Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-20 Normal Neighborhood Plan_PACKET Normal Neighborhood Working Group November 20,2014 4:30-6:00 Community Development Building Siskiyou Room 51 Winburn Way Bring packet materials from prior meetings (draft maps, plan framework, etc) for continued discussion I.CALL TO ORDER: 4:30 Community Development Building, 51 Winburn Way II.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes o Oct. 23,2014 Meeting. III.PUBLIC FORUM 20 minutes IV.DISCUSSION Working Group Vision Statement Working Group Recommendations Draft Recommended Land UseMap V.NEXTMEETINGS Council Review,December 2, 2014 o Working Group representation/presentation VI.ADJOURNMENT Minutes for the Normal Working Group October 23, 2014 Page 1 of 5 MINUTES FOR THE NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD WORKING GROUP Thursday, October 23, 2014 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 4:34 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. Mayor Stromberg, Michael Dawkins, Rich Kaplan, Mike Morris, Brandon Goldman, and Mike Faught were present. 1. Consent Agenda Kaplan/Morris M/S to approve the minutes of October 9, 2014. Voice Vote; all ayes. Motion passes. Marsh reviewed the process and discussions of the previous meetings. Believes we are starting would like all the group members to review their thoughts on this plan, and where they want to go from here. 2. Discussion Mike Morris One issue has been, and will continue to be, affordable housing. Moving the higher density to the from now. Remembers other projects where nearby neighbors were angry about the project, but those areas are now filled with happy residents. Morris agrees that the plan has to be done, Rich Kaplan Agrees with a lot of what Morris said. Group moved the higher density to the south when they had no constraints but dealing with both density and affordable housing might require re- thinking. This will be a 20 30 year process, so who knows what well end up with, but a good plan helps define an orderly way to make appropriate long-term adjustments. Believes the amendment process to the plan is vital. This plan is probably as good as it can get. Mayor Stromberg Discussed working on previous planning process in Napa where it was defined by livability, walkability, and quality of life. Believes the origin style plans produce good quality of life. Stromberg believes we need to do transit oriented planning and only have density surrounding transit areas. Moving the density south is a good thing because it gets people closer to transit. Minutes for the Normal Working Group October 23, 2014 Page 2 of 5 Believes we should hit minimum density mid-way to E. Main Street to keep rural character of E. Main Street. relationship to nature is evolving and being changed by nature. opportunity to deal with urban wildlife in a creative way. Michael Dawkins Originally would have liked an viable reality. He agrees we need to have a plan in place. The discussions regarding why the Planning Commission/consultant created special zoning names was because they were trying to figu must preserve the conservation easements. Sight corridors are very important and the conservation spaces will help that. All the property eventually will develop, maybe not for 50 years, but this plan keeps the property from being developed in unhealthy ways. He disagrees East Main remain rural country road. He said East Main Street needs to be upgraded now. Pam Marsh We have an opportunity here to build a neighborhood that is a joyful opportunity for residents for years to come. Somehow we lost sight of this in all the boxes, density requirements, lines on determined by the Planning Commission, have cluster housing, and the greater density to the south to be nearer amenities and transportation options. She is not as attached as others to E. Main Street remaining of upgrades. Believes that the improvements (E. Main be a partner in those developments. She agrees that we need a plan because without one there will be separate development, lack of trails, reduced open space, septic tanks rather than sewer, etc. 3. Group Discussion Group discussed why the Planning Commission suggested E. Main Street be improved with half remaining rural and half upgraded to City standards This is partly related to who owns the street and partly related to the sorts of development on each side. Group agreed the improvements are necessary because of the increased traffic from those throughout the city using this street, not just because of future traffic from this neighborhood. Marsh presented a draft set of recommendations to Council \[see page 5, below\]. Group reviewed the recommendations. They generally agree on the following, based on the attached draft recommendations: Density 1. Yes, density from south to north. Also group discussed maybe having density go from east to west, with higher density to the east to more closely match the nearby neighborhoods. 2. Agree with #2, but note that Minutes for the Normal Working Group October 23, 2014 Page 3 of 5 flexibility established by the Planning Commission, especially to keep open space reserves. 3. Agree with this as it helps to leave the option open for the future. Open Space 1. The first sentence is okay. Goldman gave information to the group regarding the minor Design Issues 1. Agreed with this sentence. 2. Group discussed current performance standards required t from the sentence. Transportation 1. Agree with the first sentence regarding E. Main Street. Group discussed the pros and cons of a straight Normal Avenue intersecting with East Main Street. Generally agreed to leave the main neighborhood collector as not-straight, as shown in the updated plan, with the acknowledgement that any adjustments can be made through the major amendment process if necessary in the future. ntence, as many of those east-west connections 3. Agreed with this statement. 4. Group discussed how this can be put together, financing options for implementation of E. Main Street and railroad improvements. Group discussed the next steps in this process - how the Planning Commission and Council would be involved with the review and approval. Ultimately Council may want Planning Commission to review the plan again, but Council is not required to do so. Group agrefinal working group recommendations, which will be reviewed at the next meeting. This will go to Council for their review and direction on the next steps of the plan process. 4. Public Input Jan Vidmar: According to the new FEMA flood map the Normal set- concerned that any development would not allow water to escape, causing flooding. Also, the cottonwood and willow trees on the property currently help control water. Lastly, the many wild animals in the area need to be taken into consideration. Julie Matthews: Sees this as a jig-saw puzzle. Would like a series of overlays created, at the bottom is wildlife, overlaid with transportation, density, hydrology. Seeing how these issues creative in their plan. Thinks the group needs more time. Nancy Boyer: Thinks overlays are a great idea. Regarding moving the density to the south, why s Minutes for the Normal Working Group October 23, 2014 Page 4 of 5 m the neighborhood to Ashland Street. Wonders why the group brought back the issue of Normal being straight. Sue DiMarinis: commercial area, there is a big difference between a mom & pop store and an assisted living facility. Those kinds of differences should be looked at. Major amendments should be required for all streets to keep everyone safe. When the city is doing analysis the whole city needs to hear it as there are costs and benefits to all of the city. Gil Livney: The costs of E. Main Street improvements should not be an issue if safety is really understand why the city wants to take his property for the sake of open space. If open space is very important to the city then the city should buy it from him. Thinks roads should be less defined. Merry Hart: Is pleased with the information from today. Reminds the group that affordable housing Affordable housing is highly needed in Ashland. No one can use Federal funding with the railroad tracks nearby so moving density nearby means p is considering Goldman reminded the group that affordable housing is required to be dispersed throughout the development and of similar type to the rest of the development. 5. Next Meeting November 20, starting at 4:30 p.m. and ending whenever the group is done with their recommendations to Council. Meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diana Shiplet Executive Secretary Minutes for the Normal Working Group October 23, 2014 Page 5 of 5 Normal Neighborhood Working Group: Discussion Draft Recommendations to Council Presented by Councilor Pam Marsh, Working Group Chair Density: 1. Density gradation should move from south to north. This would place higher density development near the railroad tracks and within easy access to existing transit lines, parks and community facilities. This approach will also protect the existing viewshed. 2. Zoning designations within the Normal neighborhood area should be consistent with adjacent lands and use the same zoning labels as in the rest of the city. 3. Maintain option for neighborhood serving commercial development on East Main St. 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 without requiring a minor amendment application. Design issues: 1. Maintain maximum height at 35 feet. 2. Support the use of PUDS to encourage the development of clustered housing that integrates with open space and respects the viewshed. Transportation: 1. The internal transportation system should incorporate multiple connections with East Main. Maintain the Normal collector as designated in the draft plan. 2. Internal streets should be aligned to provide more of 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, 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: 1) the need and possible means for public investment in the project, and 2) the overall costs and benefits of development to the city. Memo-draft- ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TO:Ashland City Council FROM:Normal Neighborhood Plan Working Group DATE:December 2, 2014 RE:Normal Neighborhood Plan Recommendations ____________________________________________________________________________________ VisionStatement 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 recreationalopportunities, and function toincorporate nature into the daily lives of the area’s residents. The neighborhood should provide fora 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, and pedestrian oriented cluster housing. 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 of the neighborhood plan should be strong enough to maintain the vision for the area, yetflexibleenough to respond to changingconditions and adapt over time. Normal Neighborhood Working Group Memo-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 toEast Main Stnear 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 amaximum building height of35 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 networkshould 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.Internallocalstreets shouldbe 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. Normal Neighborhood Working Group