HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-09 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, oive your name and complete address for the record.
You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is
not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 9, 2010
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. February 23,2010 Planning Commission Minutes
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-00817
APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University
DESCRIPTION: A request for adoption of the Southern Oregon University Campus Master Plan
2010-2020 as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (This plan replaces the previously approved
2000-2010 Campus Master Plan.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon
University; ZONING: S-O
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Croman Mill District Plan - Minority Report
VII. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF
ASHLAND
r.,
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104
ADA Title 1 ).
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
February 23,2010
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Larry Blake
Michael Dawkins
Dave Dotterrer
Pam Marsh
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
John Rinaldi, Jr.
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
None
Council Liaison:
Eric Navickas, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Marsh announced the vacancy on the Planning Commission and encouraged interested citizens to submit
applications to the Mayor's Office. She also reminded the Commission the March Study Session has been moved to March
30,2010.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes.
1. February 9,2010 Planning Commission Minutes.
Commissioners DotteITer/Blake mls to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-01292
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: A request to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) creating a new Chapter 18.53
Croman Mill, to amend the multiple chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to provide consistency with the
new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill (ALUO 189.08, 18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.050, 18.70.040, 18.72.030, 18.72.080,
18.72.110, 18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.88.070, 18.106), to amend the Ashland Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Map to include the Croman Mill District, and to adopt the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan
as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Marsh noted the two letters that were submitted by Mark DiRienzo and Marilyn Briggs. She stated these letters
would be added to the record and officially closed the public record at 7:08 p.m.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Miller stated she was contacted by Marilyn Briggs. She informed Ms. Briggs that she could not speak to this
issue and encouraged her to submit a letter. No ex parte contact was reported by any of the other commissioners.
Staff Report
Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a brief summary of the Staff Report Addendum included in the packet materials. She
explained the report provides options to deal with the issues raised by ODOT, and stated staff is recommending making the
ODOT maintenance yard a special permitted use. Ms. Harris stated this would make the yard a legitimate use, but once it
goes away all that can go in there would be the previously defined uses. She stated staff is also recommending language that
clarifies before the second phase of the central boulevard is built, the ODOT maintenance yard will need to be relocated. Ms.
Harris noted ODOT has also recommended the City update the Transportation Analysis, and clarified this piece is in progress.
Ms. Harris noted the Staff Report includes sample motions and recommended the Commission make separate motions for
each of the separate elements identified. She added the sample motion for 3(a) in regards to the East-West street orientation
might be worded too strongly. She stated this is not an either or situation and the Commission could ask that the Council give
this option further consideration.
Ms. Harris commented briefly on the issues raised by Mr. DiRienzo and stated staff does not believe either option that has
been put forward would make his buildings non-conforming. She stated if he wanted to enlarge his buildings or needed to re-
build them he could do so, but they would be subject to site review. Ms. Harris also clarified the plaza space requirements
referenced by Mr. DiRienzo only apply to large scale developments (10,000 sq. ft or greater or more than 100 ft. in length).
She stated once you reach that size you are required to provide 1 sq. ft. of plaza area of every 10 sq. ft. of building.
Commissioner Mindlin expressed concern that the plan provides preferential treatment for ODOT. Ms. Harris responded that
ODOT is in a unique position because all of the other existing buildings in the district could be allowed in the proposed zone,
but the plan does not provide for ODOT's public facilities maintenance yard. Community Development Director Bill Molnar
noted he met with ODOT and they assured him of their support for the plan and their desire to find a replacement location. He
stated ODOT's concern is they do not want to be zoned out until they can find a suitable replacement for their operations.
Commissioner Mindlin noted the proposed language revision in response to ODOT's concern about the easements and
restated her concern regarding preferential treatment. Staff indicated the proposed language change is more consistent with
what has been presented and intended this whole time. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman noted all of the needed easements
would be contingent on both parties being agreeable. Ms. Harris stated she does not believe this language treats ODOT
differently and stated if the Commission is uncomfortable with the proposed wording, staff is open to any suggestions they
may have.
Upon request, staff responded to the assertions made in Mr. DiRienzo's letter. Item 1) Clarified staff is recommending Mr.
DiRienzo's property retain its M-1 zoning designation. Item 2a) Clarified Modern Fan's newest addition is .45 FAR, which
conforms to the requirements in the Detail Site Review zone. Item 2b) Noted the plaza space requirements have already been
listed. Item 2c) Clarified in the Detail Site Review zone, only structures over 10,000 sq. ft. would be a Type II planning action;
anything smaller than 10,000 sq. ft. is still a Type I. And Item 2d) Clarified Mr. DiRienzo could replace his buildings if they are
damaged.
Ms. Harris explained staff believes the proposed distillery on Mr. DiRienzo's property could still be built if the property goes
into the Detail Site Review zone. She stated the distillery's FAR is within the required range and clarified the public
requirement would apply, however the approved plans did have some public space included and this would count towards that
requirement. Ms. Harris noted the Detail Site Review standards currently apply in the downtown area, as well as along all of
the City's main corridors.
Commissioner Rinaldi stated he does not agree with the assertion that changing the M-1 zoning designation removes this type
of land from the City's inventory, and stated many of the industrial uses would still be allowed. Ms. Harris agreed and stated a
lot of what people think about when they hear industrial uses are still allowed; what has been removed is the land intensive,
low employment uses (such as junk yards and concretelasphalt batch plants,)
Staff provided a brief explanation about advanced financing districts and clarified the adoption of the Croman plan does not
obligate Ashland residents to pay for the street installation and infrastructure. The improvements identified for Mistletoe Road
during Phase 1 were identified, and staff clarified the updated Traffic Analysis will look at traffic flows on Mistletoe.
Commissioner Marsh recommended the Commission move forward with their recommendations. She noted page 11 of the
Staff Report lists sample motions and opened the floor to motions.
Commissioners MorrislRinaldi mls to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments
to revise the Comprehensive Plan Map designations of Industrial, Employment and Single-Family Residential to the
Croman Mill District, and revise the Zoning Map designations of M-1Industrial, E-1 Employment and R-1 Single
Family to CM Croman Mill including the Compatible Industrial (CI), Mixed Use (MU), Neighborhood Center (NC), Office
Employment (OE) and Open Space (OS) zoning overlays with amendments as follows:
a) Include the Mixed Use zoning overlay (CM-MU) in the Zoning Map amendment;
b) Retain the M-1lndustrial zoning for the properties at 650-750 Mistletoe Road, have the Comprehensive
Plan designation amended from Industrial to Croman Mill, and include the portion of the site adjacent to
the street in the Detail Site Review zone;
c) Extend the Croman Mill District to the properties that are currently outside the city limits, but within the
UGB, with an underlying Mixed Use zoning designation should they choose to annex.
DISCUSSION: The commissioners shared their preferences in regards to whether the property on Mistletoe Road should be
included in the Detail Site Review zone. Commissioners Blake and Morris voiced their support for including this property in the
Detail Site Review zone; Dotterrer stated he was not sure this should be included. Morris recommended it be it included to
protect the area in case the property is sold and someone else wants to develop it. Marsh voiced her support for the motion
and commented on how well designed the buildings along Washington Street are. She stated she is convinced the Detail Site
Review zone will have a big difference and does not believe it will be that onerous. Dotterrer voiced his support for including
the Mixed Use Zoning Overlay and noted these areas are located next to the existing neighborhoods. Miller voiced her
opposition to the inclusion of the Overlay and stated she would prefer to see more opportunities for Compatible Industrial
uses. Regarding (c) Mindlin stated she feels strongly that by rezoning it they are sending a message to future applicants that
this is what the City's wants, and stated this option was not really discussed or put up for public input. Mindlin recommended
they leave this property in its existing zoning and Commissioner Miller agreed. Mr. Molnar explained if they leave this area in
its current designation, when an annexation request comes forward it will be for the currently identified E-1 Employment Zone,
which receives basic site review. He added the annexation applicants could request a plan designation amendment, but this
adds complexity to the process and is often not what people want to do when they are requesting annexation. The
Commission talked about this further and received further clarification from staff. Mr. Molnar stated if the property is identified
as part of the Croman Mill District, when the annexation requests comes forward there may be a possibility for the Mixed Use
designation to be changed to one of the other two Croman designations. Ms. Harris noted the open space protections would
not apply if the property is not included in the Croman Mill District, and explained as proposed, the property would come in as
Croman Mill Mixed Use, which is very flexible and allows for compatible industrial, office employment, and the option for
residential uses on upper floors. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman added that the City does not have a zone comparable to
the property's current RR-5 designation, and to keep this property as County RR-5 in perpetuity would require redrawing the
Urban Growth Boundary to no longer consider this area urbanizable. Marsh restated the motion on the floor.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Rinaldi, Miller, Dotterrer, Blake, Morris, and Marsh, YES. Commissioners Dawkins and
Mindlin, NO. Motion passed 6-2.
Commissioner Marsh noted the second sample motion put forward in the Staff Report and listed their options.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Miller mls to recommend approval of adding a new Chapter 18.53 CM to the Ashland
Municipal Code, with amendments as follows:
a) Revise the Major Amendment section 18.53.020.B.1 to clarify the distinction between a major and minor
amendment as it relates to the changes to street or other transportation facilities as described on page
11 of the February 3, 2010 staff memo;
b) Add the manufacture of food products to the Office Employment (OE) zone as a special permitted use.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Miller voiced her support for the manufacture of food products to be included. Dotterrer also
voiced his support and stated this will provide more options for people who want to develop in this area.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dotterrer, Blake, Marsh, Miller, Morris, and Rinaldi, YES. Commissioners Mindlin and
Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 6-2.
Commissioner Marsh noted their options for motion 3 and recommended the group work through their options before a motion
is made.
Item 3(a): Should the street orientation follow the framework in the proposed Croman Mil District Implementation Plan, or
should the streets and zoning overlays be adjusted to the East-West street orientation?
Commissioner Marsh noted they do not have to choose tonight and can recommend that the Council consider the East-West
alternative. Mr. Goldman clarified the East-West option results in a slight reduction of Compatible Industrial lands (1.3 acres),
and a slight increase in Mixed Use and Office Employment. Blake stated if there is no significant loss of acreage for the
various uses, they should recommend the Council pursue the East-West orientation. He stated the 450 layout is a bad way to
start out, and unless you have flat roofs on the buildings this is bad planning. Rinaldi voiced his support for recommending the
East-West layout. Morris stated he is not a big fan of the East-West layout and is concerned the buildings will get too hot. He
stated he is not sure the revisions that would be needed to the streets are worth the gain in solar savings. Mindlin voiced her
support for the East-West orientation and stated they know for sure this will increase the possibilities for solar and believes
they should lay the groundwork to make it possible for future owners to achieve solar savings.
Item 3(b): Should an alternative location for the norihern section of Phase II of the central boulevard as shown in the East-
West Alternative Option map be included as a potential option?
Commissioner Dotterrer recommended they leave the options as wide open as possible. Miller stated she does not think they
should recommend anything since it will be a long while before Phase II happens and they can not anticipate what will change.
Marsh clarified this is what is proposed and they are leaving all options on the table. She clarified they are essentially putting
forward two conceptual ideas that will be need to evaluated when Phase II is designed.
Item 3(c): Should the onsite surface parking limitation be revised so that a higher percentage of the required off-street parking
can be constructed as surface parking on the site until a parking management plan is established for the Croman Mill District,
and retaining the 50% maximum once the management plan is in place?
Commissioner Rinaldi asked if a development put in their own off-street parking, would they be relieved from any future
obligation that comes out of the parking management plan? Ms. Harris clarified the original concept was to have a system set
up so that in lieu of putting in parking spaces, a developer could contribute to the funding of the shared parking structure. She
added if a developer is able to put in their own parking, they will not have to pay for the parking structure as well. Marsh asked
if the Commission would be willing to recommend the parking management plan address alternative options that limit vehicle
traffic on the site. General support was voiced for this. Miller stated she hopes the City will be flexible in how many spaces
they require.
Item 3(d): Should the Green Development Standards (VIII-C-B through VIII-C-11) be combined to provide a menu of items the
applicant could choose from?
Ms. Harris provided a summary of this issue. She explained these items were previously listed under one standard and they
were recommended, not required. Through the Planning Commission's discussions, staff revised the language to make these
requirements. Blake stated he would like for these four items to be mandatory; however he wants to be sensitive to concerns
raised regarding the costs of property development. He also commented that there may be some internal inconsistencies and
stated if the final plan includes the original 450 street layout, there will be two west sides and two east sides for each building.
He explained the way the building shading and solar orientation standards are worded assumes the buildings are oriented
north-east-south-west. He stated there may be some logic to using the menu approach and giving the developer more latitude.
Mindlin stated she is in favor of leaving this as a list of requirements, however she noted the standards do not specify how
much or to what degree. Mr. Molnar commented that by not specifying this it provides some flexibility. Dotterrer suggested
they add the language "to the extent practical" to clarify the intent. Mindlin noted this does not mean to the extent practical
financially. Morris stated these are too ambiguous to be requirements, and if they make this a standard they need to quantify
them. Marsh stated she does not support the menu approach and felt they should make these either requirements or
recommendations. General support was voiced for recommending these as standards, but asking the Council to refine them
further.
Item 3(e): Should the Green Building Bonus standard be revised to reduce or delete the performance bond and penalty
amounts?
Commissioner Marsh noted their options and general support was voiced for deleting the performance bond and penalty
amounts. It was noted the City could reinstate this language if abuse becomes an issue.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Morris mls to recommend approval of adding a new Section VIII- Croman Mill District
Standards to the Site Design and Use Standards, with amendments noted as follows:
a) Strongly recommend the East-West street orientation as shown on the East-West Alternative Option Map
included in the January 12, 2010 Planning Commission packet materials;
b) For the alternative location of the northern section of Phase II of the central boulevard as shown in the
East-West Alternative Option Map be included as an option.
c) For the on-site surface parking limitation (Standard VIII-B-3.2) be revised so that a higher percentage of
the required off-street parking can be constructed as surface parking on site until a parking
management plan is established for the Croman Mill District, and retaining the 50% maximum once the
parking management plan is in place; and for the management plan to consider multi-modal options and
the possible phasing of parking requirements;
d) To strongly endorse the Green Development Standards VIII-C-8 through VIII-C-11 and ask that the
standards are recommendations, but for the Council to look into making these more specific and
required standards;
e) Delete the performance bond and penalty amounts from the Green Building Bonus standard VIII-C-13.1.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Morris, Blake, Rinaldi, Miller, Marsh, and Dotterrer, YES. Commissioners Mindlin and
Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
The Commission moved onto the final motions outlined in the Staff Report.
Commissioners Morris/Dotterrer mls to recommend approval of revisions of various sections of Chapter 18 to
provide consistency with Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Blake, Dotterrer, Marsh, Miller,
Morris, and Rinaldi, YES. Commissioners Dawkins and Mindlin, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Rinaldi mls to recommend approval of adopting the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan
as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Miller, Rinaldi,
Dotterrer, Blake, Morris, and Marsh, YES. Commissioners Mindlin and Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Ms. Harris noted the final decision that needs to be made regarding the suggestions brought forward by staff to deal with the
ODOT concerns.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Blake mls to amend the Commission's recommendation to the Council for AMC 18.53.040.B
and Croman Mill District Standard VIII-A-1.2 as outlined in pages 3 and 4 of the February 23, 2010 Staff Report
Addendum. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Miller voiced her opposition to the realignment of Grizzly Drive and Tolman Creek
Road which is identified as a requirement for Phase II in Section VII-A-1.2. Marsh clarified the Commission has acknowledged
that Phase II of the central boulevard is going to have to undergo significant planning and design. Suggestion was made to
amend the language to read, "Consideration of the realignment of Grizzly Drive and Tolman Creek Road." Commissioner
Dotterrer amended his motion to include this clarification and Blake agreed. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dotterrer,
Blake, Marsh, Miller, Morris and Rinaldi, YES. Commissioners Dawkins and Mindlin, NO. Motion passed 6-2.
Commissioner Marsh announced this item will go before the Council on April 6, 2010 and encouraged members of the public
to share their input with the City Council. Marsh commented on the possibility of a minority report and noted the procedures for
this to occur. She noted any minority report will need to be presented to the full Commission and they will need to vote on
whether to forward it along with their recommendations.
Commissioner Dawkins shared his frustrations. He stated the primary issues he raised were never discussed and he believes
the process was totally flawed.
The Commissioners commented briefly on the possibility of a minority report and shared their thoughts. Marsh indicated if a
minority report is prepared, it will need to be submitted to the Planning Commission at their next meeting on March 9, 2010.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
PLANNING ACTION:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
DESCRIPTION: A request for adoption of the Southern Oregon University Campus Master Plan 2010-2020 as
part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (This plan replaces the previously approved 2000-2010 Campus Master
Plan.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University ZONING: S-O
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
0250500 l;OOOFe8t
Properly !inesarelor reference-only, no:t. sc'xileab!e
G:\comm-devlplanninglNotices Mailedl20 1 0\2009-00817_3-9-1 O.doc
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM
March 9, 2010
PLANNING ACTION: 2009-00817
APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University
LOCATION: Southern Oregon University campus boundary
ZONE DESIGNATION: SOU - Southem Oregon University
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.64 Southern Oregon University
ST A TEWIDE PLANNING GOALS:
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning
OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS)
Chapter 197 - Comprehensive Land Use
Planning Coordination
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULE (OAR): 660w030 Review and Approval of State
Agency Coordination Programs
REQUEST: Adoption of an Update of the Master Plan for Southern Oregon University: 2010-
2020
I. Background
At the Commission's regular meeting July 14,2009, a public hearing was held regarding
a request for adoption of the Southern Oregon University Campus Master Plan 2010-2020
as a sub-area plan within the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Given the amount of public
testimony, the Planning Commission was unable to complete their deliberations and
moved to continue the public hearing to the August 11, 2009 regular meeting.
On July 20th, 2009, the Community Development Depmiment received a letter from SOU
Vice-President for Finance and Administration, Craig Monis. The letter requested that
the SOU Master Plan update temporarily be removed from the Commission's agenda so
that the University could schedule a meeting with campus neighbors and the surrounding
community in the month of October. On October 5th, 2009, John Fregonese, President of
Fregonese and Associates facilitated a public discussion on the Master Plan update.
In Janumy 2010 upon a request by the University, the review and approval of the Campus
Master Plan update was placed back on the Planning Commission agenda schedule.
Planning Action 2009-00817
Applicant Southern Oregon University
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum
Page 1 of 8
Changes to the document are identified by yellow highlights.
II. Project Impact - Suggested Conditions
The Master Plan update does not propose an expansion of the existing Southern Oregon
University campus boundary or an increase in area included within the Southern Oregon
University (SOU) zoning designation, Additionally; the revised Plan document does not
appear to incorporate any significant changes over what was presented to the Commission
at the July 2009 public meeting. As noted in the original staff report; there are several
areas covered by the Plan where staff believes additional clarification would be useful to
improve coordination; review and approval of future university projects. Following is a
list of suggested conditions that staff believes should accompany the 10wyear campus
master plan update. The reasoning and basis for the conditions is included the July 2009
staff repmi; which has been included in the record for this action.
The primary areas covered in the Master Plan are included below and are accompanied by
a bulleted list of recommended conditions of approval.
Academic Buildings (page 34)
. Demolition and Relocation of Existing Campus Buildings (Figure 12)
In addition to the requirements set fmih in the Campus Master Plan for
construction waste reduction and on-site recycling collection facilities, proposals
involving the demolition 01' relocation of existing campus structures shall be
subject to the procedures and provisions of Ashland Municipal Code 15.04-
Demolition 01' relocation of structures.
Housing and Student Life (page 37)
Student Housing
. A Pedestrian Safety Plan
Prior to submission of a planning application for the development of new student
housing north of Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard; the University will work
with the City, Oregon Department of Transpmiation and other stakeholders in
developing a specific plan for implementation that addresses actions targeted at
improving pedestrian safety. The Plan may include but not be limited to improved
crossings with enhanced pavement design and on-going monitoring of pedestrian
flow and safety issues. Design strategies shall be coordinated and prepared based
upon the expeliise of both a traffic engineer and urban design professional.
. Transpoliation Impact Analysis and Access Management
Planning Action 2009-00817
Applicant: Southern Oregon University
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum
Page 2 of 8
All future housing projects proposed within the north campus area shall be subject
to a transportation impact analysis (TIA) and access management standards
described in the City of Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP). The final
scope of this requirement will be evaluated at the pre-application meeting
preceding the land use application for Site Design Review approval.
. Building Design for Mixed Use Construction
In addition to the mandatOlY Design Guidelines described in the Master Plan
update} the following areas designated for development shall be subject to
Ashland} s approval standards for development within the Detail Site Review Zone
(II-C-2)} including those additional standards for Large Scale Projects (II-C-3).
(See attached Staff Exhibit A):
· along Ashland Street between Walker Ave and Wightman St} within 150-
feet of the near edge of the Ashland Street right of way} and
· along Walker Avenue between Ashland Street and south of Webster
Street, within ISO-feet of the near edge of the Walker Ave. right of way.
Note: The University has requested that the campus master plan be exempt from
the Detail Site Review standard establishing a floor area ratio requirement, and
that the separation between buildings provision be applied as a ratio of I-foot of
separation for every 3-feet of building height, with a minimum dimension not less
than 15Mfeet. Theil' proposal is described as follows:
· II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale #1 - maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) -
exempt
· II-C-3a) Orientation and Scale #3 - separation of buildings, when not
connected by a common wall. In lieu of this requirement, the space between
buildings in area and along the street frontages shall create a usable plaza}
with a minimum dimension of 15' feet and a minimum width of one foot for
every 3 feet of height, measured to the shorter of adjacent buildings,
Stll/fCollceruIRecommefl{latlol1: In a sense, the sou campus is a series of individual, large
propelties, separated by public streets. The application of the FAR requirement of .35 to .5 was not
anticipated for use on a campus wide application. Consequently, some relaxation of this standard
may be understandable for future University development along this limited section of Ashland
Street.
At this point, however, staff does not support the proposed change in the separation between
buildings standard. The following Detail Site Review standard:
II.C 3a) 3. Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the
height of the tallest building. If buildings are more than 240 feet In length, the separation shatl be 60
feet,
allows for I-foot of separation for evelY I-foot of building height. This seems consistent with
acknowledged urban design standards related to creating inviting public spaces that provide
adequate, but not an overpowering, level of building enclosure abounding outdoor public spaces.
Planning Action 2009-00817
Applicant: Southern Oregon University
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum
Page 3 of 8
Faculty Village Housing
. Conditional Use Permit Approval
Faculty Village Housing proposed along both Ashland Street and Henry Street,
west of Mountain Avenue, is approximately 50-feet from privately-owned
property. Consequently, future development at these locations shall be subject to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit in order to address neighborhood context.
. Building Size and Design
The 2010-2020 Plan Design Guidelines shall be amended to clarify that the
current maximum length and footprint standards are not applicable to Faculty
Village Housing proposed along Ashland Street (across from Glenwood Park) and
Hemy Street. Infill strategies and/or design guidelines for Faculty Village Housing
in these two areas shall be amended to include specific design standards related to
building scale, bulk, footprint, coverage and aliiculation that take into account and
are sensitive to existing neighborhood character, while still recognizing the need
to accommodate faculty housing at locations and densities that create ShOli
walking distances to campus and encourage the use of alternate modes of
transpOliation.
The following additional guidelines were submitted by the University at the
Public Hearing session of July 14th; 2009. When applied in conjunction with the
City's Basic Site Review Standards, it is staff's opinion that the proposed
guidelines address staff's concerns noted above, and shall be added to the Design
Guidelines of the Master Plan, as submitted.
In the areas identifiedforfaculty housing, the following design standards shall
apply:
1. Buildingfootprints shall be limited to 6,000 square feet total for a multi-
family building. Example: six attached 1000 square foot townhouses.
2. Buildings shall be no more than 120 feet long. For buildings longer than 60
feet, a significant offtet-5' or more-in the plane ofthefm;ade shall be
created so that no majorfar;ade plane is more than 60 feet in length.
Projecting elements and/or recesses-such as decks, bay windows and
recessed entries-shall be applied to facades to avoid long planar walls
facing the street.
3. Buildings shall be limited to 3 stories above grade generally and 2 stories
west of Mountain Ave.
4. Buildingfacades shall face the primary street or a shared open courtyard
space "which in turnfi'onts on the street.
Planning Action 2009..00817
Applicant Southern Oregon University
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum
Page 4 of 8
5. Building entries shall include porches, stoops and similar elements to
create a transition zone between the public street and the private home.
6. Individual entries to each dwelling unit are preferred. In no case shall more
thanfour dwelling units shall share a common entry fi'om the street or
common open space. Example: traditional four-square style building, .with
two units above and two at groundfloor sharing an entJY.
7. Buildings shall be designed 'with appropriate placement of interior spaces
and exterior windows to provide views fi'om active areas to the public street
and/or common open spaces [sometimes referred to as "eyes on the street"].
8. Shared parking shall not be located between the street and the primmy
far;ade of d.welling units, To the greatest extent feasible, parking shall be
located at the rear of un its. Where parking is located at thefi'ont of units, it
shall be only in the form of personal driveways serving individual units, In
this conjiguration, garage entries shall be set behind the primary far;ade of
dwelling units by a minimum of jive feet.
9. Exterior buildingjinishes shall be similar to existing buildings in the
surrounding neighborhood Vinyl siding is not an allmvedjinish material;
metal siding is discouraged, except as an architectural accent. Allowed
materials include:
a. Wood siding or shingle;
b. Cementitious wood products;
c. Brick, stone and artificial stone.
10, Design elements that are representative of the surrounding residential
neighborhood context are encouraged, although literal repetition of historic
styles is not required or expected
11. Landscape materials shall consistent with palette of the Ashland
bioregion. Native plants and drought-tolerant, non-invasive plantings are
strongly encouraged.
Circulation (page 44)
Eastern Gateway
. Transpol1ation Impact Analysis and Access Management Strategy
Modifications to the University's Eastern Gateway area shall be subject to a
transpOliation impact analysis and access management standards as described in
the City of Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP). The final scope of
specifications for preparation of a transportation impact analysis shall be
coordinated through Ashland Public Works Depatiment
Planning Action 2009-00817
Applicant: Southern Oregon University
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum
Page 5 of 8
. Pedestrian Safety Plan
Concurrently with the transp011ation impact analysis and access management
strategy, the University will work with the City, Oregon Depa11ment of
Transportation and other stakeholders in developing a specific plan for
implementation that addresses pedestrian safety issues. Design strategies shall be
prepared based upon input from both a traffic engineer and urban design
professionaL
Changes to Campus Circulation System
. Emergency Vehicle Access
Prior to any changes to the campus circulation system including vehicular and
pedestrian access ways, a site plan shall provided to and approved by Ashland Fire
& Rescue which demonstrates that that the proposed modifications are in
compliance with the emergency access provisions of the Oregon Fire Code.
Parking
. Parking Requirements for On-Campus Student Housing
Prior to submission of a planning application for campus housing, the University
shall development, through collaboration with city staff, specific parking
standards for on-campus housing. The standard is intended to reduce an over
provision of off-street parking and stress the use of alternate modes of
transp0l1ation, by maximizing the efficiency of established and future campus
parking facilities through consideration of the following strategies:
} The University's development and implementation of Transportation Demand
Management strategies listed in the Master Plan;
}- Review of contemporary research, professional publications and other factors
effecting parking demand;
}- Analysis of shared parking scenarios; and
} Review of potential impacts to neighborhood on-street parking supply
. Transp011ation Demand Management (TDM) strategies
That a list of potential Transp011ation Demand Management strategies
accompanied by a time line for implementation be developed and submitted in
conjunction with campus housing applications,
III. Procedural- Required Burden of Proof
18.108.170 Legislative amendments
Planning AcUon 2009.00817
Applicant: Southern Oregon University
Ashland Planning Division - Slaff Report Addendum
Page 6 of 8
A. It may be necessmy from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or
make other legislative amendments in order to conform to the comprehensive plan or to
meet other 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 ofa 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 propelty 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.
18.108.060 Type III Procedure
A. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III Procedure:
1. Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for
legislative amendments.
2, Comprehensive Plan Map Changes 01' changes to other official maps, except for
legislative amendments.
3. Annexations.
4. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments
B. 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 fn compliance with the comprehensive plan and the application
demonstrates that one or more of the following:
Planning Action 2009.00817
Applicant: Southern Oregon University
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum
Page 7 of 8
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 OCCUlTed 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 fOl1h in
18.106.030(0);01'
e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units 01' greater on commercial,
employment or industrial zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively
impact the City of Ashland's commercial and industrial land supply as required in
the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25% of the proposed base density as
affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in 18.106.030(0)
The total number of affordable units described in sections D 01' E shall be
determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed
restriction, 01' 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.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
To reiterate statements in the original staff repol1, Ashland is fOl1unate to have Southern
Oregon University within the community, The university adds to the community's
diversity, the riclll1ess of its culture, and strengthens the local economy. The master
planning eff011 presents an opportunity to assist the University in maintaining a strong
and viable institution within the Oregon University System, as well as make cel1ain that
significant changes to the campus built environment recognize and are in step with the
values and concerns of the Ashland community.
The suggested conditions of approval are directed at responding to issues raised with
respect to the shift of future housing north of Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard,
development offuture faculty housing at selected locations at the perimeter of the campus
boundary as well as the need to supp011 and encourage the availability of a variety of
transportation choices for faculty, students and other university employees.
Staff endorses approval of the Master Plan update with the suggested conditions noted in
the staff rep011 addendum.
Planning Action 2009-00817
Applicant Southern Oregon University
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum
Page 8 of 8
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 14, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Michael Dawkins, Chair
Larry Blake
Tom Dimitre
Dave Dotterrer
Pam Marsh
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
None
Council Liaison:
Eric Navickas
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the first Croman Advisory Committee meeting would be held July 15,
2009, at 5 p.m. in the Community Development Building. He also noted the Council is scheduled to resume deliberations on
the Water Resources Ordinance at their July 21 meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. May 12, 2009 Planning Commission
2. May 26, 2009 Study Session
3. June 23, 2009 Study Session
Commissioners Marsh/Dotterrer mls to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-00551
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 426 A Street
APPLICANT: Louis Plummer & Sidney Brown
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a 3,992 square foot two-story mixed use
building for the property located at 426 A Street. Also included are requests for a Mixed Use Parking Credit, a
Variance to the parking requirements, an Exception to Street Standards, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove
five trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 09
AB; TAX LOT: 6507
Commissioner Dawkins read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
All of the commissioners declared site visits; No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report for the planning application. He reviewed the condition of the
existing structures on the property, displayed several photos, and explained the Applicant's are proposing to demolish the
house, shed, and garage, and construct a mixed-use building at the site. Mr. Severson stated the property is located in a
Historic District, however the house is a non-contributing resource. He reviewed the site plan with the Commission and also
commented on the landscape plan. Mr. Severson explained there are five trees on the site that the Applicant's are proposing
to remove. One of those trees is a large cedar that has been topped heavily and is currently growing into overhead power
lines, while the other four are smaller trees. He noted the building is proposed to be constructed to LEED Standards, and
indicated the most significant portion of this application deals with the parking variance. Mr. Severson provided an explanation
of the parking requirements and indicated the total parking required for the proposal is eight spaces. He stated the Applicant's
proposal includes one handicap space and three standard spaces, and there is one on-street credit available, so the result is
a shortage of three spaces. Mr. Severson commented on the parking availability in this area and stated in general staff has
obseryed a 50% to 60% availability during business hours. He added that functionally there is an additional parking space
available in front of the site on A Street, however this space does not count towards their parking total due the substandard
width of A Street.
Mr. Severson stated staff is recommending approval of the application with noted conditions, however there are a few last
minute modifications to the conditions outlined in the staff report:
1) Condition 14d: Include that there is a small section of sidewalk along A Street that needs to be repaired;
2) Condition 1 and Condition 14g: Revise to allow issuance of certification of occupancy if the Applicant meets the
established criteria for LEED certification, with the final LEED certification to come after;
3) Condition 13c: Revise to indicate the maximum lot coverage is 85%.
Comment was made questioning how the two trees proposed for removal impact the parking. Mr. Severson clarified any effort
to move the parking further up would push the location of the building towards the street. He added if the trees are preserved
they would impact the options for the site.
Mr. Severson also provided clarification on the City's Demolition Ordinance and the process it entails. He stated the
Applicant's will have to go through a separate process to receive demolition approval and stated if someone wanted to
challenge the demolition, the Demolition Ordinance provides more teeth for this type of challenge than the land use process.
Applicant's Presentation
Christopher Brown/545 A Street/Applicant's Representative/Mr. Brown presented images of the structures on the property
and commented on their current state of decay. He stated the house is covered with black mold and a contractor assessor
indicated it would cost over $400,000 to bring it up to a state of livability. Mr. Brown reviewed the site plan and explained the
existing footprint is 1,855 sq. ft, and the footprint of the proposed mixed-use building is 1,998 sq. ft. He noted the two square
footage amounts are comparable and stated they are not trying to do something excessive with the site. He stated the
intention of the Applicant is to be very compassionate with the surrounding neighborhood and stated they see the two large
Cedar trees on the corner to be a significant contribution and want to retain these. Mr. Brown noted the green roof system that
will be installed and stated they will also be including permeable pavers, a permeable parking lot, and bioswales in the
parkway. Mr. Brown commented on the proposed parking layout and noted the availability of on-street parking in this area. He
stated in order to include the number of parking spaces required on the site, the parking lot would have to take up half of the
total lot. He concluded by stating they do not believe this area needs more large parking lots.
Comment was made that this looks like a modern building and it was questioned how it fits into the Historic District. Mr. Brown
commented on the elements taken from the adjacent Craftsman style homes and incorporating the heavy industrial influence
of the Railroad District. He stated their intent was to create moderation between these elements and noted the Historic
Commission's approval of the design.
It was questioned why the office space is not delineated on the plan. Mr. Brown responded that the owners are hoping to stay
flexible at this point in order to accommodate the future tenant. Mr. Severson clarified one of the conditions proposed by staff
requires the breakdown to be provided at building permit submittal.
It was questioned if the Applicant is working with the Public Works Department regarding the proposed storm drainage system
for the alley. Mr. Brown asked the project's engineer, Tom Sissel, to come forward and respond.
Tom Sissel/3501 Excel Drive, Suite 240, Medford/Clarified they have been in contact with the Public Works Department and
the City's Associate Engineer has come out to the site. He stated they have discussed taking some of the water drainage from
the alley and directing it onto the proposed parking area and to an on-site detention facility; from there it would flow into a
bioswale and to a catch basin at the corner of 3rd and A Streets. Mr. Sissel stated the City's Assoc. Engineer indicated that the
standard alley requirement is to have everything drain to the center and would not commit to whether they would allow this to
be changed. He stated if staff does not allow this to be changed, they will request to improve the existing drainage and catch
basin.
Commissioner Mindlin commended the Applicant for their efforts and hopes they will be able to implement this system.
It was questioned what level of LEED certification are they shooting for and Mr. Brown clarified that they are on track to
receive Gold Certification.
Public Testimonv
Philip Langl A letter from Philip Lang was read into the record by Commissioner Dawkins. The letter voiced opposition to the
proposal, specifically the demolition of a 100-year old, historic Railroad District house. Lang recommended that the property
owners be asked to rebuildlreconstruct the property, preserYing its authentic beauty and historic presence.
Collin Swales/143 A Street/Stated the building design is fine, but is disappointed another one of Ashland's small, historic
homes will be removed. Mr. Swales commented on the variance request and stated being located in a Historic District in itself
is not a sufficiently unique or unusual circumstance to qualify for the variance. He voiced his approval for the energy efficiency
of the building, but stated the fact that the Applicant is choosing to make it energy efficient should not qualify them for the
variance. He added approving the parking variance because they are getting a green building is not currently the law.
Anne Golden/247 Third Street/Stated she lives up the block from the proposed project and while she appreciates the efforts
of the Applicant, has concerns with the parking. Ms. Golden commented on the reduction from 8 parking spaces to the
Applicant's proposal of just 4 off-street spaces, and stated the on-street spaces mentioned by the Applicant are being used.
She noted the residences that use on-street parking on Third St. and stated it is a faulty assumption that the residences will
leave during the day and leave those spaces vacant for the officelretail use. Ms. Golden suggested the building design was
too large for the lot and stated a more modest size building would be a more appropriate scale for the neighborhood. She
thanked the Applicant for their green design, but requested 2-3 more parking spaces be provided on the site.
Rebuttal bv the Applicant
Christopher Brown/Stated they were aware parking was going to be an issue. He stated the Palace Cafe and Noble Coffee
businesses have created some congestion in the area; however at 10 a.m. this morning not one car was parked on the street.
Mr. Brown voiced his concern with limiting the potential of this site because of the ownership of automobiles and added that
this area is not zoned residential; it is an E-1 district. He commented on the necessity to create a commercially viable building
at this site and stated at some point something is going to get built on this corner. He stated his clients are trying to find a
solution that benefits the neighborhood, and noted the letter of support submitted by the neighboring property owner. Mr.
Brown concluded by stating in addition to the parking spaces they are providing on the site, there is potential for 5-6 cars to be
parked on Third Street, and 3-4 cars on A Street.
Letter of support submitted by Tom Bradley, 266/268 Third Street, was read into the record by staff.
Commissioner Dawkins closed the record and the public hearing at 8 p.m.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Marsh/Dotterrer mls to approve PA #2009-00551, with the corrected conditions as noted by staff.
DISCUSSION: Marsh stated she is comfortable with the variance and commented on the need to look at the parking situation
in the Railroad District and the entire City as whole, and not on a case by case basis. Dotterrer concurred with Marsh's
statement and stated he is comfortable with the variance; however, he warned that building a LEED certified structure is not a
criteria for the variance and should not have been referenced in the staff report. Blake commented that anytime you introduce
a new building into a Historic District you face challenges. He noted the proposed building materials and voiced appreciation
for the way the building steps back and keeps with the scale of the historic houses in the neighborhood. Mindlin stated the fact
that A Street is too narrow to award an on-street parking credit is a circumstance beyond the Applicant's control and therefore
qualifies for the variance. She noted the way the parking has been laid out off the alley, which minimizes the pavement
surfacing is also a reason to support the proposal. Dimitre commented if the required parking cannot fit on the site, this tells
him that the building is too big. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Marsh, Dotterrer, Blake, Dawkins, Miller, Mindlin and
Morris, YES. Commissioner Dimitre, NO. Motion passed 7-1.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTIONS: #2009-00817
APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University
DESCRIPTION: A request for adoption of the Southern Oregon University Campus Master Plan 2010-2020 as
part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (This plan replaces the previously approved 2000-2010 Campus Master
Plan.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: S-O
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Blake recused himself from the public hearing due to his affiliation with Southern Oregon University. Dawkins indicated his
father was a teacher at the college and he attended SOSC. Mindlin stated she had received a communication from Rivers
Brown through her work with T ransition Town, and noted this document has been distributed to the rest of the Commission
and made part of the record. She also indicated that she performed a site visit. Morris stated he lives a few blocks from the
University, was a student at SOSC, and also donates time to ScienceWorks, which is located on University property. Marsh
stated she performed a site visit, was a student at the University, and also lives a few block away. She added that she had
read the recent newspaper articles and had a brief conversation with Matt Marr regarding the placement of the faculty
housing, however no new information was shared in that conversation. Miller stated she has also read the newspaper articles
and frequently walks by the campus. Dimitre stated he had performed a site visit.
Staff Report
Community Development Director Bill Molnar addressed the Commission and provided a brief overview of the land use
process for this type of application and previous SOU Master Plan updates. He explained the University is required to go
through this process every ten years and this plan outlines the direction the University would like to take over the next decade
(2010 through 2020). Mr. Molnar stated the Commission's duty is to ensure that the proposed plan is consistent with the
Ashland Comprehensive Plan from a land use standpoint. He added this is a Type III hearing and the Commission will take
public testimony and forward a recommendation to the City Council, who will ultimately make the final decision.
Mr. Molnar delivered the staff presentation on the SOU Master Plan 2010-2020 Update. The presentation focused primarily on
the proposed University housing outlined in the plan, but also touched on campus parking standards and the need for
Transportation Demand Management strategies. Mr. Molnar displayed several photos of the various areas planned for future
development and presented the following staff recommendations:
1) SOU Facultv Housino at Ashland Street and Mountain Ave.
Staff Recommendations: a) Project be subject to a conditional use permit, b) Adopt additional design standards
addressing building scale, bulk, coverage, articulation, etc., and c) Conduct a Transportation Impact Analysis
prior to final design.
2) SOU Housino on Henrv Street.
Staff Recommendations match those outlined above for Item 1.
3) SOU Facultv Housino on Walker Avenue.
Staff Recommendations: a) Adopt additional design standards addressing building scale, bulk, coverage,
articulation, etc., and b) Conduct a Transportation Impact Analysis prior to final design.
4) SOU Mixed Use Housino on Ashland Street.
Staff Recommendations: a) Project be subject to Detail Site Review and Large Scale Development Standards, b)
Conduct a Transportation Impact Analysis prior to final design, and c) Adopt a Pedestrian Safety Plan and
timeline for implementation.
5) Campus Parkino Standards.
Staff Recommendations: a) Promote the use of alternate modes of transportation, and b) Refine campus parking
requirements.
6) Transportation Demand Manaoement (TDM).
Staff Recommendation: Require TDM strategies and a timeline for implementation.
Applicant's Presentation
Craig Morris, Vice President, SOU Finance and Administration OeptlMr. Morris introduced the University's consultants for
this project Eric Ridenour, SERA Architects and Greg Covey, Covey Pardee Landscape Architects. Mr. Ridenour stated
the University's Master Plan is the long range vision of where they would like to go in the next 10 year period. He explained
projects are generally identified in the Plan, and there will be a level of specific site planning that comes later.
Mr. Ridenour delivered a presentation on the Master Plan Update and outlined the following key elements of the Plan:
1) Renovate and expand the Theatre Arts building;
2) Upgrade the Science building complex;
3) Upgrade the McNeal Pavilion area and build a better visual connection;
4) Expand residential capacity by creating more housing for students and faculty on the north side of campus.
Mr. Ridenour's time expired before he was able to complete his presentation. Before he concluded he clarified the faculty
housing is proposed to be built around the existing park lot, the earlier proposal to move the community garden has been
abandoned, and there will be no attempt to build housing next to Beach Creek.
Public Testimonv
Oavid Schieber/586 GlenwoodlStated he lives 100 ft. away from campus property and has a son who attends the University.
Mr. Schieber stated the University's adoption of green building practices is great, but expressed concern with the lack of
neighborhood participation in the development of this plan. He stated the data is mixed as to whether faculty housing would
work and stated any new buildings should fit into the existing neighborhood and not dwarf the surrounding structures.
Marcia McNamara/1007 AshlandlStated the previous plan called for classroom buildings to be constructed in these areas
and likes the idea of faculty housing instead. Ms. McNamara stated she has a 2-story house and there are others in her
neighborhood as well, and to say any new structures have to be single story does not take into account what is currently there.
She voiced her support for daylighting Beach Creek and stated she has been favorably impressed by what has been
presented tonight.
Mary Margaret Modesittl540 S. MountainNoiced concern that the only way she was aware of this plan was because a
citizen who opposed it contacted her. Ms. Modesitt recommended the University speak with the community before embarking
on this plan. She commented that there used to be housing along Mountain before the University built a parking lot, and now
they want to turn a parking lot back into housing.
Marilyn Briggs/590 GlenviewlNoted she was a Planning Commissioner when the previous Master Plan was adopted and
voiced her opposition to the amount of housing in the proposed plan. She stated student and faculty housing should be
integrated into the community and the proposed isolation seems like the wrong approach. She added the mission of the
campus administration should be providing education, not housing.
Carita Culmer/1069 HenrylStated the thought of looking out her window at a multi-story monstrosity leaves her feeling cold.
Ms. Culmer voiced objection to the idea of faculty housing and stated this would destroy her neighborhood. She stated the
University already has a large number of houses and apartments that they rent out at lower rates, and if faculty cannot afford
to live in Ashland, the University should offer a stipend to compensate for the higher housing costs. Ms. Culmer commented
on the community garden and stated landscaping would only detract from its usefulness as an outdoor laboratory and the
University should leave it be.
Colin Swales/143 Eight/Agreed with the staff recommendation for this property to be brought into the Detail Site Review
Zone. He also stated the proposed conditions regarding the Transportation Demand Management strategies and the Traffic
Impact Analysis are appropriate. Mr. Swales commented on increasing student housing on the north side of campus and how
to handle the pedestrian traffic crossing Siskiyou Blvd. He stated there are creative options available and they have an
opportunity to create a pedestrian friendly node. Mr. Swales stated this plan needs a lot more study and far more public input
from the neighbors and the community as a whole.
Angie Thusius/897 Beach/Stated the Master Plan does have some sustainable approaches, but two of the elements are
inappropriate. Ms. Thusius stated the faculty housing would dwarf private homes, and moving 800 students below Siskiyou
Blvd would require them to cross this dangerous street to get onto campus. She stated the students are much safer in the
area they are in now. She also stated that it appears this plan was done in a hurry and with little input from the community.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Miller mls to extend meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion Passed 7-0.
Art Bullock791 GlendowerlStated this plan is not up to the sustainability standards we need from a 10-year plan. Mr. Bullock
commented on the assumptions made in the plan and stated these may be drastically off a few years from now (including
what type of housing students prefer). He agreed with staff that the transportation plan needs to be completed first since it will
likely take time to make these types of changes. He stated allowing permitted uses in the plan removes the community's
option to check in and recommended all of the plan's components be subject to the City's Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
process.
Keith Spear/570 Glenwood/Stated if a 2-story building is built as proposed, their mountain views would disappear. He stated
they paid a premium for their home because of the view and recommended the concept of viewscape be discussed. Mr. Spear
stated he would have liked to have seen some sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood and the University needs to do
more interfacing with the neighbors on a human scale. He noted a letter submitted into the record by Randall Hopkins and
recommended the City not sign away its power in regards to the CUP process.
Jesse Miller/430 AshlandlStated he has been gardening in the community garden for three years and brought in a sample of
a new variety of garlic he has grown. Mr. Miller stated food security is becoming a bigger concern and community gardens
allow for local control of our food supply. He spoke to the benefits of the community garden and stated this is a place where
agricultural skills are kept alive in our community and the garden also seryes as a community meeting place. He noted the
new version of the plan says the garden will be spared, however it is clear that the garden is not a priority. Mr. Miller voiced
concern with surrounding the garden with condos and is wary of the University's offer to enhance the garden. He stated if they
really want to enhance it, they should increase funding for it. He stated the current plan still moves the parking lot closer to the
garden and it is unclear what is going to happen. He stated he is in favor of affordable housing for faculty, but there are other
ways to accomplish this and faculty housing should be located on the north end of campus if it occurs.
Charles Culmer/399 S. Mountain/Felt that the plan has been kept secret and the neighborhood has not been informed of the
University's intentions. Mr. Culmer questioned if housing is built on the parking lot, how are they going to compensate for the
loss of parking. He stated the parking lot is there for a reason and requested they be kept better informed.
Sylvain Brown/1067 AshlandlStated he is a neighbor and student of SOU and should have been informed of this plan a long
time ago. Mr. Brown commented on why he selected to attend SOU, including its small town feel and expressed concern that
the plan seems to be shifting to the idea that bigger is better. He suggested there are more preferable options that would
bolster the school's image.
Rhianna Simes/433 Liberty/Stated she moved to her house because of the community garden and the feel of the
neighborhood. Ms. Simes stated she is pleased to hear the condos will not be placed on the garden, but said there is still an
air of mistrust and concern about what the plan actually entails. She commented on the benefits of the garden and stated the
community and the students should be allowed to provide input on any type of future enhancements.
Abraham Bettinger/367 BridgelStated he lives close to the University and feels he has been kept in the dark about their
plans. Mr. Bettinger stated he would have liked for the University to put more emphasis into educational programs, and while
he agrees that some of the facilities could be improved, thinks building new housing is a waste of energy. He noted he works
at the community garden and the garden could enhance the green image of the University. Mr. Bettinger stated he is
concerned with the plan and feels it needs to be a lot more transparent and made clear to the community.
Alex Goldman/115310wa/Agreed with the testimony previously delivered tonight and asked the Commission to not allow
SOU to pave over the garden.
Commissioners Mindlin/Dotterrer mls to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0.
Rivers Brown/1067 AshlandlStated he owns a home right next to the University and requested clarification on what happens
to his home in the plan. Mr. Brown stated he does a lot of interaction with the University, however he only heard about their
intentions by reading an article in the newspaper. He commented on the various houses included in the plan that the
University does not have ownership of, and noted how these homes were included in the plan maps detailing where
development would occur. He commented that 2-3 story buildings would block views for residents and the stated the
neighborhood does not want a faculty village placed here. Mr. Brown stated faculty housing is a flawed concept, but if it is built
it should be placed on the north side of campus and commented on why this is a better location. He stated the University
should work with what they have and try to enhance it instead of wiping everything out and starting fresh. He also commented
on the lack of input that has occurred in the development of this plan.
Dawkins noted that this concludes the public testimony portion and due to the limited amount of time remaining suggested the
Commission continue this item to the next regular Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioners Dimitre/Dotterrer mls to continue the public hearing to the August 11, 2009 Planning Commission
meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Election of Officers
Commissioners Pam Marsh and Michael Dawkins were nominated as Planning Commission Chair.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Blake, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Miller, Mindlin and Morris voted for MARSH.
Commissioners Dimitre and Marsh voted for DAWKINS. Pam Marsh was selected as CHAIR.
Commissioners Dave Dotterrer and Michael Dawkins were nominated as Planning Commission Vice Chair.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Mindlin, Dawkins, Marsh, Dotterrer, Dimitre and Miller voted for DAWKINS.
Commissioners Morris and Blake voted for DOTTERER. Michael Dawkins was selected as VICE CHAIR.
Commissioners Larry Blake and Melanie Mindlin were nominated as Planning Commission Second Vice Chair.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Mindlin, Miller, Marsh, Dimitre, Dawkins and Blake voted for MINDLIN.
Commissioners Morris and Dotterrer voted for BLAKE. Melanie Mindlin was selected as SECOND VICE CHAIR.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
July 14, 2009
PLANNING ACTION: 2009-00817
APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University
LOCATION: SOU Campus Boundary
ZONE DESIGNATION: SOU - Southern Oregon University
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.64 Southern Oregon University
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS:
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning
OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS)
Chapter 197 - Comprehensive Land Use Planning
Coordination
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULE (OAR):
660-030 Review and Approval of State Agency
Coordination Programs
REQUEST:
Adoption of the Update of the Master Plan for Southern Oregon University: 2010-
2020
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 Statutes requires that the planning activities of Southern Oregon
University be coordinated with the City of Ashland to ensure compatibility with the
City's Comprehensive Plan and local land use ordinances.
In February of 2000, the Ashland City Council adopted the "Southern Oregon University
Campus Master Plan - 2000-2010" as prepared by Southern Oregon University with
amendments by the City of Ashland.
In August 1990, the Ashland City Council adopted the "Southern 2000 Campus Master
Plan" as prepared by Southern Oregon State College with amendments by the City of
Ashland.
Planning Action 2009-00817
Applicant: Southern Oregon University
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 1 of 8
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The plan's Executive Summary notes that the updated Master Plan has been prepared to
guide the Southern Oregon University campus over the next decade (2010 - 2020).
Student enrollment is projected to increase over this period from 5,082 to 6,000. The plan
prioritizes projects within several distinct campus areas, which includes expansion and
renovation proj ects for the Theater Arts and Science buildings, as well as deferred
maintenance projects for five key facilities.
The plan proposes a key shift in the structure of the campus through the relocation of
existing housing and a significant increase in future student housing within north campus
areas. New housing will be designed and constructed to contemporary standards on the
university lands north of Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street. By transitioning
housing to the north campus area, existing locations currently dedicated to housing, such
as the Cascade Complex, can be identified for the long range growth of the academic
core of the campus.
The Master Plan update includes an evaluation of the overall structure of the campus,
providing descriptions for proposed and recommended projects that the University would
likely undertake over the next ten year cycle. Future projects are grouped into several
distinct categories, including Open Space, Buildings (Academic and Housing), Athletics,
Other Campus-Related Development and Circulation. The plan also includes design
guidelines for future development, for both buildings and open spaces, which would be in
addition to as well as complement existing City of Ashland site design standards. Lastly,
the Master Plan update provides a framework for sustainable planning, describing the
University's commitment to set goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other
environmental impacts as well as specifying strategies that outline specific actions.
II. Proiect Impact
The campus boundary encompasses approximately 164-acres that is roughly split north
and south of Siskiyou Boulevard. The Master Plan update does not propose an expansion
of the existing Southern Oregon University campus boundary and its corresponding City
of Ashland SO zoning designation.
Overall, staff is excited about the changes being proposed over the next 10-years and is in
agreement with the majority of elements of the Plan. A representative from the
Community Development Department was invited to participate in the update of the
Master Plan and was included in the Steering Group. As with most comprehensive
planning efforts, however, there are several areas and issues covered by the Plan
document where staff believes additional clarification of the city's position is needed and
has recommended some modifications. Provided below is an overview of key aspects of
the Master Plan where additional coordination with local land use policies is
recommended through suggested conditions of approval. These are organized in sequence
with the proposed projects identified in several sub-sections of the report, which starts on
page 29 with a discussion of the Framework Plan and Campus Structure.
Planning Action 2009-00817
Applicant: Southern Oregon University
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 2 of 8
Academic Buildings - Renovations and Expansions (page 34)
Two buildings are identified as in need of significant renovation and expansion over the
planning period. An expansion of the Theater Arts complex was identified in the SOU
2000-2010 Plan update and is considered a top priority project. The Science building
cluster is also identified for significant reinvestment and expansion.
Figure 12, shown on page 36, identifies structures slated for removal or relocation. The
University owns approximately 30 single family homes that are located within the
campus boundary. Several of these structures may be removed in order to accommodate
new uses. The Plan states that existing structures will be relocated to new sites, except
when structurally unsound. If relocation is not feasible, structures will be dismantled to
recover materials or for recycling potential. Sustainable Guidelines accompanying the
Plan require that recyclable material collection facilities be available for new
construction and renovations projects. It should be noted that building demolition and/or
removal is subject to the City's Demolition and Relocation Standards.
Staff has suggested that the following condition be adopted as part of the Plan approval
process:
. Demolition and Relocation of Existing Campus Housing
That in addition to the requirements set forth in the Campus Master Plan for
construction waste reduction and on-site recycling collection facilities, proposals
involving the demolition or relocation of existing campus structures shall comply
with the provisions AMC 15.04.
Housing and Student Life (page 37)
The Master Plan Update proposes major changes in the physical structure of the campus
with respect to the location of student and faculty housing. Currently, the University
houses approximately 25% of its students in campus housing, with almost 700 residents
residing in the Cascade Complex (corner ofIndiana and Oregon). The University's goal
is to replace the quantity of beds in Cascade Complex, with the long term ambition of
land banking the area for the growth of the academic core.
As noted earlier in the staff report, the University is proposing a significant shift in the
location of housing on the campus, with an overall strategy of accommodating up to 2000
students in campus housing and developing the majority of new housing on lands north
of Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street. This long term direction with respect to the
location of future housing raises concerns about pedestrian safety, due to the projected,
considerable increase in the number of students expected to cross the two highways. The
potential impacts of these projects on the local transportation system also must be
carefully evaluated, with needed improvements to the system planned for well in
advance. Lastly, potentially large mixed-use buildings are proposed at prominent
locations along one of the community's most visible transportation corridors. The design
Planning Action 2009-00817
Applicant: Southern Oregon University
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 3 of 8
of these developments should be consistent with local design standards related to site
planning and building design.
Staff has suggested that the following conditions be adopted as part of the Plan approval
process:
Student Housing
. Pedestrian Safety Plan
Prior to submission of a planning application for the development of new student
housing north of Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard, the University will work
with the City, Oregon Department of Transportation and other stakeholders in
developing a specific plan for implementation that addresses pedestrian safety
issues. The Plan may include but not be limited to improved crossings with
enhanced pavement design and on-going monitoring of pedestrian flow and safety
issues. Design strategies shall be coordinated and prepared based upon input from
both a traffic engineer and urban design professional.
. Transportation Impact Analysis and Access Management
That all future housing projects proposed within the north campus area shall be
subject to a transportation impact analysis and access management standards as
described in the City of Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP). The final
scope of this requirement will be evaluated at the pre-application meeting
preceding the land use application for Site Design Review approval.
. Building Design
In addition to the mandatory Design Guidelines described in the Master Plan
update, the area designated for new development adjacent to Ashland Street, east
of W alker Avenue, and along W alker Avenue, south of Webster Street, shall be
subject to Ashland's approval standards for development within the Detail Site
Review Zone (II-C-2), including those additional standards for Large Scale
Projects (II-C-3).
Faculty Village Housing
Faculty Village Housing is proposed for sites where the campus borders existing,
established residential neighborhoods. Consequently, issues of neighborhood context
and building design with respect to existing neighborhood pattern and character are
important to nearby residents. In staff's opinion, the Design Guidelines provided in
the Plan do not sufficiently take into account the full spectrum of issues related to
infill projects adjacent to existing neighborhoods. The Master Plan states that
building heights adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods will typically be lower
in order to make an appropriate transition to the surrounding context. While
consideration has be given to building height, the 35,000 square foot maximum
footprint for residential buildings is likely inappropriate for some of these infill sites
Planning Action 2009-00817
Applicant: Southern Oregon University
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 4 of 8
at the edge of campus. In addition to the following recommendations, staff would
suggest that the University consider changes and additions to the proposed Design
Guidelines, which clearly address specific elements of neighborhood character
including but not limited to bulk, scale, building footprint size and building
articulation.
Staff has suggested that the following conditions be adopted as part of the Plan
approval process:
. Conditional Use Permit Approval
Faculty Village Housing proposed along Ashland @ Mountain and Henry Street
is approximately 50-feet from privately-owned property and therefore shall be
subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
. Building Size and Design
Design Guidelines in the Plan shall be amended to make it clear that the current
maximum length and footprint standards for residential buildings shall not apply
to Faculty Village Housing proposed along Ashland Street (across from
Glenwood Park) and Henry Street. Infill strategies and/or design guidelines for
Faculty Village Housing shall be amended to include specific design standards
related to building scale, bulk, footprint, coverage and articulation that are
sensitive to existing neighborhood character, while still recognizing the need to
accommodate faculty housing at locations and densities that create short walking
distances to campus and encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation.
Circulation (page 44)
The draft Master Plan states that a combination of circulation and open space
improvements to the campus structure are intended to support Plan goals through
promoting a strong "sense of place" for the campus. A variety of circulation changes are
proposed that involve the existing University Way and adjacent service roads, while
improving pedestrian movements and way finding through campus. While staff is
generally supportive of the proposed changes, it is imperative that the plan concepts are
appropriately reviewed and approved by City staff to ensure that emergency access to
campus facilities is not impeded and that potential impacts to the local transportation
system are evaluated and mitigated.
Eastern Gateway
The intersections at Siskiyou/Ashland and Siskiyou/Indiana/Wightman are critical
crossing points for pedestrian traveling between north and south campus areas.
Potential improvements to this eastern gateway were discussed during the planning
process and several suggested changes are described in the Plan. As noted above,
staff would like to reiterate the need to comprehensively evaluate potential impacts
with all concerned parties in advance of any changes.
Planning Action 2009-00817
Applicant: Southern Oregon University
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 5 of 8
Staff has suggested that the following conditions be adopted as part of the Plan
approval process:
. Transportation Impact Analysis and Access Management Strategy
Modifications to the University's Eastern Gateway area shall be subject to a
transportation impact analysis and access management standards as described in
the City of Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP). The final scope of
specifications for preparation of a transportation impact analysis shall be
coordinated through Ashland Public Works Department.
. Pedestrian Safety Plan
Concurrently with the transportation impact analysis and access management
strategy, the University will work with the City, Oregon Department of
Transportation and other stakeholders in developing a specific plan for
implementation that addresses pedestrian safety issues. Design strategies shall be
prepared based upon input from both a traffic engineer and urban design
professional.
Changes to Campus Circulation System
The City of Ashland Fire Department has evaluated the proposed Master Plan update
and would like to make sure that any changes to the existing circulation system do
not compromise their ability to service the campus.
Staff has suggested that the following conditions be adopted as part of the Plan
approval process:
. Emergency Vehicle Access
Prior to any changes to the campus circulation system including vehicular and
pedestrian access ways, a site plan shall provided to and approved by Ashland Fire &
Rescue which demonstrates that that the proposed modifications are in copmliance
with the emergency access provisions of the Oregon Fire Code.
Parking
University campus parking is provided by numerous off-street parking lots of various
sizes dispersed throughout the campus. A complete inventory of campus parking
facilities, as well as total space count, has been detailed in Table 2 found on page 23
of the draft document. Currently, there are approximately 100 more parking spaces
located within the campus than required through a strict application of the City's off-
street parking requirements.
Given that the update proposes a significant increase in the number of students
housed on campus, the draft Plan recommends that parking standards inline with a
Planning Action 2009-00817
Applicant: Southern Oregon University
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 6 of 8
more residential campus be developed. The City's current policies support the Plan's
goal to reduce the potential for over-provision of parking.
Staff suggests that the following conditions be adopted as part of the Plan approval
process:
. Parking Requirements for On-Campus Student Housing
Prior to submission of a planning application for campus housing, the University
shall development, through collaboration with city staff, specific parking standards
for on-campus housing. The standard is intended to reduce an over provision of off-
street parking and stress the use of alternate modes of transportation, by maximizing
the efficiency of established and future campus parking facilities through
consideration of the following strategies:
*
The University's development and implementation of Transportation
Demand Management strategies listed in the Master Plan;
Review of contemporary research and professional publications evaluating
parking generation;
Analysis of shared parking scenarios; and
Review of potential impacts to neighborhood on-street parking supply
*
*
*
. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies
That a list of potential Transportation Demand Management strategies accompanied
by a time line for implementation be developed and submitted in conjunction with
campus housing applications.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
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 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
Planning Action 2009-00817
Applicant: Southern Oregon University
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 7 of 8
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
Ashland is fortunate to have Southern Oregon University within the community. The
university adds to the community's diversity, the richness of our culture, and strengthens
the local economy.
The master planning efforts of the university ensure that it will remain a strong and
viable institution within the Oregon University System, as well as make certain that it
recognizes the values and concerns of the Ashland Community.
Staff endorses approval of the Master Plan update with the suggested conditions noted in
the staff report.
Planning Action 2009-00817
Applicant: Southern Oregon University
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 8 of 8
PUBLIC INPUT & LETTERS
RECEIVED TO DATE
590 Glenview Drive
Ashland; Oregon 97520
August 3; 2009
RECEIVED
AUG - 4 ..
Craig Morris
Vice President for Finance & Administration
Southern Oregon University
Ashland, Oregon 97520
City of Ashtan<!
Community Development
Regarding: CAl'vIPUS MASTER PLAN: include in any public comments documentation
Carbon Copy to PLANNING COMMISSION
Dear Mr. Monis & Master Plan Committee:
I received your letter of July 24th asking for comments regarding the plan. I'm assuming
I received the letter because I spoke against the existing Master Plan housing elements at
the July 14th Planning Commission meeting. My interest stems from long-standing
aft11iations. I am well acquainted with the Planning Process and with the campus itself: I
was a Platuung Commissioner for 8 years, present for the last SOU Master Plan. I taught
part-time in the Art Department, my husband was a professor in the English Depmtment
beginning in 1961, and two of our children have degrees fi'om "SaC",
The current Master Plan emphasis on housing is a flawed, apart from the remodeling of
some donns and some new "family housing", I had a conversation with Lany Blake in the
foyer of Council Chambers toward the end of the Planning Commission hearing. He
explained that students often choose their college based on housing. I disagree; students
are most interested in the quality of the programs and professors!! Any University's core
mission is education, not housing.,
Your "aftbrdable" campus housing would be a negative for the larger conllmuuty. 1) It
would be offthe City property tax rolls 2) It would also deprive the cOllllnuruty of its
own rentals for students and faculty. In effect, it would create a ghetto instead ofa
partnership of "town and gown",
Suggestions: 1) A visionmy use of the land closest to the Science Museum would be
banks of solar collectors to power your own campus. Include some miniature windmills,
water cleansing devices and other environmental projects and you have a whole new
teaching program, The Science Museum partnership would be a bonus. 2) If there are
too many parking spaces, use some to create more garden space adjacent to that existing.
Finally, the proposed outdoor "theater" opposite the Student Union is a wonderfi.l idea.
l}.)1Jle~tfuIly su~d,
[f~ .p ~C
Marilyn B~ ~(IO
RECEIVED
AlIG 0 -3 2009 _
- . ^ l_.~ I fi'-1Jp w-~
~ ./W\H~/"(r"
~
.
SOUTHERN
OREGON
UNIVERSITY
July 24, 2009
Dear Community Member:
Recently, Southem Oregon University presented a draft of its Campus Master Plan
update to the Ashland Planning Commission. At the meeting, some community
members expressed concerns about the draft document and asked to participate more
fully in the planning process.
As a result, the University has asked the Plaill1ing Commission to delay consideration of
the draft until the University has engaged broad segments ofthe neighboring community
in a deep discussion of issues that shape the draft plan.
Please take a moment to review the latest draft of the plan at www.sou.cdu/master-plan.
You can post your comments online or plan to join us in October for an open house and
conversation about the Campus Master Plan. Within the next month, we will send you
an invitation to this event. Please let us know of others in the community who should be
invited to participate in our October conversation.
Southern Oregon University is committed to being a good neighbor. We look fOlward to
engaging conununity mehlbers, and we appreciate your participation as we plan a more
sustainable university campus.
Sincerely,
cr~;'M:;;t )ti~~,
Vice President for Finance and Administration
Vice President for Finance and Administration
1250 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, Oregon 97520-5033
Tel 541-552-6319
Fax 541-552-6337
RECE1VED
~
.
JUL 2 1 2.009
SOUTHERN
OREGON
UNIVERSITY
City of Ashbnd
Community Development
July 20, 2009
Bill Molnar, Director
Community Development
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Bill:
Southern Oregon University would like to request that its Campus Master Plan Update be
removed :6:om the agenda of the August Planning Commission meeting. The University would
like to schedule a meeting with campus neighbors and the surrounding community in the month
of October to permit greater citizen involvement in the master planning process. The University
feels that this eff0l1 at outreach to the neighborhood will ease many afthe concerns that were
raised at the recent public hearing.
Larry Blake will contact you when the University is ready to continue the review process of the
Campus Master Plan.
Sincerely yours,
\
cr:;<::~:I
\ Z
)/ /(/tf...-~"J
Vice President for Finance and Administration
1250 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, Oregon 97520-5033
Tel 541-552-6319
Fax 541-552-6337
Page 1 of 1
RECEIVED
April Lucas - Fwd: RE: SOU Master Plan
-
-
" ~
j
==
Jt1t~ lUU9
From:
Sill Molnar
Lucas, April
7/15/2009 1:30 PM
Fwd: RE: SOU Master Plan
City of Ashland
Communl!y Development
To:
Date:
Subject:
Here are the comments posetd on the SOU site
>>> "Gayle" <gvezie@jeffnet.org> 07/15/09 1:26 PM >>>
The following is my comment already posted on the SOU Master Plan:
I have lived at 446 W alker Ave for more than 20 yrs. In this neighborhood there are 3 schools, only a
few owner-occupied homes and many un-kept rentals, mostly owned by SOU. So for me it has been an
on going battle with the University regarding their disregard for pride of ownership. I have dealt with
Evie Rosenburg, William Smith & I believe the current person's name is Michelle.
I know that I have asked the question "how would you like to have these SOU properties in your
neighborhood?" At least with Evie, she made me feel like I had legitimate requests and she took care of
the situations the best she could. Evie told me that she actually took a walk up our street to see for
herself.
I have mixed feelings about what the University is proposing as a Master Plan. One thing is, that I don't
see where it addresses the JPR building but I can see that it is on the Site Plan?? On one hand a nice
new building with attention to landscaping would be better to drive by many times in a day, than the
run down SOU rentals. But where will parking be & where is the access to that parking lot?
I would like to know that SOU truley cares about this neighborhood that they are designing and not just
IIgoing through the motions" of asking for our comments.
Actually I don't remember anyone ever openly discussing putting speed bumps on Webster - they just
happened. Would love to find out how they did that because we could use some of those on Walker
Ave before it's too late as it was on Siskiyou & Garfield.
Thank you,
Gayle Vezie
file://C:\Documents and Settings\1ucasa\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4ASDD9E3Ash... 7/15/2009
I;I?lI~l~~QQ~I~RdLb~2~~;:;J3~:;;;$Q;Q.;;,:.',',.'...'. '"
;:~,.;"';.:.::.?~ij~~1'.;'11
RECEIVED
From:
To:
Cc:
Date:
Subject:
Tom Dimltre <dlmitre@mind,net>
8JJJ Molnar <molnarb@ashland.or.us>
<blakel@sou,edu>, Deborah MUler <hmllfer@jeffnet.org>, Michael Daw1!Mk.J 5 2009
7/15/20097:29 AM
Re: SOU City of Ashland
Community Development
Hi.
Regarding SOU wow one of the questions that came up last night
was whether or not the SOU campus was expanding into currently
non SOU areas. I'd like a briefing on that either by em ail or at the
next meeting.
Also, for the record, I am concerned that we are being asked to make
a decision on the master plan, without any DATA that helps us decide
which alternative (or whether any alternative) is best. If we wait
until
each individual piece is built and only analyze that, we will never
be able
to look at the TOTAL impact of the project on the community, This
piecemeal approach doesn't work for me.
For instance, I'd like to see a traffic study (for one) up front.
Let's look at
traffic In a way that we can COMPARE the alternatives. A traffic study
after approval of the master plan is too late.
Lastly, SOU should go back to the drawing board regarding the Master
Plan
and actually engage the community - solicit comments from the community.
This means NOTICE - and I believe that notice to the entire community is
appropriate. After all, SOU Is a community resource and it impacts more
than just the neighbors within 50 feet or so (and even those
neighbors apparently
did not get notice). The project will only be legitimized if SOU
properly and
throughfy notices the entire community.
Oh, one more thing - since when are we required to disclose ex parte,
etc
on Type 3 projects? If we are prohibited from talking to people
about type
3's, then we should have been told in advance.......
Just my thoughts, for now.
Also, I'd like to congratulate Pam on becoming new chair.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH to Michael Dawkins for a job well done.
Tom
Comments In Response to Southern Oregon University 2020 Plan
Name: Rhianna Simes
Address: 433 Liberty St Ashland, OR
Date: July 14, 2009
The ECOS (Ecology Center ofthe Siskiyous) community garden, located on Mountain
Avenue across from Southern Oregon University, benefits the neighborhood, local economy, and
the environment. The garden has seen consistent student involvement since its beginning in
1999. Although support for the garden has been expressed throughout the student body as
demonstrated by the signing of over 500 petitions, the University has revealed in recent meetings
that there are "no guarantees'l about the future of the ECOS garden. SOU has already moved the
garden in 2001 because of forecasted development, but another move would prove devastating,
In the past month, the University has changed their 2020 plan several times including moving the
garden, expanding the parking lot over the wetlands, reducing the size of the garden, and/or
uprooting the entire garden property. This lack of transparency has led to confusion about what
the plan really entails for the ECOS Community Garden and what 'enhancement' will ultimately
mean for the garden and surrounding neighborhood. '
The current draft ofthe 2020 plan says it wants to 'enhance the community garden so that
it becomes an asset to the SOU community,' However, the ECOS community garden is already
an asset to the community and in my life personally. I have been a student at SOU and have
maintained several garden plots over the last four years. The Community Garden enables me to
grow my own food even though I am a renter in town, and provides countless other benefits in
my own life. Kate Giles, fellow Ashland resident and community garden member, has worked
with the Job Council for several years to encourage dozens of 'at risk' youth to tend and maintain
several community garden plots. These students come out to the garden to learn about growing
food, team building skills, and responsibility. In addition, the SOU Native American Student
Union has incorporated the garden into the Native American Studies minor curriculum at the
university. They utilize the garden to demonstrate the importance of growing the three sisters
(corn, beans, and, squash) which is an indigenous traditional planting style. These are only two
examples out of 50 other garden members whose volunteer labor help to make the garden so
successful. The garden supports student and community interactive learning. it provides hands-
on educational opportunities. and represents a key step in the march toward sustainability for
SOU and the Ashland community as a whole.
The ECOS Community Garden should not be relocated, but should instead be the focal
point of a 'sustainabiIity village' where students and community members can come together to
practice hands-on skills, support local food production, and healthy land stewardship. This
environment would not be possible with 2 or 3 story condominiums surrounding the area. The
faculty villal!e needs to be moved to the North side of campus where there is already existing
space for such high density living conditions. Please consider moving the faculty village to the
other side of campus, leaving the ECOS Community Garden where it is, and allowing the existing
neighborhood to continue to invest in the garden as well. If the garden is going to be 'enhanced'
then it is paramount that both students and community members have the opportunity to provide
input about the enhancement mentioned in the 2020 plan. This collaborative effort will insure the
continued involvement from both Ashland residents and SOU students in the sustainable growth
of the community garden.
SOU and the City of Ashland are striving for recognition in their efforts toward
sustainability. In this quest let us not forget the importance of gardens, of growing food, of
fostering community, and of protecting I enhancing the local environment. Placinl! a condo-
style faculty villal!e on top of an existine community - is not what sustain ability looks like.
Put the faculty village on the North side of campus and leave the ECOS Community Garden to
flourish in its current location with participation from both Ashland residents and SOU students.
Thank you for your time and consideration, we believe you will do the right thing.
City of Ashland
. flanning Exhibit
~il~~' \j:) \
PA 1f.)O\)~_ \
!::lAtE -:.\.\ ~ fF
City of Ashland
I~~
~\
-----____-'Jzm[[lJlmlJb{lJJ:ien:JliL_~~____=.__ _ya~_____
__________________ -._/Y1-Y---.nlyt!1~_____'J__tl~t2-th~l,,__CpO Ie: tlILd~~j;ltLts:rd__/:Q_J?~___,_________i
----------------------- .:!JJ.LC.DLLt1C:LL..lLn ()v.2~tjJgJ --1_jljJ:L~d;( aj1 fJ Oi/? Le?LLJjjl}7_,_~______________J
__________ __SO U.,t__2QZj) --pJan~~-m here () h he ha If ().L__--tl!Jp__________________________1
______________________ J{{j)~____[QJ]JlillLtJl__bf_~D2fen-+ wh eY L-L-J'-t31deLL-'ALd:ll------__~_
------..,,__ _-htJ!L_"DIW...iLCfl 'ld{en.:...__m!j_ditdf..__t2Lrhr..e~La12Le/lz..f-----------------
______________"__LYJ&____lJ!1s;,___2Q2-i2._-jli..an_jL_rl1e _1120 VI hj1/ mMi-& I~CJ / ________
__________ -.r-?jllf2J(l(}1----d-i..h..L----(Q)1JmI.!JJ-Lhj---;fa/-defl-L_~/h a ""_'__
____________ _2_L_-'j..eaY.::_o_'-d____J1Ye::ien.t___ai____..foi!._fi'fJd___LCdIYJ e ~
____________~--lt2]1----heLadJJ}&---D..1--i:hJ:"li!w..---I2nLe---0L-.nln..JJn._ a f7cj,
---I-~;Jm{ljL~c~e ~~~():::;-:e~~cP~del)~-"
----,-------ll--dH.a-fJ-!l~LJJrlL~-----J;;Z----L....J& - ~-_{f?..f----mmiLLUo/------------
----llYfLrfA!fi 8fl-1"liIh_ J-fnm:;1 _JYJ 00 / ,a tL,zdJ meL1f~____
_____,________JlheL~__4.(_e___;;;J;1lI(jL-.lJ2eml2E&-jYfdtiJJ.tyz-_kf).Lfh______________________,__",__
__,__,_______JU2l!J2]JJ!fl...Lfj_man!Jj~IX~___.rLl1d___dJ!?/r? 111s..~_..J___.t1l@.l..d-IiI&._--------_---
___-=_~t-L~~:::~:;~~::e::t~gl1 -=--=
11'...~
--------------t-~ftr.,--,./[JJ!,~!~------------""'~..,"" -..----------""",,---,,---------------------------.-""".,.-,.
-------------.---1-----.-m!f--,gClm.vljZ-azJlf.l11--JdLlh~-t6R-----kQ~Q/i1 an I r flv
------...._._![).J2{LtltJ.:_,ll1__iiu___tCL~t:e_J2a!!L",.__",L__en t'..___lLrd
I (7--;
--------,-"'.-.-..t-1f1.----i&..."..t..e,fi-t:i&flLE.--haLfdj-M----.ihfe'{_-!!L4LC_LlflC{_______________
---n-.--------1fr;Jd?j{0i--jmy--dLme..L--~lAe~--fkP-f1-aLcJ_-d3-_mnjfL!1jl---.fk------
--____+r/JlI]llj-aly;LLft_fJJJ__{Q'Ljkji~~U)1Lj&flLi~____
"""....mmml -Cai61lde-mCOlJJ--t-ftin'*-~fp",l(l;l.tQS.s..n_ffu--J..frtg-{.-NlX-L------------
,"', """--,---,-"d?z-----Gte.e..n:ffXJ~T-----(]:7!Jf---~){,----JJ-______nDL_a____j_[(Ai__QllaJ_~__~_____________________
---=~ffiJJe:;-LJ&1JiJldpiM~o/-~~-;~wYJ1f1Y-===--=
u________________ -~;i;deL1tr___t%L2yl_:lf;eLL_;J-RfLIJIr I 7-/;o/--1dliJVl~~J----_--------
----- -----~I- ~-ft.----r:1L1h--_#~i--~illal-L3Le&2--{:&!2q.,t7. f- /4/aL_______n'_________
---------------- ~'Q_-/dL__~lJ'2____(21J.Ce c!)z,____L_.alt2ZJ..Li2L~haE k / ~ t{d
---- ,-flia:L-----LiLee/21)2p o/L-./22vL-<<-JLZd1J2c7 -.Lda2.JJ:lU-!1'!;t-
_____~ca1ffi, -e--dZ;;_~, .ff7ILJRdLb1=~ Naf? iLJf1----
---FdL4L?A'----;m-~J"-/.I:Zeai"- ZkffidLlJJ a/ld_____
----- """"'-------------f1t?leL2Iz;.-.d!22{!,[Ldlif!..o/L----.Lddl21--A~-~~/----,,"-,----
""" ------------, !/A~_____/;l!lL__oi__.j~() _/m?/aJLe.--/~-4lf--Ca_clt ~________
------)}~1~~L!i~:);~;f::/I~~1Zl:S::/~: -= -
"-" -----_y______________'1_______1Jl_____m.acA_____________-11l/2 ~;4 v
----------Vikde/2iL----fi?..Ll1---bJy--,jbLLJd..---.mtLY/o/ pc/I ~qLlJ-rv.t;
-- - _ ------- LU(,"'"""m~J/e-J21l'.J::.~LZJ/2!!L--i?i:.ca:.(!d:L-~e~L~---J:-e--------________
""",,-,,-,-,-----,-----OZI,,_(!J/L____t2kf)LL___.LJ1t2d'LtJ12_-f.____LL~_.a ~t?a,l__~~tzL22~_,tc_P 1..______________
"-"",,,,------------ Ctmdo-J'&-fL----0!z!!!}}_,,_k_~fMd&2t,j"I'--iJiLi-tiu.-6{jl_6.----------------_____
____om ,jCQft-----J2l---Mad[l)12Ej((jJt2L_ik____lJ1tlJJdL:L:hJ.(Y-.ll1fd____ ___ _______
----------- -- --~/tlfJ-)L-j/lJt.y:;fJ.J:.ajJ;I3f------7JJaii--~!I,--mlJ(-j----------------------
, --------~JlY.dei1b:---jJJ/J I( < __jp___hiL()fJ2J-____QL___tiLe~nyo t.l1JlL-------------
" "'" -----------1 E/m__7M__Jf1_hICf.t}d__~r_Lc__", "-------------------------,_______________________
1____________Jn_______LLQ.IJt}!JL___I,' ",I'~______&_#Ht&n_~hQw.--d-- '_'___________
- - ,,',' ,,-------- (t+-L'cL--[gzlkt____~ii'J&yuLJY1-Pl12vetk-.b?ril-L~ _ _ " , u_____
. ......u Q!t___~_____1Y.__D:l__<'?_j-t2I}j2LmL_0JQt!lg-c?Yt-~v:.--.L~ _.. ,.' "',,,',____________
------------", .. .1.t-Jbt--mOYJCjt----!na ncyemenLuJ:!J+f112-hOY-cLi1J-c2'.Ifl-L-f,--------"".,..""" ,",
,,~n_Q't,io YYl&u". tJi)A)-msp!J8JJ---JJ;.----tny----jr:J[@h L",,1ktLk',X_____________________
My name is Carita M. Culmer
I live at 1069 Henry Street
The cost of housing in Ashland is ultreasonably high. Jobs that pay above minimum
wage are scarce, and unemployment is rampant. Far too many of our residents are
struggling month to month just to keep a roof over their heads. Now the university is
asking these struggling renters or homeowners to pay for someone else's housing, too.
They want to build new, large housing complexes along Ashland and Henry streets, in
order to attract new, young faculty.
Building new housing for faculty is an U1ll1ecessary expense during these hard times.
Even if the local economy improves dramatically within the next few years, new faculty
housing is not a good use of our tax dollars. There are viable alternatives.
The University already has a large number of both apaliments and single-family
residences, which they rent to students at below-market rates. Underpaid faculty could
be allowed to rent them at the same rates. If students, who are working limited hours at
minimum wage can pay the rent, then surely salaried faculty can manage likewise.
If a prospective new faculty member would rather live outside of university housing,
there is another possibility. Economists have long held that housing should consume no
more than 25 to 30 percent of gross income. The newspaper frequently publishes reports
of average rental or mortgage costs for the county as a whole, and for each city in the
county. If the negotiated faculty salary is such that the average rental cost in Ashland is
more than 25% of that salary, then the university should offer an additional stipend to
cover the difference. Each year, as salary is renegotiated, the stipend can also be
updated, in line with the newly published cost of rentals in AsWand.
Either way, these forms of subsidized housing will be much less burdensome for
taxpayers who have to foot the bill.
An added problem of the whole housing scheme is what it would do to the community
garden and the surrounding area. As it is now, that area is a microcosm of a wildland-
urban interface. It is essentially a riparian marshland in miniature. The community
garden in its present form has minimal impact on the natural life around it. The area can
be used as an outdoor, year-round classroom for students in biology and ecology classes.
It has an abundance of both native and invasive species just waiting to be studied. If any
weed control is to be done, then Jet students do that by hand, and limited to nonnative
plants. Landscaping, park benches or any other amenities will only detract from its
usefulness as an outdoor laboratory. Leave it be.
Oregon's economy is in the pits; the state is in debt up to its ears. We, the taxpayers are
hurting. This is a good time for the university to consider less expensive problem
solving.
Thank you for your attention.
To the Ashland Planning Commission, 14JULY200g
Please consider these comments on the SERA Master Plan for SOU that you are being
called upon to adopt tonight.
Whatever is contained in an adopted Plan probably becomes an outright permitted use
under the Municipal Code. SOU would thereafter not be required to seek a conditional
use permit for such development.
This would dramatically reduce the power by the City's planning staff, planning
commission and the town itself to control what happens with future development at
SOU, including that which impacts surrounding neighborhoods and businesses.
Granting a conditional use permit allows staff and the PC to balance adverse material
effect on livability of the impact area, taking into consideration all the real world
impacts outlined in 18.104.050 (similarity of bulk, scale and coverage, generation of
traffic on surrounding streets, architectural compatibility, air quality, generation of
noise, light and glare, etc).
With a conditional use permit, all these factors can be weighed, everybody in the
community can express their opinions and staff and the PC can use their expertise and
desire to benefit the town of Ashland. Much broader approval criteria than with a mere
site design review.
A better outcome for everybody (including SOU) with these large developments will be
more likely than if we simply outsource things to eyes on a computer screen hundreds
of miles away.
While 18.64 050 would still apply the conditional use permit requirement and
approval criteria for development within 50 feet of privately owned property, this
exception is at least partially illusory. By the time one adds up the width of streets and
associated public rights of way, many properties just across the street from SOUlS
extensive boundaries will fall outside the protected zone. Simply setting the
development 'back' a few feet would also craft a further escape valve from the 50 foot
exception. City owned lands like public parks would also not trigger the exception.
An example of the desirability of Ashland maintaining greater community control
appears in the SERA Master Plan's treatment of pedestrian safety on Siskiyou.
We've seen a recent tragedy on that street and have been forced to invest much time,
effort and expense in malting the best of a 'not best' situation regarding the conflict
between traffic and people trying to walk or bike to and from SOU. The work is on
going even now.
Yet part of the Master Plan envisions a transfer of 'uses' and the student population
north of Siskiyou.
How can this not dramatically increase the traffic vs. pedestrian conflicts on Siskiyou?
Paying lip service to this reality, the Master Plan refers to 'several potential
improvements' to the gateway area of Siskiyouf AshlandfIndiana Streets. Page 46 of
the Plan recommends that 'Option 1 be pursued.' Option 1 basically involves use of
pavements and the like to create a 'pedestrian zone' citing Eugene as an example.
The current version of the SERA Master Plan states that this 'intervention' is relatively
inexpensive. See page 46.
The immediately prior version of the SERA Master Plan, however, added one other
factor regarding the now recommended Option 1 - a sentence stating '{t)he drawback of
this option is that it does not substantially improve pedestrian safety when compared
to other interventions.' See page 44 of that version.
The sentence was excised from the final Master Plan. To make the Plan more
palatable, the confession regarding safety was removed, while the enticement of
inexpensiveness remains.
Many of the projects inside the Master Plan may well be very desirable and beneficial.
But they will be better executed for everybody if the City's planning staff, Planning
Commission and the town at large maintains a greater ability to influence such
impactful developments.
As it is, the SERA Master Plan is all but flying below the public radar. It has been
scheduled for approval in the middle of the summer, when the students (who clearly
have interests here) are gone and people are distracted by vacations and summer
activities. They've already scheduled a Council vote to approve before the Planning
Commission has even had its say in the matter.
So I hope the PC and Council will take a long, slow careful look at the Master Plan.
Otherwise, I fear we will realize one day that we've irrevocably 'privatized' and
'outsourced' what should be community decision making over a critical part of Ashland
to our great detriment.
thanks for reading
Randall Hopldns,
an Ashland citizen.
,~)
?~~
http://www.dailylidings.com/apps/pbcs.dlllartic1e? AI O:::/20090709/0P...
t;, Cl
Guest Opinions
SOU 2020 Master Plan will affect all of Ashland
By Rivers Brown
Guest opinion
July 09, 2009 4:20 PM
Who has ever heard of the SOU 2020 Mastel' Plan? Very few readers will be able to answer this
affirmatively, for it is mostly a stealth operation, scheduled to (possibly) cruise through the Ashland
Planning Commission and on to the City Council for an up or down vote if the designers have their way.
The plan is a gigantic overhaul for the center of Ashland that will affect the whole town, with some
segments of OUl' community more heavily impacted than others. And all done, somehow, while the
university, as everyone knows, has no money.
The "localll planner, who was here barely two years before starting this university/city remake, and the
110utsourcedlf Portland planner, have schemed up an unbelievably ponderous plan that has so many
facets to it, one would be hard-pressed to be able to take in all its ramifications, even after a few hours of
reading. Although, they have simplified the plan by omitting any factual basis for their assumptions and
predications, so this, theoretically, would make it much more palatable for surface-level policy makers
to accept and we the people to swallow.
Buried within the plan are some very needed uplifts and remakes for the core campus that everyone
knows are long overdue. But the main thrust of the plan is new housing, and plenty of it, all done with
PPPs (private public partnerships). These include a massive transfer of all but 96 resident students
(Madrone dorm) now living above the boulevard, to below the boulevard, This would mean more than
800 extra students crossing Siskiyou Boulevard multiple times a day, say somewhere between 1,600
(bare minimum) to 6,400 (hopeful maximum) extra crossings per day on our main arterial street that has
been plagued by existing difficulties and recent tragedy (death of a student) with this very issue. Yes, of
course, the university has the well-being of the (fee-paying) students in mind here and will see that a
massive remake of our main street is (again, again) done to assure their safety, even though it was stated
in the plan that there is no good way to do this. At least before that exposing revelation was expunged
from the latest "final" Master Plan.
The predication of increased enrollment they mention in the second line of their opening "Executive
Summaryl1 is pure wishful thinking, as was the previous 2010 plan's estimate that SOU would be up to
5,407 students by 2010 (now at 5,082), especially if our current and probably enduring economic
situation is considered. SOU has actually been the only university in the Oregon University System that
has negative numbers on its newly admitted undergraduates and has only held its overall numbers up by
the opening of the Higher Learning Center partnership in Medford. Flawed assumptions and projections
do not a good plan make.
Other housing projects the university has in mind, as with the above-mentioned regular student housing,
are not about their current housing shortages: Family housing for the university is, and has been, 100
percent full with a long waiting list (regular housing hovers around 80 percent full). The planners would
like to create a Faculty Village, despite studies by the city that there is actually no shortage in affordable
housing. This strategy would further impact the sagging real estate market here and the housing would
be built and managed by private developers within PPPs that fall outside the normal planning process
and outside the city's tax base.
One of the two options for this would place blocks of two- or three-story (with parking beneath) condos
along upper Ashland Street, across from the Glenwood Park single family neighborhood, from Beach
Creek up to Mountain Avenue, with corresponding rows of condos just below on Henry Street. This
very insensitive and intrusive - both in scale and population density - university interface with the
current '50s housing of this neighborhood has begun to see growing community resistance to having
their quality of life changed forever, not for better, by outside planners.
1 of 2
14/07/2009 9:26 AM
-~1
~, .6"
http://,,,,,,,,,.dail ytidi ngs.com/apps/pbcs.dllfarlicle? A ID=J20090709/0P...
The concept of faculty housing is very controversial and unproven - it creates more insulation at an
already-insulated institution; appreciation, demand and profit cannot be guaranteed; it competes with
private sector and is not on city tax rolls; and better faculty housing schemes are available. Even if it
were a viable option, there is a far superior location for it on the north campus where all the amenities
(schools, kid intertie family housing, playing fields, etc.) exist and where the scale and population
density fits in with what is already there.
There are more unfortunate ideas in the Master Plan that deal with cutting back most of the vegetation
on campus, including established trees, to slap down a big tight-grid, X-shaped plaza in the central core,
where a woodland and meadows theme currently exists. The denuding of campus under the I1raising
visibilityl1 mantra has already started to impact the core area view and soundscape negatively by
introducing street cruiser blowback into the core academic zones, Academic and social zones being
negatively impacted by an advertising scheme is never good, nor should be tolerated.
This giant plan that virtually no one knows about will affect nearly everyone in Ashland one way or
another. The plan is set to float through the Planning Commission and City Council this summer while
students are away, locals are on vacation and the sleepy little town of Ashland is busy entertaining itself
to wash away the downturn and future collision of the crises. Is there anything wrong with this picture?
If you think there may be, go to the SOU 2020 Plan Web site: www.sou.edulmaster-plan and check it
out. Then you may want to e-mail our working group at 2020Plan@mind,net for updated information
and better options, You may also make a comment on the SOU site that will be delivered to the Planning
Commission.
If you1d like to have a say about this, the SOU 2020 Master Plan goes before our Plarming Commission
on Bastille Day, Tuesday, July 14, at 7 p,m. at Council Chambers 1175 E. Main S1. If you don't speak
up then, please, forever hold your peace on this, for they don't have to listen if you don't register your
resistance now.
Rivers Brown moved to Ashland nine years ago, buying a house next to Southern Oregon University.
He discovered the SOU Master Plan by reading an article in the Daily Tidings about SOU expansion and
followed the link to their Web site, where he discovered that one of the plans had him and his family
scheduled 110utta here.11 Thus began his odyssey to explore the plan in depth: Currently, and technically,
he is "out from underl1 the plan as it now stands, and he has been assisting others in trying to get out
from under the negative impacts of the plan. His son recently finished his freshman year at SOU.
20f2
14/07f2009 9:26 AM
8
If?' ('111'~
. JCifu;~--R;~i~o Faculty Village Developmant on West Campus
This letter is to register my resistance to the section of the SOU Master plan that deals with
the Faculty Village between Ashland and Henry Street; I will be out of town on the on the
14th and unable to attend the public hearing with the planning commission.
I was truly surprised and distressed when I heard of the section of the university's plan that
involved building faculty condominiums in the Glenwood Park area. Such development
appears totally incongruent with the present setting of single family residences around a
small city park. The purposed development would overwhelm what is already there, doing
irrevocable damage and taking far more from the community than what the university actually
owns.
To the best of my knowledge the plans have been developed without any real input from
the local community. I live only a block and a half away and had not known anything about it
until recently. and not from the university.
I would strongly request that this part of the proposal be denied as there are other more
workable solutions that could be implemented. It is my understanding that the Community
Garden and Glenwood park neighborhood "working groups" have come up with a plan that
demonstrates there are other alternatives that are possibly more viable. This seems to be
a much needed start for the university and community working together.
Sincerely,
Craig Grossmann
880 Ashland ST
Ashland, OR
On Friday, July 10, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Allan Peterson wrote:
I received the notice about the Ashland Street condo proposal and will send an email to the
names on the flyer stating my objections, ( the concept of faculty housing and the
architectural incompatibility with the existing neighbor).
Thank you Allan Peterson 807 Beach
Ashland Street condo
Hello,
I would like to respectfully register my opinion re: the Ashland Street Condo proposal.
I strongly OPPOSE this development. Ashland Street has very few, if any, multi-family
homes and I feel that this plan does not support the current nature of the
q
neighborhood.
It would put inappropriate strain on the facilities of Glenwood Park and add to the
current congestion already experienced in the neighborhood when the university is in
session.
Please vote AGAINST this part of the proposed SOU 2020 Master Plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jean Taylor
734 Glenwood Drive
SOU 2020 Master Plan
Dear Planning Commission,
Mr. Norm Christlieb of 581 Morton St. asked me to pass on to you that he is against the
SOU 2020 Master Plan proposal to locate Faculty Village in the Glenwood Park area of
Ashland Street. and lwest campus.- (passed on by Rivers Brown)
Dear Planning Commission,
Mr. James E. Jefferies and his wife, Ida B. Jefferies of 593 S. Mountain Ave. asked me to
pass on to you that they are against the SOU 2020 Master Plan proposal to locate Faculty
Village in the Glenwood Park area of Ashland Street, and 'west campus.! (their telephone
number: 482.0644) (passed on by Rivers Brown)
Jim Maynard
559 S Mountain Ave.
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Years ago SOU tried to sneak through twin high~rise apartment buildings at the corner of
Ashland Street at Mountain Ave. I was the only attendee at a hearing who spoke against it.
When I divulged that they were planning two 7 -story buildings, the SOU rep got very
upset and was very loudly demanding how I knew llthat".
Apparently, they weren't telling the City.
It was stopped.
Below are the comments I just posted on http://sou,edu/master~plan/
The "sou-master-plan-poster09-draft.pdf' is deceptive. With just a quick
~()
glance I notice the following:
1. On "sou-master-plan-poster09-draft.pdf' the legend shows an incorrect
shading for "new buildings", It does not match what is in the drawing,
2. On "sou-master-plan-poster09-draft.pdf' there are just two places listing
"Faculty Village house at edges of campus". The area on Ashland Street showing
the same legend symbol for "new buildings" is not indicated as being some of
the "Faculty Village".
3. On "sou-master-plan-poster09-draft.pdf' the "Faculty Village house at edges
of campus" hasJ in just one placeJ a bubble saying"line residential street with
housingJ to better interface with neighborhood", Left out was that these are
planned as 3-story complexes. A complex of that size on Ashland Street is NOT
a "better interface with neighborhood".
The performing arts building was a very obtrusive addition to the neighborhood.
This would be worse.
4. On "sou-master-plan-poster09-draft.pdf' there is a bubble saying
"Enhanced Gateway at path between Theater and Music and improved crossing
at Mountain Way". What/where is "Mountain Way? Are you referring to the street
Mountain Avenue? Or is there a pathway through the campus name Mountain
Way?
Sincerely,
Jim Maynard
559 S Mountain Ave.
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Gentlemen,
We are writing to express our response to the potential development of the
SOU/Glenwood park area. We have lived about three blocks from this neighborhood for
nearly 18 years, and are very familiar with the area. Our family has utilized Glenwood park
as a quiet respite and natural retreat - most recently yesterday, where we gathered With
extended family just to sit in the grass in the shade and enjoy the view and mellowness of
the neighborhood. Our morning walks frequently take us past the proposed building
location - where we appreciate the riparian zone of little Beach Creek, as well as the
community gardens that have seem to be thrivin9 so successfully. These natural qualities of
this neighborhood are exactly what has kept us living here for as long as we have.
Ashland has an excellent opportunity to be a leader in modern urban development, holding
with great care the principles of permaculture (please see definition below) which make the
relationship between humans and the environment that they inhabit, sustainable and
enjoyable. The community garden in this area is an excellent example of how a community
can utilize it's landscape to build relationships within it's human population as well as building
\\
a direct relationship with itls food source, which is of vital importance during the transitional
times we are living in. We are wondering if the proposed building plans that SOU is
offering have taken any of these aspects into consideration. Is it possible that any building
proposal there could be required to include a community garden space, a stewardship of
the creek, and a commitment to modeling sustainable building practices so vital to the
progress of our planet and species? IE: using green and sustainable building practices-
solar, wind, etc. We imagine an inspired designer could also create a building that would
also reflect a respect of the already established neighborhood in which is built.
As you face this planning decision, we encourage you to consider carefully not only the
potential impact of a condo unit in an old neighborhood, but also the potential of Ashland to
be a leader in sustainable design and practice in it's approach to growth in the 21 st century.
Warmly,
Janie Chandler and Joseph Micketti
From Wikipedla:
Permaculture is an approach to designing human settlements and
perennialagricultural systems that mimic the relationships found in the natural ecologies. It
was first developed by Australians Bill MollisoQ and David HolmgrslD and their associates
during the 1970s in a series of publications. The word permaculture is
a portmanteau of permanent agriculture, as well as permanent culture.
The intent was that, by rapidly training individuals in a core set of design principles, those
individuals could design their own environments and build increasingly self-suffrcient human
settlements - ones that reduce society's reliance on industrial systems of production and
distribution that Mollison identified as fundamentally and systematically destroying Earth's
ecosystems.
While originating as an agro~ecological design theory, permaculture has developed a large
international following. This 'permaculture community' continues to expand on the original
ideas, integrating a range of ideas of glternative culture, through a network of publications,
permaculture gardens, intentional communities, training programs, and internet forums. In this
way', permaculture has become both a design system and a loosely defined philosophy
or hfesty~ ethic.
\'2..-
Page 2 of2
Neighborhood Ashland Street Condo Resistance
CT--:'~"""-'"'' '..,..','. '........,.... i
.., ", Lincoln F'lnygfOlHl<l/
e plny:ng flljlcJ~ :'
r.',:-:'<
H~nrYStr~~t ,'"
"(~;lW'!il<~W<~, '
l'{ffil'M'M,<<'fi'~
"IUl\ldkh6Wi
\)(esistMc;o,
:,j : ,(;QI"1 [,..r;
,'" ~:' '.] ('''' T ":",'2.'
i.. Wgtldrid
" '(~~~~o,
:; 'N:thilr r
,break
'.., P'rtH\J)}
Atn.-.d OOM!
p~,
I, ^
e
.II
,i' Ashland, Street ..
, ~,,<'\'(C(>I)(lofljci~lotAAdOOt C(Hll~IMll~u) ,',
"'c. ..<_: ,,_ ~ :~, I":, ........_-_...';::'.-,__"--' :", ''';'-''',;c....~_::,
Kn9v:t'/i)VO?I~hi{Jh'lO'/ol'JJ .'.'..,.
COIl,l,mV,rM,!~!)j"to~f:O ..".', ....'.,.,'
~.~\~\ " i-_mli; " . '~;,,:-.- f- -._{ ,
KIlO\WI,'~j!llJJov,dL;iI; ,'.' ,
"".cqti1n\llliilYJO$lst!lh~lji) . ....'."
,~':~ ,'~. ,1,~~U9ht.!')1A,~91,1I ~[i~:~tl~Y~ti
1.:;(~6~I~HYI?1 pl)lldrOI));lOSL
..';; :iH>.J{'! f'
GIWing oolglloomooo _Brenna and realalonc;@
to rondos BlonO Aahland Stlool
Nt>l oor\palil:>IO ,rchll<<lurc Md I>Qpur",IOf\
(100$11)' wHh 1\di-'~1l r'lt'lghllO<hfXXI.
Allele view too IllVdl ft()f1\ Ot(>!lwood I'II'~ and
'Willhl>>rhOQd tltOIlS lCOO\Jos ~l;, Iv',oon1a'lls}
los.s Q/ mu..:tl \lsed alleyway Vrhlctll~ nelghOOlllQ(l<j
jX)<lestrloo Ihotoogllralo between Glenl'<ooo ParI;
lIIJd Uncdn paWfouoo end pla).'4lll .1U1d5
I MiOtiC 1\0\)$0 1111049 Ash!;,>"" SlIi)(!I, lhovijh
pooHyfl1l1lntallle<l by UrilVC11<1)' 1l0UW'>i}, Is ~b"
'po~~liClf oo~(eal:ole alchi!<<tulo IrOOl PiHk
I\!I<.I (1/ W~l W,JClUlill h*>grity
Oeiltll C'~1i IS tl(>~r 10 PWP<)SI)<J ~Iruct.,tfl)s
1M" Shu....lll'orllU SUliourldlf't;) CIQQ~ IlIXKIs
11> loilla;ll, lfItDO irMa (>t1 mkxt~ 01 10\, UlllO
.oom IoU IVI MY lXQ/\6(lll(,<,\/1y tel\!-#(t sJl(t
SIt1Jc\UI(lOIl 1049 MhlaM f,t llhilv,) I<)l
Condos Irom olfoy up 10 Moulltnln AI/O \llIt 5~!i
block vlow of ,noun!,llri' flom !'.uk ml(! \\<<)Id
IJo uI)Vorbl!arlng- flom 'IOC(l1 WII\(>t' Q/ P~'k
Conoo~ 110m IlJ!oy (Ill 10 Moun1<'''l Aw, nlSO
bllKk view j'ool hill"Hut 01 loall 'Os.>J~~lC'<1S
wid we.o!d tOlllrnsl o'Chl1<<lurDlltyleli 01 rJdi)t
nelllhb(}rI~K>d
IMJIWlWIQ 1l()fl\If~tK>(\ IlIId OWtbc.'lliO\l /H(trjloehllo
wtl ('/iMI/Q our l\ofghOOll1()O(j lOi'<l''t11, 1\(>1 1(>1 MlW
Wilhln tho SOU 2020 Master Plall (lIpdatoo) I W\VW,SOU,odu/rnastor.planl! Is Il proposod lining 01 Ashland Stroot
wllh throe story (inc!d. pkg, undllr) Condos flS pM 01 n 'Fnculty ViI!ago" wmplox constructod 00<1 monllgod by
pllvalo dovoloI>0.(5), Tho 'Iaculty housing concopt" Is coo1lov0l61111 and Un,}rovon: Crontos moro lnsulatednoss fit
an alroady Insuloted Institullon. "Appreclallon:' demand and prom lor Ihls modol cannol be gUllmntood. Bonor housing
schemos ilvallablo, A far ilurporior locoliOn on Norlh Campus axists, hmv]ng 'upper" campus Irco lor luluro needs,
Tho neighborhood surrounding flod noor Glonwood Park, Inctudin{ltha Pmk itsolf, will laco 1098 of mountain vlows
with tho ovorslzed 8cnl0 0lth05O' 5trucluros and, also, II chango In Iho character 01 this speclallitUe parI ol'oldor"
Ashland with the balloonIng populnlfon associaled with Iho C<)mplox, life as we know iI in Glenwood I'iuk will bo over.
Tho cUlronl plan 6hO'o'.'5 a sevoro ctowdJII9 of Boneh Crook and Us riparian lono, along wllh removal 01 historic houso
and largo trCOS lhOro. Current well used pcdcslrlnn alleyway to be abandoned and 3.slolY Condos buill ofong Ashland
Slreol slrelchirm up to Mountain Ava. Private rosidence in middle 01 projecl could also become condos. Tho shown
Condos are much undorscalod in illustration and parking access nol shown, possibly schoduled in through 'wotlands:
City Zoning Ordinances may have 10 allow exceptions to accomodale clashing lIrchllechture, population
density, lighling, parking, and traffic changes for this neIghborhood. This SOU Master Plan will have a
public hoarlng belore City Planning Commission on July 14th @ 7 pm. (Bastille Day I) and on to
City Council (tentatively) scheduled for August 18th @ 7 pm. Show up or em ail your council/commission!
Contact: Rivers Brown @ 482.6565 (or) OneEarth@mlnd,net for further info. and "working group"
updates, Your Involvement and feedback Is appreciated. Please register your resistance: Michael Dawkins,
PC Chair . micha~lltdawkln$@yahoo.com I Eric Navickas, CC Liaison. eric@counciLashland.or.us
John Stromberg, Mayor' john@oouncil.ashland,or.us I Bill Molnar. Staff liaison' molnarb@ashland.or,us
AshStCondoResistFlyer -flat copy
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lucasa\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4A5C9565AshD... 7/15/2009
1.(?!I~l?QQ~)i~p.dLIu~a~~]90rl:lfi1~6!J9~.......~~~92~hc),ij..Er2R,9~~d."'R,eyi~~(:LM~~,i~t,EI~,n, ,
sOlf'
"'".,',, -"""" .J~~9~,ji1
RECEIVED
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Pam Vavra" <pam@nv,net>
<commenUo _the _councll@llst.ashland.or.us>
7/14/20092:58 PM
[CommenUo_the_councilj Proposed Revised Master Plan for SOU
JUL 1 4 2009
CUy of Ashland
Communay Development
Dear Mayor and Councilors,
I serve with 3 others from Peace House and Soulh Mountain Friends Meeting to collectively manage and
oversee the interest that those two groups share as owners in common of the property located at 543 S
Mountain Av., on the corner of S. Mountain Av. and Ashland St.
I believe this property will be impacted by the proposed SOU Revised Master Plan that includes
construction of a major housing project on Ashland Street between Mountain Av and Beach St.
We received Notice of the July 14 Planning Commission Hearing and tonight's Council meeting Hearing
during the week of July 4th.
Between then and now, owing to having received less than 30 days notice and in part to summertime
vacation schedules, the proper parties have not yet had an opportunity to review the proposed Plan in
sufficient detail to provide thoughtfully considered comment.
Consequently, I respectfully request that you make no decision to accept this Plan tonight. I also formally
request to receive notification of any decision that either you or the Planning Commission do make in
regards to this application. Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
fJ
Pamela C. Vavra
457 C St.
Ashland, OR 97520
Please send notice to:
Peace House & SMFM Joint Committee
P.O. Box 524
543 S. Mountain Av
Ashland, OR 97520
CommenUo_the_councl1 mailing list
CommenUo _the_council@list.ashland.or.us
http://Iist.ashland.or.us/mailmanllistinfo/commenUo _the_council
I.I?!1$j?9Q.~t~p~ii..I~9~,~<:(g<2fu~~ijtJ9~""(;,e"':9<?,Y,~gil[gQ[ij.rD~,'~fQrlsQQ",M~~t~t.'PI~h
date'
,,',"" ."',.".,','.'Eag,~Iil
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
steve ryan <resolutfonvldeo@yahoo.com>
<commenUo_the_council@list.ashland.or.us>
7/14/20093:47 PM
[CommenUo_the_council] Comment on SOU Master Plan Update
Part.002
Respected Councllfors and Planning Commissioners,
BECEIVED
JUL 1 4 2009
City 01 Ash[,md
Community Development
I reserve comment on the actual 2020 SERA Master Plan specifics because I have not yet heard both
sides' goals and arguments. But the amount of controversy apparent on this listserv, in public discussion,
public emalls etc., indicates Planning Commission should use the most discretion and caution before
approving this planning action, and instead reserve all available public options for review and approval
before sending this to Council. Council should do the same.
This planning action will have significant impact on the residents and the users of public and private
facilities in this area. The proposed action is controversial enough to warrant protecting the public Interest
by not releasing oversight, but retaining all opportunities to modify, restrict, direct or oversee what belongs
to the public in the first place. The risk to the public interest outweighs any inconvenience SOU may
experience in moving forward with the preferred development option, and may deliver a goodwill dividend
by including stakeholders, your constituents, in the final outcome.
Respectfully, Stephen D. Ryan
1'~(?11.5/?QQ~)'ApiilJ-Y2~~,:,[g2~,rri~hCt9,"i'~ ~:c:,2,~h,9111.~,QQ~M~~~~f,E(~b"u:
".',.,'...,~F,:)~9~Iil
HECEIVED
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
"SUlA Technologies" <sula@mlnd.net>
<com menUo_the_councll@llst.ashland.or.us>
7/14/20095:46 PM
{CommenUo_the_councllj SOU Master Plan
Part.002
JUL 1 4 2009
City of Ash!and
Community Development
ATTN: Ashland Planning Commission:
Only recently has the Ashland public become aware of the ambltious and far reaching SOU Master Plan.
Yet already that proposal has become the subject of considerable controversy involving SOU neighbors,
students and other users of the area surrounding the University. Tonight you will be asked to approve
this massive project. Please treat the subject with reserve and caution until you have had adequate time
to seriously consider the objections and reviews by Ashland residents.
Thank you for taking time to read this request.
Darwin Thusius
Ashland Resident & Business Owner
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
RHopklns <tourlst@mlnd.net>
mlchael dawklns <mlchaeltdawklns@yahoo.com>
7/14120092:20:14 PM
Comments on the SERA Master Plan for SOU
JUL 1 4 2009
To the Ashland Planning Commission,
Please consider these comments on the SERA Master Plan for SOU that
you are beIng called upon to adopt tonight.
Whatever Is contained In an adopted Plan probably becomes an outright
permitted use under the Municipal Code. SOU would thereafter not be
required to seek a conditional use permit for such development.
This would dramatlcaUy reduce the power by the CIty's planning
staff. planning commission and the town Itself to control what
happens wIth future development at SOU, including that whIch Impacts
surroundIng neIghborhoods and businesses.
Grantfng a conditional use permit allows staff and the PC to balance
adverse material effect on livability of the Impact area, taking Into
consIderation aU the real world Impacts outlined In 18.104.050
(similarIty of bulk, scale and coverage, generation of traffic on
surrounding streets, architectural compatlbUlty. aIr quality.
generation of noIse. light and glare, etc).
With a conditional use permIt, all these factors can be weighed,
everybody In the communIty can express their opinions and staff and
the PC can use theIr expertise and desire to benefit the town of
Ashland. Much broader approval crIteria than with a mere site design
review.
City of Ashram!
Community
A better outcome for everybody (IncludIng SOU) with these large
developments will be more likely than If we simply outsource things
to eyes on a computer screen hundreds of miles away.
While 18.64050 would stUl apply the conditional use permIt
requirement and approval crIteria for development within 50 feet of
privately owned property, thIs exception Is at least partlaUy
Illusory. By the time one adds up the width of streets and associated
public rights of way, many propertIes just across the street from
SOU's extensive boundaries will fall outside the protected zone.
Simply setting the development 'back' a few feet would also craft a
further escape valve from the 50 foot exception. CIty owned lands
like pUblic parks would also not trigger the exception.
An example of the desirabilIty of Ashland maintainIng greater
communIty control appears In the SERA Master Plan's treatment of
pedestrian safety on Siskiyou.
We've seen a recent tragedy on that street and have been forced to
Invest much time, effort and expense in making the best of a 'not
best' situation regarding the conflict between traffic and people
trying to walk or bIke to and from SOU. The work Is on going even now.
Yet part of the Master Plan envisions a transfer of 'uses' and the
student population north of Siskiyou.
How can thIs not dramatically Increase the traffic vs. pedestrian
conflIcts on SIskiyou?
Paying Up service to thIs reality, the Master Plan refers to
. 'several potential Improvements' to the gateway area of Siskiyou!
Ashlandllndiana Streets. Page 46 of the Plan recommends that 'Option
1 be pursued.' Option 1 basically Involves use of pavements and the
Ilke to create a 'pedestrian zone' cIting Eugene as an example.
The current version of the SERA Master Plan states that this
'intervention' is relatively Inexpensive. See page 46.
The Immediately prIor version of the SERA Master Plan, however, added
one other factor regarding the now recommended Option 1 - a sentence
stating '(t)he drawback of this option Is that It does not
substantially Improve pedestrian safety when compared to other
Interventions.' See page 44 of that version.
The sentence was excIsed from the final Master Plan. To make the Plan
more palatable, the confessIon regarding safety was removed, while
the enticement of Inexpensiveness remains,
Many of the projects InsIde the Master Plan may well be very
desirable and beneficial. But they will be better executed for
everybody if the CIty's planning staff, Planning Commission and the
town at large maintains a greater abU/ty to influence such impactful
developments.
As It Is. the SERA Master Plan Is all but flying below the publfc
radar. It has been scheduled for approval in the middle of the
summer, when the students (who clearly have Interests here) are gone
and people are distracted by vacatlons and summer activities. They've
already scheduled a Council vote to approve before the PlannIng
Commission has even had its say In the matter.
So I hope the PC and Council will take a long, slow careful look at
the Master Plan. OthelWls8. I fear we will realize one day that we've
Irrevocably 'privatized' and 'outsourced' what should be communIty
decision making over a critical part of Ashland to our great detriment.
thanks for reading
Randall HopkIns.
an Ashland citizen.
cc The Mayor, City Council, Bill Molnar
cc: Tom Dlmltre <dlmltre@mlnd.net>. Pam Marsh <pam.marsh@gmaif.com>.
<hmlUer@jeffnet.org>, Melanie MIndlin <sassetta@mlnd.net>. BIll Molnar <molnarb@ashland.or.us>,
MIchael Morris <msquared@mlnd.net>, Eric Navickas <erlcnavickas@hotmall.com>
RECEIVED
JUL 1 4 2009
>>> Craig Grossmann <cg482@hotmail.com> 07/13/09 5:50 PM >>> City of Ashland
Community Development
This letter is to register my resistance to the section of the SOU Master plan that deals
with the Faculty Village between Ashland and Henry Street; I will be out of town on the
on the 14th and unable to attend the public hearing with the planning commission. I was
truly surprised and distressed when I heard of the section of the university's plan that
involved building faculty condominiums in the Glenwood Park area. Such development
appears totally incongruent with the present setting of single family residences around a
small city park. The purposed development would overwhelm what is already there,
doing irrevocable damage and taking far more from the community than what the
university actually owns. To the best of my knowledge the plans have been developed
without any real input from the local community. I live only a block and a half away and
had not known anything about it until recently, and not from the university.l would
strongly request that this part of the proposal be denied as there are other more
workable solutions that could be implemented. It is my understanding that the
Community Garden and Glenwood park neighborhood "working groups" have come up
with a plan that demonstrates there are other alternatives that are possibly more viable.
This seems to be a much needed start for the university and community working
together. Sincerely, Craig Grossmann, 880 Ashland St., Ashland, OR
RECEiVED
>>> "Ed/Linda" <canbas@charler.net> 07/12/09 12:40 PM >>>
JUL 1 3 2009
Dear Bill,
City of Ashland
Thank you for taking the time to open my e-mail. The SOU Master plan hG€fi71oper~ll~{r:nent
to impact my family in two locations. My Mother owns property in the Glenwood Park
neighborhood and I own property on middle Wightman between the RR tracks and East
Main.
Our family disapproves of the proposed Condominium development proposed for the
Glenwood Park area. The area is beautiful.
I support the development of the lower Campus to include a Condominium development.
When I purchased my home on Wightman I knew that the expansion of SOU in my
neighborhood was likely. I purchased my home with the full knowledge development
was likely.
The City has been working very hard to develop low income housing and integrate the
housing into the Community. I believe it is the City's job, not the University's job to meet
the needs of our diverse population.
Sincerely,
Linda Cannon
COVER SHEET
FOR
COMMUNITY GARDEN & GLENWOOD PARK
NEIGHBORHOOD "WORKING GROUPS"
PROPOSAL TO IMPROVE
THE
SOU 2020 MASTER PLAN
SUBMITTED BY
RIVERS BROWN
1067 ASHLAND STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON
Community Garden & Glenwood Park
Neighborhood "working groups"
Proposal to Improve the SOU Master Plan:
1. Direct SOU to move "Faculty Village" from Ashland/Henry Streets area
to its most suitable location on North Campus where its architectural scale
and population density does not clash with neighborhood, but fits in and
compliments it. *
2. Direct SOU to explore the "Garden and Neighborhood" "Preferred
Alternative" of "Sustainability Village" which is already structurally in
place on West Campus and design such into Master Plan. *
This would eliminate opposition to University intrusion into neighborhood,
large student opposition, and create a far reaching and lucrative academic,
housing, and outreach option for the University. It would also be the
correct "interface" with the surrounding community there.
3. Student Housing - Cascade Complex - remove and relocate dining
services to space below Cascade, (west of Cox, and above Health Center).
Renovate Cascade Complex for student housing, one wing at a time.
The massive student transfer to below Siskiyou Blvd, and all the traffic
congestion and safety issues it would bring is close to unbelievable,
especially given the existing difficulties and recent tragedy on Siskiyou.
4. Abandon major landscape and open space overhauls in Campus Core.
The current landscape pattern in campus core is fine for students to
congregate in and for "first time visitors" finding their way. To cut back all
the wondeIfuI trees and install a tight grid plaza would not be an
enhancement, only a regimentation. Students are already using these areas
just fine, and a little signage will help visitors.
Do a creative project like a "daylighted" and flowing Roca Creek down along
central path to pool near plaza, where it exits and goes back underground
just above the boulevard. Something like this would preserve and enhance
the fine "woodlands and meadows" theme there now and would definitely be
a "show stopper" for new visitors. Not to mention great PR for the
University's crowing "sustainability," and hands on expertise for the
Environmental Studies Department.
Summary:
- Re- Locate and Create Right Village for the Right Neighborhood. *
- Renovate Cascade and move Cafeteria just below.
- Do modest enhancements to grounds and paths.
- Do all academic core upgrades scheduled.
In these times we need to get ourselves in place for a long drawn out
transition toward sustainability, if not survival. Upfitting and retrofitting
what we do have that is now working, supplemented by more modest
(affordable) new projects, are the order of the day in reality based planning
on all levels.
Southern Oregon University should become a Leader in this (and it would
help balance their budget).
* see attached photos that illustrate "Right Villages"
Community Garden and Neighborhood
"working groups" overview of
SOU 2020 Master Plan July 2009
The Master Plan needs to bring in the needs of all stakeholders. Some were left
out and this is not right for any significant sized planning endeavor.
"Stakeholder" was too limited and excluded those potentially most impacted by
plans gone 'misguided.'
Our local rights to decide for ourselves what form our community and
neighborhoods take should not be abrogated by a flawed planning process. The
process should now backtrack or start over to find the best solution for our little
town that is not Portland, S.F. or L.A., but uniquely Ashland, Oregon.
"Outsourced" won't do when planning so large in the center of our little town,
especially when it has the potential to impact us in many ways and was done
without due (actual) process. These factors, along with others, have compounded
to create a poor outcome. Better now, to enter into fixative measures, than regret
later with diminished community. After all, a totally good and positive outcome
is just about assured with sufficient public participation. We can find win, win,
win solutions to all our needs.
The 'Right Village for the Right Neighborhood' is what we all deserve. The
SOU 2020 Master Plan is not that now, but could easily be, when logic and
sensitivity is applied to place and culture in design. Overbearing architectural
scale and population density should not be forced upon an "elder neighborhood"
with which it does not blend, but impacts negatively. The most appropriate place
where developments of this size will prosper are where they fit in well with the
local neighborhood density and architecture, and have all the best amenities
nearby.
Faculty Village belongs on North Campus near the current student family
housing, and where it would have the middle and elementary schools just across
the street, with high school just 4 blocks away. This, alone would work great, but
it also has Science Works, Growers' Market, bike/pedestrian path and majestic
views, and a 2-3 block walk to Campus Core. Feeder streets to choice of arterial
streets give access by automobile or bicycle for needs based travel. This location
also fits the bill on scale of architecture and population density to assure an easy
fit with the neighborhood already there.
Amazingly (or not), the University does not even mention in the 2020 Master
Plan their greatest need: Student Family Housing is always 100% full with a
very long waiting list. Regular Student Housing (what's called for in the MP) is
only about 80% full.
Sustain ability Village is already partially happening on West Campus with
the 8 year old ECOS Community Garden and Bike Library. The handful of 9
houses just north of the garden and south of Henry Street could easily transition
to become a research experiment zone for the Environmental Science
Department in conjunction with ECOS and the Housing Department, if not
others, also.
Leading edge environmental science isn't just about saving the environment
'out there,' global climate change, and studying our natural heritage, but also,
out of necessity, will swiftly evolve into how do we retrofit and upgrade our
habitation environs so that we may more successfully negotiate the 'long
emergency.' This not only just includes our homes, but our homes will become
ever more critical to adopt sustain ability practices for. This knowledge and
systems of accomplishment are what an exponentially increasing number of
green jobs are indicating as already becoming a megatrend.
The University can be at the forefront of finding whole system solutions in this
emerging industry and export such out into the community around, and
beyond, with outreach projects funded by public entities that will bare future
financial fruit. An Agricultural Experimental Station is an example of a related
concept. This would be a "Retro" Greening Experimental Station, to "sustainably"
upfit the majority of our housing, not just the current primary focus on new
construction, which constitutes only a small fraction of our housing base. Plus
the related food factor, alternative energy generation aspects, and the social
networks of small communities, can create quite an impressive interdisciplinary
endeavor.
We are hoping Commissioners will appreciate the win-win-win aspects of this
"Garden & Neighborhood Plan," and help guide the SOU 2020 Master Plan
accordingly. Thank you for your consideration.
solutions in the
, with outreach
ral
D......C.~ Page 1 of 1
rat: t:.IVED
Bill Molnar - Ashland Street condo
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Jean Taylor" <734jeant@charter.net>
<"U ndisclosed- Recipient:;"@madrone.ashlandfiber.net>
7/8/2009 9:42 AM
Ashland Street condo
City of Ashland
Community Development
Hello,
I would like to respectfully register my opinion re: the Ashland Street Condo proposal.
I strongly OPPOSE this development. Ashland Street has very few, if any. multi-family homes and I feel that this
plan does not support the current nature of the neighborhood.
It would put inappropriate strain on the facilities of Glenwood Park and add to the current congestion already
experienced in the neighborhood when the university is in session.
Please vote AGAINST this part of the proposed SOU 2020 Master Plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jean Taylor
734 Glenwood Drive
file://C:\Documents and Settings\molnarb\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM
7/8/2009
Page 1 of2
RECEIVED
Brent Thompson
MAY 18 all
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Brent Thompson" <brenttho@mind.net>
<administrator@serapdx.com>
Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:06 AM
Forward to Eric Ridenour- RE Sou
City of Ashland
~nity ~\lelop~
To President Mary Cullinan and Eric Ridenour of SERA,
I recently (April 16) at the Ashland Transportation Commission meeting saw preliminary
plans for the Southern Oregon University master plan update, and I want to offer the following.
For decades SOU acquired additional land for future expansion. Thus, the campus has
sprawled. That in turn contributes to sprawl pressures on the city. Likely because of having so
much space, buildings built for the University such as the Schneider Art Museum, and for
other entities such as the National Guard AmiOry, the Forensics Laboratory and for the Natuial
History Museum have tended to be one story which, of course, is a waste of land. Some
. "-.,. .,- " ';:B\:Jer bu":'!d1~::;.,..-,;:.;-:t bn.Jwoor threestor~~ ~>Lt_~"e.,!:'mf,iI.~rrthEtca01PJ.!~i~~g~.n~r~H\;}I')\^!'d .n,
A"y additio..al ;:Juilamgs should be at least three and one half 'jtories; The permitted height on
the university campus is 55 feet.
The idea of using land and other resources frugally should be carried over to any
project on any of the various State University campuses. It should be in the respective
construction! expansion University Mission Statements
Three years ago the City of Ashland paid $25,000 for a study of rent rates to be
completed. The study which is available from the City of from its website actually showed,
contrary to the wishes of some City Counselors, that rental rates for housing in Ashland were
not high relative to construction costs and property costs in Ashland and elsewhere. But that is
not to say that housing should not be built on campus, but planners should recognize that
Ashland housing was not considered expensive according to the consultants. One of the
problems is that young students often don't yet have the work, credit, or life experience for
them to compete with others for the best housing. And often they don't yet know how to
present themselves as prospective responsible residents. Assistance or counseling for
students about how to find housing might be more cost effective than building new
housing.
Regarding housing on or near campus, one unfortunate decision was that around
1999-2000 three or four houses were tom down or moved off campus from Mountain Street for
more parking. The reasoning for this was undoubtedly that the houses were old and needed
work, but I don't agree with this assessment. These houses could have been renovated
and retained, but as a result of this decision, three or more faculty or staff members no longer
could be housed across the street from campus. But there was room for a few more parked
cars. This was a bad trade off, and one I hope will not be repeated.
Regarding parking lots, I believe areas above them ought to be used for housing or
something. The idea to locate housing along Ashland St. aka Highway 66 is as good one, but
locating housing along Walker Street near the Middle School will result in too many additional
vehicle trips due to the distances from shopping and anything but the Middle school.
On the plans I hope I detected a sort of bicycle! pedestrian thruway above Siskyou
Blvd. from one side of the University to the other. The University should not be a barrier for
those who want to commute thru SOU by skate board. bicycle. roller skates or on foot. The
campus should be inviting to the general public. A convenient pathway thru campus will help
meet that goal. And any security concerns can be met with surveillance cameras, an
5/16/2009
Page 2 of2
unfortunate but necessary featrure of may public spaces..
One further thought is that no large grassy areas that are used for or could be used for
sports and recreation should be developed. The University should be able to deal with future
space needs by going up and not out, and again relevent mission statements hopefully will
include wording about the desirability of using land and other resources thriftily in future
constructionl expansion projects.
I sit on the Transportation Commission and part of our concern is to advise of ways to
reduce vehicle trip by promoting alternative forms of transportation to the automobile. I hope
some of these thoughts might help achieve that.
~:;~ ~~?ft~
arent Thompson
Former Ashland Planning Commissioner and City Counselor
cc Ms VViewe! {
Ashland Planning Commission (j {~ &'-t.4/~(../
Larry Blake
5/16/2009
CROMAN MILL DISTRICT
Minority Report
CROMAN MILL DISTRICT PLAN
Planning Commission Minority Opinion and Report
March, 2010
This is a report on views expressed at the Planning Commission which would support a
recommendation against proceeding with the Croman Mill District Plan as written. They are not
primarily in contradiction to any of the details which formed the work of the commission over
the last year. We believe that all the commissioners worked hard to hone the details of the plan
that were put up for discussion by staff. Although only the two undersigned commissioners
ultimately voted against recommending the plan, many of the ideas expressed here were brought
forward or supported by other commissioners during the course of discussion. These ideas were,
of course, never put to a vote. Commissioner Dawkins expressed his frustration during the final
deliberation thus, "The approach expressed by this Plan had the full support of staff time,
experience and resources in its preparation, whereas the alternative had nothing to support its
development. "
We respectfully submit the following ideas, suggestions and concerns for the City Council's
consideration.
1) Croman Mill District Plan (CMDP) Goals and Principles were not met.
The Croman Mill Plan provides a list of community issues and objectives gathered
through the public input process as goals and principles but, in our opinion, does not adequately
address them. See Addendum 1, Evaluation of Goals Objectives and Principles.
2) The CMDP is inconsistent with the 2007 EOA.
The Croman Mill Plan is not consistent with the recommendations of the 2007 Economic
Opportunities Analysis nor with work-in-progress of the Economic Development Committee
a) The uses and standards of the CMDP are predicated on a goal of having businesses
with over 100 employees and high per acre densities. Based on statistics for current employment
densities in AsWand contained in the 2007 EOA, we believe that the employment density targets
are not realistic, the likely result of which will be lack of clarity in specific land use applications,
requests for variances and an undue burden placed on applicants, staff and commission in
interpreting the ordinance on a case by case basis.
b) We are concerned about the lack of an overall plan that identifies locations for all
economic needs throughout the City as recommended in the 2007 EOA, and believe proceeding
on this one area without an overall plan is not wise. Areas of specific concern include
competition with downtown land uses and insufficient land for "edge of town" activities
requiring outdoor operations and larger parcels with less onerous development standards.
c) The 2007 EOA recommends that the site be retained for "industrial" use, whereas the
staff reports have stated that the EOA recommends the Croman Mill Site be developed for
"employment". We believe this is a significant difference in identifying community land use
needs.
page 1
3) The CMDP should not precede the Economic Development Plan.
As there is currently an overall Economic Development Plan in the works, we believe the
City should put the Croman Mill Plan on hold until the Economic Development Plan has been
completed, and re-examine it at that time for its role in achieving the goals of the adopted
Economic Development Plan.
a) We believe that the high level of design standards and employment density will make
it very difficult for local business start-ups and expansions to be able to afford to locate there.
Providing for local businesses is one of the CMDP's original principles and appears to be a
primary goal of the Economic Development Committee currently in session.
b) In reviewing the work in progress of the Economic Development Committee, a
completed CM Plan is listed as a strength by technical advisors. However based on conversation
with Adam Hanks, these advisors think having developable land ready to use is a plus, but have
no knowledge of the details, purposes or standards in the actual plan.
4) The CMDP is not integrated with city-wide transportation and land use.
A plan of this importance should be integrated with an overall plan for transportation,
distribution of land use and vision for the city as a whole.
a) We are concerned with the lack of land that will be available for uses such as recycling,
lumber yards and other large messy activities that should be located near the edge of town. We
believe this is the natural location for such activities when looking at the City as a whole. The
Washington Street area is now being referenced by staff as the location for these edge of town
activities, yet has highly problematic transportation access.
b) The current Plan is not truly a multi-use node as proposed in City goals and
Transportation Plan issues. A multi-use node concentrates housing, employment, retail and
services into an area not more than 1/2 mile across for convenient pedestrian transportation.
c) The plan is glaringly incomplete in relation to the Tolman Creek - Signature Street
connection and the Tolman Creek - AsWand Street connections. Fundamental flaws have been
identified and last minute changes have been made which seem to throw out the basic original
design on which the Plan was based, and mayor may not address the range of problems which
have arisen. The Transportation Study which will show how much density can be
accommodated without the Signature Street was not completed by the time of the Planning
Commission decision. Many local landowners whose property is crossed by the proposed
Signature Street protested their treatment when we finally held our public hearing. Experienced
professionals have pointed out difficulties with the creek crossing, the relation of the turns to
existing driveways, and the taking of private property. The current state of the street design
present significant problems with the public process.
d) We are concerned that the City will once again fast track a development plan without
adequately preparing for the road connections, as can be seen in the isolated North Mountain
Plan and the developments in the Clay Street area.
page 2
5) The CMDP has insufficient planning for annexable lands.
The "Annexable" portion of the site outside the city boundaries was specifically excluded
during the original public process and should not have its underlying zoning changed in the
manner proposed by the Plan. Currently this area provides significant benefits for wetland
conservation, urban agriculture and affordable housing. Staff has said that the Plan is "only" a
holding pattern pending actual application for annexation, however the new zoning and specific
areas indicated on the map will be used as the basis for any future application. Planning
Commission did not examine this part of the property in detail. Hundreds of people who were
involved in the original charrettes hold the assumption that this area is not included in the Plan.
Therefore we suggest that even if this area has its underlying zoning designation changed, that
specific areas of conservation or mixed use not be indicated on it.
6) The CMDP places a burden on the whole community for Tier 2 Power Needs.
Energy use by the future development has not been analyzed, and the cost to the
community ignored. As the City is already discussing how to meet the increased costs of Tier 2
power, we should be considering the costs that will be born by the whole community for
increased demand caused by the project. If adopted, the CMDP should require the development
to be Net Zero Energy, meaning buildings would be required to produce as much renewable
energy on site as their projected use. This may sound like an onerous requirement, but research
shows that it should be attainable with a reasonable "pay-back" period. Discussion is already
occurring at both the local and regional level about meeting future energy needs through
conservation and on-site renewable energy. We should include standards that mandate this
approach in the CMDP.
7) CMDP does not aggressively manage growth.
The effects of an additional 2,000 - 3,000 jobs on the overall growth of the city's
population have not been analyzed. The City Council's vision of the future includes the
statement "aggressively manage growth." We believe we should start that proactive response
here with an analysis of the pressures on existing housing and increased housing development
that will be created through this employment expansion and the services needed to support it.
8) CMDP will need community funding.
Although staff has made it clear that discussion of ways to fund the project such as Urban
Renewal or Enterprise Zones are not within the purview of the Planning Commission, we are
concerned that adoption of this Plan will create an obligation for City funding that has not been
adequately considered or agreed upon. Creating a large body of new expensive standards will
compel a sense of responsibility to provide financial support to their achievement. The City has
already spent enormous funds on staff time in support of this Plan which essentially benefits a
single landowner, and is likely to consider it "too big to fail". A great deal of additional time will
be required to create a parking plan, figure out where and how the street will actually go, apply
for grants and investigate and create financial mechanisms to support the infrastructure. If an
Urban Renewal District is formed, the community will further finance the project through paying
for the area's services while their own service fees are used to pay for their infrastructure.
page 3
9) It is unknown whether the CMDP density will support the cost of infrastructure.
The high density urban vision laid out by consultants is reputedly necessary to support
the infrastructure required by the project, yet the progress of the plan has been to reduce these
ideas to ones more consistent with current city standards. Heights have been reduced and density
has become a goal not a requirement. Incentives to vertical growth are not well established. The
coming traffic study will likely place further limits on the allowable amount of density. We have
not analyzed the economic viability of the planned infrastructure without the proposed density.
This analysis should be completed and should support this approach4 before approval of the
plan.
10) Confusion in Relationship Between Commission and Council.
The commissioners wish to draw Council's attention to problems in the working
relationship between the two bodies. The Planning Commission worked for numerous sessions
and many hours of consideration on the CMDP before having a closely split vote when sending a
recommendation to proceed to the Council. The Council discussed the CMDP for about 10
minutes when they decided to move forward with the Plan. Issues raised by the dissenting
Planning Commissioners were not mentioned during this discussion.
Following Council's vote, it was represented to the Planning Commission that the
Council had already adopted all the general assumptions of the CMDP, and our only job was to
iron out some details about the wording of the design standards and specific uses. Private
conversations between some Planning Commissioners and some Councilors revealed that not all
Councilors shared this view of their decision. In general, the lack of significant discussion on
the record by the Council created doubt and confusion about their intent and what issues were
still under discussion. Furthermore, minority commissioners got the impression that their
concerns were never represented, discussed or considered by members of the Council.
11) The CMDP had poor public process.
Significant inadequacies in the public process have occurred in relation to the Croman
Mill Plan.
a) It is our observation that the Crandall Arambula consultants had a preconceived plan
by the time of the first public meeting, and proceeded with leading questions, limited responses
to input and a process designed to confirm support of that plan.
b) Large pieces of property that were excluded from the original public discussions are
now included in the rezoning. This is unfair and perceived as illegitimate by those concerned.
· i) As discussed above, the annexable portion was excluded from discussion during the
public charrettes. Crandall Arambula said publicly that the annexable section of land was not
part of the CMDP. No targetted attempt has been made to include stakeholders in the change.
· ii) A large parcel on Mistletoe was only included in the rezoning in 2010. Although the
Planning Commission has recommended that the property not be included in the CMDP, it has
placed additional new requirements on that property alone.
page 4
c) All but one of the property owners in the area covered by the CMDP, other than the
owners of the Croman Mill site itself, have expressed disapproval of the Plan. Key stakeholders
for the street development have stated their complete opposition. These property owners
consider the CMP to be a "down zoning" of their property. Since their property has had its actual
zoning changed, this is not just a case of NIMBY.
d) Having a well conceived and widely appreciated route for the new signature street
seemed for long the one good thing about this Plan. Recent testimony challenges that notion and
the City Staff has drawn an alternative route, commissioned a traffic study for a different or
interim route, discussed the possibility that the area will be permanently served by a lesser street
from Tolman Creek Road, and the general feeling is that the Signature Street is unlikely to be
built as conceived. This change from the Plan that was put through the public process should be
the last straw and lead to rejection of the CMDP.
e) The CMDP public process was lacking in citizen support and trust building. I refer
you to the feature article in the winter 2010 issue of the Planning Commissioners Journal,
Building Your Planning Process from the Ground Up, which clearly shows the many things that
should be done, and which we have failed to do, in an effective large scale planning process.
Most importantly, they point out that, "It is tempting to use the public process as a means to
obtain political cover for a pre-ordained planning agenda, rather than as a forum for open
decision making. This is ultimately self-defeating because it erodes community trust."
Respectfully Submitted,
Commissioner Melanie Mindlin
Commissioner Michael Dawkins
page 5
ADDENDUM 1
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES
As stated above in Item # I, the Croman Mill District Plan provides a list of community issues
and objectives gathered through the public input process as goals and principles but, in our
opinion, does not successfully address these issues.
On the City's website the Project Goals are listed as:
· Maximizing opportunities for business development and employment growth.
Evaluation: The standards restrict development to certain categories which discriminate against
smaller businesses and those with lower capitalization (like local business start-ups and
expansions). Local property owners have expressed strong belief that the Plan will be a
detriment to the development of businesses in the area. No business leaders have voiced support
for the plan. (See #2 and #3, above.)
· Analyzing transportation connections from within the area to the city wide
transportation system.
Evaluation: In the last few meetings, both the connection to Tolman Creek and the route of the
signature street have been questioned and possibly abandoned. Issues about the connection to
AsWand Street and the freeway have not been addressed. An actionable analysis has not been
achieved. (See #4 @, above.)
· Determining appropriate land uses for the area.
Evaluation: We believe that singling out land uses for this area without a citywide economic and
land use plan cannot be successful at determining appropriate choices. (See #2(b) and #4(a),
above.)
· Identifying development scenarios to address potential on-site clean up.
Evaluation: We have heard nothing about this, and commissioners have been discouraged from
considering the potential challenges.
· Creation of a comprehensive parking management plan.
Evaluation: A comprehensive parking management plan has not been created, and has been put
off to a later time. After the CMDP is adopted, there will then be little opportunity to integrate
related concerns into the Plan. The parking management plan is primarily an intent to build an
expensive parking structure. The economic feasibility of this plan has not been analyzed, and the
final recommendation releases developers from participation if they build before it is created. To
achieve the status of a transit node, the parking plan should be based on public transportation.
(See #4(b), #8 and #9, above.)
· Incorporating sustainable and energy efficient development practices
Evaluation: This objective has not been achieved. Standards for energy efficiency have not been
addressed. Green street standards have been discussed but not completed. Significant questions
page 6
have been raised, but not answered, about best use water practices. An alternate proposal for re-
orienting streets for better solar access has been proposed, but not incorporated. The final
recommendation makes the sustainability portions of the CMP as guidelines, not requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
*
In the Plan submitted by Crandall Arambula, we draw your attention to these "Principles" in
particular, which we believe were not adequately addressed:
· Create parcels with the flexibility to support local new and small business, existing
business expansion and large employers.
Evaluation: This "principle" has not been applied to the CMDP. Staff has told
commission that only employers with over 100 employees are wanted for this
development and that the Standards are designed to accomplish that goal. This large
employer principle was a given in all work on Uses and Standards.
· Consider a range of housing options.
Evaluation: We have only 2nd story housing over businesses. As this housing is part of the
zoning, there is no affordable housing required.
· Do not create uses that compete with downtown.
Evaluation: This issue has not been analyzed, and the lack of city-wide planning for land uses
is a major failure of the CMDP.
page 7
E RE
commission has been
over a
attended commu-
have dis-
outs of
maps
pages of text.
in a success-
Russell
which and their
that
understand. While
outcome.
is driven
and is well-
will
and the
more compre-
a
focus on how to
those involved
farms ties
need for economic
serve
PLA NING COM:VIISS ONERS JOUR AL!
the need to
ronmental resources,
a
ered to
interconnected and
Put
much more
the connections
This
mobilize the
ments seems way
dilutes citizen
process. It
resources to
to most
more
to the
If necessary or
be
continued 0/1 page 5
UMBER 77 ! WIN ER 2010
page 3
The Town of Chatham. New York
4,200), is an exurb an
community about 30 miles southeast
It is strong pressures. Over
one-quarter of Chatham's 33,500 acres is in agri-
cultural use. Two-thirds of the town's active
farmland, about 5,000 acres, is used for com-
at
and
resonated with the strong desire of many resi-
in maintaining this rurai and would
dedication needed to movc
to action,
2. Strike a Chord that Excites
Let's issues as con-
to the are
Charts and statis-
lists of
and met-
To
tied
ture,
businesses
ed in one economic
the central role
economy
the process
also found that the pat-
terns of land could threaten their access to
local food and the of
Research the process
showed that 60 percent of the land being
farmed was owned non-farmer landown-
ers. Town residents had not real-
ized this. Neither the farmers nor their
wanted to see this farmland leave
But the issue was framed
"hovv can we
local
viable?"
3. Provide
Action
for
is a
dient of success. If a is to move
of a group
is needed
intentioned
to spur action, But true
about it is about
is not
openness,
to and
but not to control it
will
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL I NUMBER
included fOUT town officials (in addition to
the Town Council liaison) a farm animal
veterinarian, and a staff member of the
Columbia Land The
were fulfilled.
on
She served as a resource
leader and to members of
ensure that
transparent.
4. Local Talent and Cnltnre
Communities afford staff
and/or often make mis-
take of process up to
these and do not draw
upon resources of
itself. The more a or ordinance aris-
process remained open and
es
tailored to the
The
outside
markets, and what does and
does not work on the land and in the
lt also in others who were
Other::, who were in both sup-
and the process included
represen!a lives of the area land trust (the
Columbia Land and the
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Ser-
vice, as well as the Berkshire-Taconic Foun-
dation (which also for
continlled 011 n~'(1 page
7 I WINTER 20 0
conti/wed from previous page
Chatham's outreach brochure:,). Other local
talent included business leaders and resi-
dents with expertise in media and commu-
nications.
The broad cross section of residents,
farmers, and non-farmers involved with the
Chatham project made it possible to have a
conversation with a variety of stakeholders
in which no single viewpoint dominated the
discussions. As one resident put it, "the pro-
gram made us more tolerant of each other's
priorities. "
5. Make Use of Volunteers
If you are able to excite people, you
will also attract volunteers. Your local
volunteers, in turn, will get even more
people excited and involved in the
process. As a result, the ultimate
recommendations will have com-
munity buy-in. Too often, the
happens: a small number of insiders
to control a pre-conceived creat-
ing a vicious in which the more
people think that the result is
mined, the fewer people get involved. In
this case, the plan's recommendations are
more likely to be one-sided and shot
down when they go public.
It is important to manage volunteers
well. If they spend too many hours spin-
ning their wheels trying to figure out
what to do, the process will run out of
energy. This is where leadership and
competent outside consulting or
work can help enormously. If volunteers
are given that
tal-
ents, and empower them to shape the
outcome, they will feel valued, work
hard, and produce good results.
In addition to the usual corps of adult
volunteers found in every community, it
students of all ages, as
community. This also serves to train the
next generation of citizens. An additional
benefit is that by engaging students you
may end up involving their parents (who
a broad cross-section of the
most important benefit of
using volunteers is that it changes per-
ceptions that planning is a government
process engaged in by "them." Rather,
the process is about citizens planning
their future together in a way that
strengthens the civic culture of the com-
munity.
performance. In order to do Glynwood
staff made sure that the volunteer efforts
were well-managed. using a skUled local
coordinator.
Glynwood staff also provided training
for recruiting and organizing the volun-
teers, as well as written resource materials
the local and economy, as well as its
contribution to the communitys food sys-
tem, environment and character.
seeks to ensure that par-
ticipants do not waste their time with more
local economy. This not
invaluable information. it
first-hand of
through conflicts based upon uninformed
get to know. As
one farmer commented. -1 cannot believe
the
the
farmers." Another said,
showed that there are folks in our midst
who are attempting to understand the issues
we face."
6. Use Consultants
Except in the case of purely technical
issues, it is a major mistake to turn a
planning project over to a consultant in
its Not only does this
tremendous cost, it also reduces like-
lihood of community support.
Sometimes there are local experts
who are qualified to be consultants. Such
the best quality
if the local expert is
truly qualified, well-respected, and
objective. Local know the com-
munity best and may have working rela-
tionships with players. They will
often work discounted rates as a com-
munity service. It may be tempting to try
to get such people to do the work as vol-
unteers, and most will volunteer up to a
point. However, they will usually (and
assignments
income.
Outside consultants can be critical to
the success of a planning process if they
are used to:
.. Provide technical expertise that is not
available in the community.
.. Provide a recommended organizational
structure and methodology for the pro-
ject and its volunteers.
.. Provide discrete tasks and help estab-
lish realistic timelines.
s Offer an outside perspective, neutralit)~
facilitation, and even mediation where
necessary.
.. Ensure that work is done in compli
ance with relevant laws,
grant
The Keep Farming program offers
a form of outside consulting assis-
tance that embodies the first four points
rCund" using a 2 percent real estate transfer
fee for purchasing rights.
Glynwood sometimes recommends
in outside technical experts at
7. Build Trust and Work
With Those Most
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 77 ! WINTER 2010
those who are
government or who
get involved in
trust also a
process that
does not seek to achieve any pre-con-
ceived outcome. Sometimes it is
for to maintain this
open agenda,
in the cltlzen
interest lobbying. trust
a leap of faith that a well-managed open
process can produce a positive result and
will not out of controL It is
to use the
obtain
for open This is ulti-
self-defeating because it erodes
trust.
An open process, where the
sian is structured and
outcome is not
used to build trust and
bu t the
can
any com-
In
more
ideas that emerge
processes are not more
build trust
often
process has to
divide
interest groups and
into
tions. When
sit on
ject matter, most the
subject that interests them most end
up talking who agree
\'lith them. It up.
This,
hensive view
solutions.
and solutions to in the local
cultural economy and food system. One
surprise was that different kinds of farmers
horse,
and tree didn't often talk to one another.
So it became important not nect
farmers with non-farmers, but to con-
nect farmers with each other.
The of sectors began
to be seen as a benefit to farmers as well as
Another was the emergence of
agricultural economics as the most
process in which the research on
and economics was conducted by volunteer
stakeholders rather than an outside
consultant.
trust within the framework
o[ a well-structured open process, the vol-
unteers on were
address
tion 0 [
8. Build Political Will and
Action will. It does
not consensus,
there must be of a shared com-
vision to empower lead-
ers to take actions that are necessary to
achieve an
task of is
The Town of Chatham the
results and recommendations
cultural
hensive Plan, which came to
have a more conventional structure based
upon elements," The
recommendations now serve as an
tant part of the to the town's
future, In order to ensure that these recom-
mendations were carried out, the Town
tection Plan. This Plan builds upon the
recommendations.
built trust among those
or one
ers to engage'
process designed to
decisions through listening,
and action, In so it has built
"from the ground up. ..
Joel S. is a
land use consultani
and attorney based in
Massachu-
setts. His is naiional
in scope, 011 smart
land conservation,
consensus and
land use to
Russell has written all or part
The author also wants to thanh
and Labelle of the
read,
valuable comments 011
Kasinhi
Cellter who
and gave
articl e.
· Food,
Farmland,
&: Space
Cities and
tovins arc
stems,
examining how and where food is grown,
distributed, and consumed. Communities
are also recognizing the need to for
open as a way to preserve sensitive
areas and maintain water The desire
to preserve farmland and open
space has to a
range of - discussed in this
booklet. For detailed contents and to order
Other sets include: Basic
Ethics; Law;
Downwwns; Smart Growth;
and &: Aesthetics.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 77/ WINTER 2010