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