Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNormal_NP S~hr~•r~l emk (I. A.,-~w, Bryce C. Anderson 2092 Creek Drive Ashland, OR 97520 September 10, 2015 Mayor John Stromberg Councilor Michael Morris Councilor Rich Rosenthal Councilor Stefani Seffinger Councilor Greg Lemhouse Councilor Carol Voisin Councilor Pam Marsh Ashland City Council 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re: Normal Neighborhood Plan Dear Mayor and Councilors, Since our first involvement in the Normal Neighborhood Plan more than two years ago, the four homeowners' associations of Meadowbrook Park Estates, Ashland Meadows, Chautauqua Trace and East Village have consistently stated that we do not oppose development, and in fact favor reasonable and responsible development, particularly on the Baptist Church property, because this property is currently an eyesore and a fire hazard. We have also, however, consistently urged the following points: 1. We strongly oppose high density development on the Baptist Church property. Suburban residential zoning is appropriate for this property, as long as the density as developed is in fact at or below the 7.2 units per acre specified for the NN-1-3.5 zone. We would note, however, that this density may well be excessive for other parcels in the plan area. 2. We oppose the allowance of commercial development on this property. The area is a poor one for commercial development, and such development will increase already serious traffic hazards in this area. 3. We urge that East Main Street be improved, particularly on the south side, with curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bike lanes and a center turn lane from Walker Street to Clay Street before construction begins on any development involving more than one or two acres. To date, various members of the Transportation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council have repeatedly expressed support for these points, and no member of any group has To: Ashland City Council September 10, 2015 Re: Normal Neighborhood Plan Page 2 expressed any particular opposition to any of them. Indeed, all three points have support in the language of various parts of the plan. Nevertheless, the actual operative parts of the plan and its adopting ordinances conflict with all three of these points. We ask the council to modify the plan in the ways specified below to meet these objectives. 1. Density and Land Use The Plan specifically provides, The NN-1-5,NN-1-3.5, zones are intended to preserve land and open space and provide housing opportunities for individual households through development of single-dwelling housing. [Plan, p. 6.] It also contains pictures of the types of uses allowed in the various zones. [Plan, p. 12.] The various tables, however, do not distinguish between NN-1-3.5 and NN-2 when it comes to the construction of multi-family residential units. [Id.; see also Ordinance, p. 5.] As noted above, various members of the Planning Commission and the City Council have repeatedly expressed the view that apartment houses are not a desirable use for the NN-1-3.5 zone, and yet the plan appears to allow that use. While it may be argued that the 7.2 units per acre limit in the NN-1- 3.5 zone would prohibit this use, the existing provisions for density bonuses could potentially expand density to more than 11 units per acre, making apartment houses an allowable use notwithstanding the provisions of the plan. Residents in the four HOA's respectfully submit that an apartment house complex is not a use that is compatible with the existing suburban residential developments. Such a use would increase automobile traffic in an area that is already inadequately served by public transportation and ill-suited to pedestrian and bicycle traffic. We recognize that it is not practical to redo the provisions regarding bonus densities, but there is another alternative. If multi-family residential units were excluded in the NN-1-3.5 zone, then bonus densities could be used for cottage housing or other uses compatible with a suburban residential zone. We urge the council to change the use table at page 12 of the plan, as well as the use regulations in section 18.3.4.040(C) of the ordinance to excluide multiple dwelling residential units as an allowable use in the NN-1- 3.5 zone. 2. Commercial Uses The plan expressly recognizes that "the plan area is a weak location for retail." [Plan, p. 5.] Nevertheless, the plan contains an NN-1-3.5-C zone on the Baptist Church property which can be used for retail sales and services, adjacent light manufacturing, and professional and medical offices. [See Ordinance, p. 5.] These commercial uses are entirely unsuitable for this area, particularly given the inadequate provisions for the improvement of East Main. While the To: Ashland City Council September 10, 2015 Re: Normal Neighborhood Plan Page 3 future may bring different considerations and conditions that could change this situation, residents in the four HOA's respectfully submit that the plan be amended to eliminate commercial uses from this area or, at a minimum, require a conditional use permit for any commercial development in this area. In this way, the neighborhood will be protected from inappropriate and ill-advised commercial development while at the same time allowing flexibility in the future. 3. Improvement of East Main Street Members of the Transportation Commission, the Planning Commission and the Normal Neighborhood Working Group have all expressed the opinion that East Main should be improved from Walker Street to Clay Street before or simultaneously with the actual construction of any development that borders East Main. The plan recognizes that East Main is already inadequate, and in need of such improvement. [Plan, p. 16, 18.] The plan, however, provides: The City will consider establishing an Advance Financing District for off-site public facility improvements, as long as the City and the developer enter into a Developer's Agreement. The City's participation in a Normal Neighborhood advance financing district would be intended to achieve a positive impact for the whole of the City. There does not appear, however, to be any provision for the establishment of such a district. [See proposed ordinance section 18.3.4.075.] In fact, such an ordinance was apparently studied in 2010, but never enacted. The plan also states, "The City recognizes that infrastructure and transportation improvements to East Main Street could potentially be completed in phases, dependent upon the impacts of proposed developments within the plan area." This proposed language would seem to indicate that although the Baptist Church property will likely develop first, the improvement of East Main must await the development of the remainder of the Normal Avenue Plan area. This result is contrary to the recommendations of the Transportation Commission and of various members of the Planning Commission and City Council that East Main be improved along its entire length from Walker to Clay Streets concurrently with the approval of any development in the Plan area. We realize that an ordinance cannot be written that would require the improvement of East Main Street as a condition of development. Nevertheless, the plan itself ought to include language that makes this improvement a high priority, with specific provisions for the financing and implementation of these improvements at the time development first takes place, so that To: Ashland City Council September 10, 2015 Re: Normal Neighborhood Plan Page 4 residents in the surrounding neighborhoods do not have to put up with the traffic congestion and hazards for an indefinite period of time. For all of the foregoing reasons, the residents of Meadowbrook Park Estates, Ashland Meadows, Chautauqua Trace and East Village, comprising more than 200 households abutting the plan area, respectfully request that the City Council revise the Normal Avenue Plan in these respects before approving it. Very truly yours, /5/ Bryce C. Anderson C1 A5 PUBLIC COMMENT Received 9/15/2015 To City of Ashland council members, planning commission members and staff, city manager, attorney, parks and recreation members, and any other interested city officials: Whereas I am very grateful that we have an amazing community and a responsive council such as ours, and I appreciate that we were able to step back and participate more intimately - I feel it was a good effort and it was minimal. It needs to be expanded upon. The Group was comprised of 3 city council members, including the mayor Also there were 2 planning commissioners, and their planning commission staff members an excellent note-taking secretary. The meeting space was located at 51 Winburn Way. It is a small space. Most meetings were at a time of day when most citizens are working. There were several invitees to make presentations, at nearly every mtg. They were given ample time. Most were developers and people sympathetic for them. Yet - We the citizens were sitting outside this table's circle. We were allotted the last 15-20 minutes at the end of the mtg. Our time was divided amongst those citizens wanting to speak. This happened at every mtg. We were emailed when and where the mtgs. would be, because we were on the email list. No other citizens knew these mtgs were happening. Our larger groups, much like this group, had been showing up regularly to city council mtgs. As it turns out, were whittled down, and it ended up being that we and our issue was removed from public view. For about 8 months. I can understand the purpose of the mtgs. This is a complex matter with many viewpoints variables and visions. There are a lot of numbers and factors which need to be seriously and thoroughly calibrated, (I use the word "calibrate" to emphasize that a smooth running machine necessarily needs periodic adjustments and corrections). Things need to be clearly explained not only to the public, but dare I say, even council members would probably be wanting more actual impact studies so as to make an informed decision. These ordinances needed to be strengthened. There are too many loopholes. Citizens need to be more informed and involved in the actual ordinance writing process. A decision to pass these ordinances prematurely, which are of this magnitude and impact, needs to be made by and with an informed citizenry with an opportunity to express their input possibly even brainstorming with developers whom are currently interested in making proposals. Several new ideas for land use came up at these small group mtgs. from the few citizens in attendance. Tonight I've heard many more citizens with vision, speak. Give them and others a chance to speak more thoroughly and join in the cooperative designing process. I know I feel like I'm just getting up to speed and feel like I'm beginning to grasp the immensity of what we have in our hands. There's no turning back to "business as usual" old models. There's a way to transition. Let's find it. Perhaps the city could consider using taxpayers money to buy sizable portions of these properties, and offer vouchers to the owners. These vouchers could possibly form a "vouchers bank" for owners to use in other ways. (My time ended here) Another idea, maybe overlooked, is, that perhaps we could have the land's use be designated as a natural park that preserves the natural habitat, and educates citizens and visitors on the beauty and wildlife corridor. The Park could be self sustaining by our community through a subscription process. There could be bench donors and plack donors, with quotes by people like Gary Snyder and other visionaries. The park could be maintained by the citizens in a rotational, perhaps seasonal basis. The community of Ashland has the sensibility to restrain overly exuberant development. Perhaps portions of the land could be set aside for agricultural use. In this fast changing world of climate change, we may be glad that "Ashland is Ready" in this respect, as well as ready for storms and emergencies. Keep it natural. Save it for a rainy day. Offer a voucher-banking system for future use. These ideas deserve further investigation. I myself am curious to know more about these kinds of ideas. Let's be inventive. Yes, property owners deserve a ROI, and the possibility to design their property's uses. I ask these property owners to consider possibilities yet unseen thus far - that the ROI gained might easily stem from the careful understanding of what people, buyers, investors, residents, citizens and voters - actually want and would pay for, these possibilities may be of a different kind. Be an innovator. The inspiration will come. Listen. (Still speaking to developers) Our valuable resources may be needed to sustain us in the long run, and be of a much more long term value, than a temporary profit. Perhaps investors, developers and subscribers would learn to enjoy the wisdom and satisfaction of passing on a new prototype for community? To bring about "the perhaps of a vision" into reality, takes more consideration, and that is the call of the times in which we live, no matter how we seem to comfort ourselves. Democracy can be uncomfortable. Rushing this process is unnecessary. We will be very glad we heeded these calls as we go forward. We can choose to continue the thorough consideration of all ramifications to our future, and give hope to future generations. We can show those who follow, that we took the time to have foresight for a healthy future. Thank you all for all you have done so far in these directions. I urge and encourage you to stay on this track a while longer. Perhaps something as far reaching as these kinds of ideas may be worthy of bringing the matters to a city vote, or at least a poll, to see if there's an interest amongst the citizens to take on a project of our own. I appreciate your time and consideration for the opportunity for NEW IDEAS on the horizon to be expanded upon. I might remind you that in the small working group, I mentioned many of these ideas at various times. I'm not sure they were taken as seriously as I meant them. I hope to articulate more on these visions in the future. I recognize, as I too, tend to be somewhat limited in what I can see in any given moment, I would trust the value of the process of broadening out to a wider, interested group of people, might bring. There could be some beneficial outcomes, as yet unseen. Respectfully submitted by, Julie Matthews 2090 Creek Drive Ashland, OR 97520 PS I hope I have offended no one and rather, have inspired many of us, to look into these matters, with a fresh attitude for new possibilities. Julie Matthews African Proverb "if you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together." ~ St..10vw~lr}t~. Y~n1tc, (Zar rw.-Q R-d~t,►~, From: Jacqueline Rosen, resident !I 1552 Woodland Drive, Ashland ~ 01:1tie.c.om c 831-596-4500 h 541-482-1863 According to the U.S. Census, 73% of Ashlanders live here a long time; turnover of units is not sufficient, so it's clear that more units need to be built to accommodate growth projections in the next 5-25 years. Having a good picture, an actualized vision that is rendered by drawings or computer-aided drawings (think Sim City?) might be very helpful in moving this project along in ways that are clear to everyone. Perhaps developers can provide this kind of modeling "what if' software, or larger planning departments in other metropolitan areas or larger government planning agencies. Questions: 1.) What is the City doing to implement some sort of rent control? I hear that rooms alone are going for $500/month. This is from several of the independent caregivers in town. It's hard to find local caregivers who are part of the Ashland community and share our philosophy of living, and prefer not to commute, since they earn so little. 2.) Is it wiser to annex the area in the Plan that is being discussed, so that the City has some control over the area, which is under the County's jurisdiction? Could Jackson County decide to develop and would,,.Ashlandgx-s have little-or no say in the matter? - ~ 3.) I want to express my support for low-income housing. Figures comparing net worth by state and county aren't tracked by federal agencies, but the U.S. Census shows that more than a quarter of the residents in Jackson County, 28.2 live in a lower middle class household earning between $25,000 and $50,000. About 27.4 percent earn less than $25,000. 4.) What is the overall projected vision for Ashland in 5-, 10- and 25-years in terms of demographics? 5.) Do you have any visual models you can display to the public so we can see what the buildings and proposed living areas will look like, before they are built, so we can see if they are attractive and livable and have some green space for residents? 6.) What are the plans for Ashland's booming senior population as it ages? Where will residents live who can't get into Brookdale or Mountain Meadows, what are projected needs for additional senior residential housing, both independent, assisted, and skilled nursing and rehabilitation? 7.) My dad moved here in Sept 2014, and waited 8 months for an opening to occur in Assisted Living at Brookdale. Since shortages are appearing now for senior residential housing, what are the plans or projections for building new facilities to house seniors so they can age in place, and receive the end-of-life care they require? Could the City provide something understandable to a lay resident a 1-5 page summary describing the l needs assessment, demographics anticipated, and the resulting projections based on economic and population considerations? Colorful charts and using zoom-in Google map features to show areas of possible development for these would be very educational, as well as a 3-d "if-then" modeling software' display program, which should be developed if it's not available yet. Perhaps SOU can help. (It'd be great to apply for a grant to acquire or develop some visual statistical modeling tools that can show "if-then" graphics and data, maybe like "Sim City" if these programs don't already exist, for visual learners and the public, or links on the website.) It would be great to have information such as below, in a simple website for citizens with the City's accurate date projections for: _ annual anticipated growth rate, numbers of additional residents in 5-, 10-, and 25 yearsm by age. - annual anticipated number of new low-income rentals needed, broken down to show numbers of additional units, and types of each unit and numbers of each needed: low-income rentals (18% of Ashlanders live in poverty; per US Census, it appears that since 53% are homeowners, about 40-50% of residents must be renters) non-low-income rentals single family low income and non-low-income units Ashland needs to have beuilt If these numbers are off, you can correct them. What are the projections for the numbers of housing units needed for additional resident in 5-, 10-, and 25 years? -Approx. no. of elderly ages 65-75, and 76-100+? (Rate of increase?) _ Approx. no. of children under 18? (Rate of increase/decrease?) _ Approx. no. of single families with children and without children who will need low income rentals, non-low income rentals, single family homes, and independent senior living communities, assisted living communities, rehabilitation, and memory or and skilled nursing care. - A corollary to this all is the need for RENT CONTROL. Perhaps this could be bundled into any existing decision, something along the lines of Ashland will address and debate/decide on the issue of Rent Control within 2-3 years. What is the likelihood or feasibility of having individuals or developers "fill-in" existing vacant city lots with low-income or other units? Are there developers who would be willing to do this? Approx. 50% of Ashland's Approx. 20% of Ashland's residents live in poverty. This is likely to continue, esp. if there is another recession, which means that of the 187 or so new residents per year coming to Ashland, now at 2% rental vacancy rates, at least 36 will need low income housing. This does not account for the current residents and commuters who prefer to live where they work. don't have the numbers on those. Can that be bundled into anything currently, perhaps as something that must be done within a set time, 2-3 years or?) for this current proposal to be approved? I think that perhaps you can use some of the above information to bridge the gaps in knowledge and understanding of the complexity of the issue, and perhaps put Ashland "on the map" for finding a creative and democratic solution that addresses "Greater Ashland's" local area's needs. I have lived in Ashland for almost 6 years, and moved here with my husband for retirement, from the Central Coast in Calif. We have family in Sunnyvale and Camas, WA. rob For: Mayor and Council Members, First Reading NNP, September 15th, 2015 At the first reading of the NNP on the ist of Sept, there was a large turnout, perhaps 120 or so. Approximately 51 persons submitted forms to speak, but because the Mayor changed the ground rules and asked that speakers pass if their topic had already been addressed by someone else, only 31 actually spoke. (This is a prime example of not encouraging and reaching out to citizens for input!) Of those 31 speakers, 25 were against the plan. That's 81%. Because 20 of the 51 persons passed on speaking, we don't know how many would have been for the plan or against the plan. However, using the 81%, if we extrapolate out to include the ones who didn't speak, the number against the plan would come up to 41. That's 41 out of 51 would have been against moving to a vote. Eighteen (18) of the 25 against the plan stated that the high-density of units proposed in the plan is a major reason why they would like to see the plan revised or outright rejected at this time. The very first speaker summed it up: "Density affects all issues." In fact, most speakers against the plan either directly or indirectly referred to density as the driver of all other problems that implementation of the plan would create for the city and its citizens, including: • Increased traffic congestion, especially around Walker Elementary and Ashland Middle schools • More water shortages and water restrictions, given climate projections of continuing drought • Reduction of and damage to state-designated wetlands • Increased run-off and flooding due to wetland reductions • Tax increases/costs to citizens to pay for infrastructure improvements, including water and sewer lines, existing and new road construction, railroad crossing upgrade, etc. • Loss of open space and prime "urban agricultural" land (i.e., the Plan acreage is an area of rich soil, perfect for community gardening) • Loss of property values, because of over-supply of housing • Increase in green-house gas emissions from increased automobile traffic There is clear evidence that the Council does not have support from a large percentage of citizens who are active in wanting to understand this Plan and to come to a consensual agreement. Therefore, I strongly ask that the Council table this Plan to reach agreement between the planners and the citizens of Ashland.