HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-20 Normal Neighborhood Plan_MIN
Minutes for the Normal Working Group
November 20, 2014
Page 1 of 6
MINUTES FOR THE NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD WORKING GROUP
Thursday, November 20, 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, Mike Morris, Brandon Goldman, and Bill
Molnar were present.
Marsh gave an overview of the process thus-far including how the group was formed, the
original plan challenges, and the discussions to-date. She informed the group that this is planned
nd
to be on the December 2 City Council meeting agenda.
1. Consent Agenda
Kaplan/Dawkins M/S to approve the minutes of October 23, 2014. Voice Vote; all ayes.
Motion passes.
2. Public Forum
As this is the final meeting, the group determined that the public forum should be at the start of
the meeting so that concerns could be dealt with by the end of the meeting.
Bryce Anderson – 2092 Creek Drive. His home faces the Baptists Church. He feels the plan
meets most concerns. The area he thinks is still vague is transportation, particularly the E. Main
Street improvements. His group really wants to see full improvements on the south side of E.
Main, including sidewalks and gutter, etc., before or concurrent with any plans being approved.
Debbie Miller – 160 Normal Avenue. Believes there is a dilemma in that the area is not needed
because there is still lots of developable land in the city but those who do want to develop would
be held to County standards without a plan in place and those are not good standards. Discussed
a meeting held the night before regarding food sustainability and how she would like large
parcels of this land available for lease for agricultural use. The County has a program matching
young farmers with lands available for lease.
Howdy Miller – 160 Normal Avenue. Discussed last night’s Rogue Valley Food Sustainability
Network meeting and how this area has excellent soil for agriculture. Is still concerned that the
map shows roads going though their barn. Had a city employee who told him they don’t want
houses built on that land either.
Nancy Boyer – 425 Normal Avenue. Doesn’t feel that the plan is ready to be presented to the
City Council yet. There are too many issues left to resolve. The city residents as a whole still
need to know how much this plan will cost them.
Sue DiMarinus – 145 Normal Avenue. She appreciates that the group is working to cohesiveness
but they need to include the whole city. Financing for E. Main Street improvements has to come
from other areas and she wonders where that money will come from. The conservation areas are
Minutes for the Normal Working Group
November 20, 2014
Page 2 of 6
important and need to have a wide variety including recreation areas, open space, food growing
space. She is concerned that if developers can use only a minor amendment to shrink those areas
the feeling of a neighborhood will be lost. She is also concerned that all the East – West roads
cross through wetlands, which would disturb them. She would prefer cul-du-sacs for safety and
to keep the areas family-friendly.
Jan Vidmar – 320 Meadow Drive. Would like to note a correction to the minutes of last meeting,
she is not against development of the site but is instead hoping that the design will allow flow-
through for water since too many homes have been built too close to riparian areas already. She
likes the plan as it has like-for-like development with the surrounding areas. Is concerned with
where affordable housing/higher density housing will go with Federal challenges of being near
the railroad.
Mark Prescott – 1652 Ross Lane. Is glad to be here. He is concerned that this appears to be a
high density plan. Reminded the group that they are responsible for what Ashland will become.
500 homes equals 1,000 cars. After all the water concerns this year believes that 500 new
households would mean we don’t have enough water. Discussed sewer issues which occurred in
his previous home city due to too rapid growth. Believes the plan should have lower density and
that all the recent developments have had too high density. Is sorry that he won’t be able to
attend the City Council meeting.
Marsh reminded the group that anyone is free to submit written testimony, if they are unable to
attend any meeting or don’t wish to speak.
nd
Julie Matthews – 2090 Creek Drive. Questions whether or not December 2 is a good meeting
date due to the holidays. Would like the date after the holidays. Recommends that a study be
done regarding wildlife paths and corridors. Understands that you can’t track all animals –
particularly birds. She questions whether we have a solution to all the hydrology issues in the
area. Building houses in the area doesn’t change the hydrology. She described challenges her
current home is facing due to underground water. Believes that building and selling with those
challenges in the area would be disingenuous. Reminded the group not to over look affordable
housing.
nd
Marsh explained that having this on the December 2 Council agenda is not going to change due
to holidays – if the Council were to not meet near holidays they would never get any work done.
3. Group Discussion
Vision Statement (attached to these minutes for reference)
The group reviewed the Vision Statement which they had tasked Goldman with drafting.
The first paragraph was approved by the group.
The group discussed the second paragraph and how it reflects their desire to preserve open space.
Marsh wants a development which integrates the open space, rather than isolates it. Stromberg
would like the area considered as a whole rather than by parcel. Morris is concerned that the
open space lacks clear identification as to usage. He wants to avoid creating areas which
Minutes for the Normal Working Group
November 20, 2014
Page 3 of 6
someone then has to mow but no one uses. Dawkins reminded the group that the Planning
Commission was less concerned with whether they were State defined wetlands but were
concerned that they follow the natural drainage areas. He doesn’t want to see any of them
removed from the plan. Kaplan is uncomfortable with the open space being solely delineated by
current wetland riparian determinations and would like to make sure there is the ability to move
them based on the best science at the time areas are developed. He does think the total amount of
open space is appropriate.
The group discussed how the typical neighborhood plan requires 5-7% of open space but this
plan calls for 25%. The group agreed that they want to keep this larger requirement to keep the
natural characteristics of the area in place as much as possible.
Goldman described how changes to the locations of wetlands can be done with minor
amendments.
Group discussed the annexation process and how it would be at that point that they would get
into the “nitty-gritty” of open space locations.
Group discussed the possibility of having the Parks Commission review the plan to determine if
they have any interest in working with developers or property owners to incorporate areas into
their parks inventory. Group was reminded that there is a legal standing for not being able to take
too much land from owners/developers for public use during an annexation.
Group approved paragraph two as written.
Group discussed paragraph three. There was concern that, “…available to full cross-section…”
might mean exclusively affordable housing at the exclusion of market-rate homes. It’s
impossible to be all things to all people and it’s impossible to include all housing types for all
housing needs in one plan. Group agreed to alter the sentence to read, “The neighborhood should
provide for a range of housing choices available to a diversity of Ashland’s population.”
Group discussed whether they have the ability to direct development of a specific preference of
housing types (cluster housing, for example). Molnar stated that they group can establish design
standards for the area which could limit housing size, number of attached units, etc. He reminded
the group that establishing those preferences now helps developers create plans which are more
likely to be approved. Developers appreciate certainty rather than having worked on a plan for
years only to have it fail.
Group discussed ways to have continuity of neighborhood character, particularly as so much of
this area won’t be developed in the near future. Molnar suggested they add development
transition requirements, much like is already in place in the Railroad District in order to achieve
cohesion.
The third paragraph was approved with the previously agreed alteration to the first sentence.
The group approved paragraph four as written.
Minutes for the Normal Working Group
November 20, 2014
Page 4 of 6
Recommendations (attached to these minutes for reference)
Marsh reminded the group that these recommendations are basically a re-statement of decisions
made at previous meetings.
The group discussed whether the proposed density is too high. they determined that it is far
lower than many areas and very compatible with similar cluster-housing developments.
Group would like to add a recommendation of development transitions/compatible housing
requirements to the Design Issues section.
The group discussed the proposed map. They agree it reflects most of what they have discussed
in the previous meetings. Morris is still unhappy with Normal Avenue not going straight, but
understands that this layout follows the parcels most likely to develop in the near future and
recognizes that keeping it straight is feasible at the moment. That isn’t to say it can’t ever happen
in the future. He appreciates that future East – West connections have been included.
4. Next Steps
The group agreed that they like the Vision Statement and Recommendations as presented. They
particularly want the additional information regarding transportation approved, which should
then go to the Planning Commission for a complete review.
Group discussed the process of review and approval between Council and Planning Commission.
They would also like to add a request that at some point in the process the Parks Commission
review the plan or participate in the Planning Commission review. They requested that having
parks review the plan be added to the recommendations.
Morris/Dawkins M/S to forward the Vision Statement and Recommendations of this group
to the Council with changes recommended in this meeting. Voice Vote; all ayes. Motion
passes.
Meeting adjourned at 6:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diana Shiplet
Executive Secretary
Minutes for the Normal Working Group
November 20, 2014
Page 5 of 6
Draft Vision Statement
Neighborhood planning is the process by which the City works with Ashland’s residents to
envision the future of the neighborhood. The eventual incorporation of the Normal
Neighborhood Plan area into the City depends on careful consideration of the neighborhood’s
unique identity and character and a holistic planning approach. The Normal Neighborhood
Working Group envisions a neighborhood that is notable for the natural beauty of the area’s
wetlands and creeks, mountain views, diversity of households, and as an area which
accommodates bicycling and walking as a reliable and convenient way to move throughout the
area.
Local streams, wetlands, and scenic vistas contribute significantly to define the character of the
Normal Neighborhood. The quality of the place is enhanced by these features and the wildlife
that they attract. Connected and contiguous open spaces should remain as central features of the
area’s future development as they help reflect the community of Ashland’s commitment to
promote environmental quality, provide recreational opportunities, and function to incorporate
nature into the daily lives of the area’s residents.
The neighborhood should provide for a range of housing choices available to the full cross
section of Ashland’s population. The neighborhood can accommodate a blend of housing types
including individual residences, townhomes, apartments, moderately sized cottages, pedestrian
oriented cluster housing, and mixed-use neighborhood serving businesses. Future developments
should be designed to relate to, and complement, adjacent properties. Incorporating unifying
elements between adjacent developments will serve to promote neighborhood cohesiveness,
provide open space in a coordinated manner, and secure an efficient circulation system. Given
the immediate proximity to existing schools, parks, and local business areas the neighborhood is
recognized as place where children can readily walk and bike to schools through a safe, desirable
family-based neighborhood.
The Normal Neighborhood Plan Working Group believes a neighborhood plan is necessary to
address long-term community goals, unify expectations, and integrate the project area into the
fabric of the City. The implementation standards for the neighborhood plan should be strong
enough to maintain the vision for the area, yet flexible enough to respond to changing conditions
and adapt over time.
Minutes for the Normal Working Group
November 20, 2014
Page 6 of 6
Draft Recommendations
Land Use and Housing Density:
1. Housing Density gradation should move from south to north. This would place higher density
development near the railroad tracks and within a relatively short distance to transit lines,
parks and community facilities. This approach will also protect the existing viewshed.
2. Zoning designations applied within the Normal neighborhood area should be consistent with
the zoning of adjacent land within the City Limits, and use zoning labels that are comparable
to those used in the rest of the city while recognizing the Normal Neighborhood (NN)
district.
3. Maintain option for neighborhood serving businesses and services close to East Main St near
the northeast corner of the plan area.
Open Space:
1. Maintain the approach toward designation of open space and conservation areas proposed in
the draft plan. Amend the plan to allow non-conservation open space to be relocated
requiring a minor amendment application.
Design issues:
1. Maintain a maximum building height of 35 feet.
2. Encourage the development of clustered housing that integrates with open space and respects
the viewshed.
Transportation:
1. The internal transportation system’s local street network should incorporate multiple
connections with East Main St as shown, and maintain the Normal Collector as designated in
the draft plan. Additional connections to East Main Street or Clay Street, which are not
shown in the proposed Street Framework, should require a major amendment to the Plan.
2. Internal local streets should be aligned to provide a grid pattern, including clear east-west
connections.
3. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways are critical, especially as a means to connect residents with
the middle school and the existing bike path.
4. External transportation improvements, including the railroad crossing and improvements to
East Main St., are integral and should proceed in concert with development. However, we
believe the city may need to play a role in the financing/implementation of these projects.
Accordingly, as a next step we recommend that the council direct city staff and/or an outside
consultant to identify and quantify:
a. the need and possible means for public investment in the project, and
b. the overall costs and benefits that these facilities present to the entire city.