Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-04 Normal Neighborhood Plan_MIN Minutes for the Normal Working Group September 4, 2014 Page 1 of 2 MINUTES FOR THE NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD WORKING GROUP Thursday, September 4, 2014 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 4:33 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. Mayor Stromberg, Michael Dawkins, Rich Kaplan, Bill Molnar, Brandon Goldman, were present. 1. Consent Agenda Stromberg/Dawkins M/S to approve the minutes of July 24, and August 21, 2014. Voice Vote; all ayes. Motion passes. Marsh reviewed previous meeting topics in order to explain how we got to today’s topics. 2. Discussion items Housing Concentrations (locations and zoning) Goldman reviewed the combined map, reflecting the commonalities agreed to at previous meetings. He explained that the commercial area to the north was left in place as the group didn’t 100% agree whether or not to leave it in at the last meeting. Even with it in place, the area would still primarily be residential, which means it could end up being built entirely residential but still leaves the possibility for small business developing there. Mike Morris arrived 4:44 pm. Goldman explained any business built in the commercial area would be limited in height to 2 ½ stories, which typically means construction style of first floor commercial and second floor housing. Group discussed whether not having the commercial area removed from the master plan would prevent any commercial activity in the future. It could be changed, but would require zoning changes, which may be more difficult. Goldman showed a map correlating the plan zoning with those in the surrounding neighborhoods. Reminded the group that locating the higher densities near the railroad could eliminate some possibilities regarding Federal funding for affordable housing. Staff feel that despite those potential constraints, the higher density location could still be a viable option for development. Projected Number of Units Goldman gave overview of the projected number estimates from in the packet. The caveat is that the Latter Day Saints property probably wouldn’t ever want to develop, so the total number of possible homes would be less that those reflected in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan. Group discussed all the possible challenges which could alter the projected numbers including; no changes to the lots currently owned by large institutions on E. Main Street (also meaning some potential street connections would never be built), wetlands designations, limits on density bonus transfers, limits on annexation due to contiguous lot requirements, and the potential financial burden of installing infrastructure on E. Main and the rail road crossing. Group discussed how the street system as proposed would work with only lots considered “in play” or viable. Minutes for the Normal Working Group September 4, 2014 Page 2 of 2 Wetland Studies Group discussed the wetlands studies provided by the neighbors. The 2007 delineation shows a larger wetland area than the studies. Staff explained at there is a process through the State for making adjustments to official delineation approvals. The Planning Commission, however, wanted the areas in the plan to be maintained as “open space” or “conservation” areas, regardless of actual wetland size. The Commission believed that the previous plan still left enough area viable for development, despite open space requirements. Group discussed how the area could be developed with current County standards. Discussed how roads could be built and how they would be developed to County standards rather than City standards (which means limited infrastructure). 3. Public Input Roger Goddard: is a board member of the Nazarene church and stated that the board is not interested in annexing or in developing housing on their property. Carol Voisin: Suggested that at a future meeting they have one side of the table include staff and committee and the other size have attendees able to directly as questions. Randy Jones: Is working to come up with cost estimates, but it’s a bit of a moving target with each change the committee makes or suggests. The central piece of the property that Brandon pointed out in the meeting is the area he and his group are working to develop. He is hoping to come with workable numbers to the panel meeting. Evan Archard: Wondered why the un-annexed areas to the East were not included in the original plan. They are as developable as the other parts in the plan might be. Since we’re re-doing the process already we should consider including the entire area from Tolman Creek to Walker Avenue. Julie Matthews: Suggested a holistic approach, recognizing the local wildlife and how they already cross in the neighborhoods. Described some ODOT crossings she recently learned about on the news. Would like the group to create a corridor from Clay Street to the middle school for the animals, perhaps a raised footprint for human travel. It would preserve the beauty of the area. Suggests we set up the preserved space before development, so it’s not done piecemeal. 4. Next Meeting September 18, 4:30 – 6:30 p.m. Marsh gave overview of the plan for having this be a panel of presenters and more in depth conversation with the group. This is the opportunity for those who have been participating to “talk back” to the group. Thanked those in attendance for being willing to do this sort of meeting. She stated that the group would do their best to get questions they’d like answered out to the panel members early. Meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diana Shiplet Executive Secretary