff would like the Planning Commission to focus a good part of their discussion on elements
that could be included in a package of code amendments. These issues would be considered
essential should the Council entertain adoption of code amendments that would result in greater
flexibility for the operation of short term accommodations in single family neighborhoods. A list
of key items for consideration has been prepared by staff and is included in the packet. To focus
Commissioner discussion and direct public testimony, these are divided into three subsections:
Use-Related Regulations
Site Design Regulations; and
Procedure for Approval
Just to remind the Commission, the Council forwarded this issue to the Planning Commission to
solicit a recommendation. The Council was clear to add that the act of forwarding the issue
should not be construed to imply that the Council currently endorses, at this time, encouraging
short term rentals in single family districts.
Attachments:
Discussion Draft - Possible R-1 Code Changes
Discussion Draft
March 11, 2014
Single unit, one or two-bedroom t in residential
zones, with consideration of the following:
A. Potential Use-Related Regulations:
1. Management
*The family or individual operating the
Hosted Site -
(TA) must reside on the property, which is also residence.
2. Location
* - Allow in all Residential Zones; or can be limited to R-1 and
Residential Zones
R-1-3.5 only
The hosted accommodation could be required
*Distance from a major street
to be within 200 feet of a major city street, boulevard, avenue, or
neighborhood collector, to be consistent with standards currently applied to
Councilrequested the Commission discuss the existing 200-foot
Note:
standard and forward any recommended changes. There are currently 5,305
parcels in R-
accommodations that would be offered, if legal, would be equal to the number
of illegal units investigated by City code compliance since May of 2012, then
that would represent approximately 80 properties, or 1.5% of the parcels in R-1.
There are currently 2,710 parcels in R-1 zones located within 200 feet of an
arteria
accommodations, that would be 40 units. The number, however, could be smaller
if a CUP is required.
3. Number, Size and Type of Accommodations per Property
- One traveler accommodation unit per property.
*Number of Accommodations
1
Accommodation can consist of one or two-bedrooms, not
*Maximum Size
exceeding a specified size in order to limit number of persons. For example, the
accommodation could be restricted to 500 square feet or 25% of the gross
habitable floor area, whichever is less.
The single traveler accommodation can consist of one
*Accommodation Type
of the following accommodation types:
a one bedroom or two bedroom suite located within the residence that
uses the main entrance of the residence to access the accommodation;
a one bedroom or two bedroom suite within the foot print of an existing
residence but accessed through an exterior entrance separate from
main entrance; or
a separate structure located on the property and detached from the
primary residence of the property.
B. Potential Site Design Regulations
1. Parking
*Off-street Parking No additional off-street parking requirement. However,
the property shall have two off-street parking spaces available.
2. Signs
*Signs prohibited Similar to Home Occupations, signs would not be permitted,
however, , which would
limit the operation to two, small incidental signs provided signs do not exceed
two square feet in area per sign.
*Sign Allowance
approved through the CUP process in multi-family zones, the Commission could
consider allowing one ground or wall sign, constructed of a non-plastic material,
non-interior illuminated of 6 sq. ft. maximum size is allowed.
2
C. Procedure for Approval
1. Land Use Application Type
*Conditional Use Permit (Type I Procedure) This entails filing a land use
application including a site plan and addressing the applicable criteria for
approval. Once found to be complete, the Community Development Department
to property owners within 200-feet
informing them of the request and soliciting comment. A final decision would be
made, again with notice to surrounding property owners. This decision could be
appealed to the Planning Commission.
2. Application Fee
* Administrative Approval A reduced fee could be considered based upon the
scale of the proposed use (i.e. single accommodation) being smaller than
3
PUBLIC INPUT
_________________________________
DISCUSSION ITEM
_________________________________
MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSARIES