HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-15 Normal Neighborhood Plan_MIN
Minutes for the Normal Working Group
April 15, 2015
Page 1 of 5
MINUTES FOR THE NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD WORKING GROUP
Thursday, April 15, 2015
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn
Way.
Mayor Stromberg, Michael Dawkins, Rich Kaplan, Mike Morris, Brandon Goldman, Bill
Molnar, and Mike Faught were present.
1. Consent Agenda
Kaplan/Dawkins M/S to approve the minutes of November 20, 2014. Voice Vote; all ayes.
Motion passes.
2. Discussion
Open Space Framework revisions
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner, showed the proposed open space plan and noted that it
incorporates the Planning Commission and Working Group’s prior recommendations stipulating
that the open space areas presented include wetlands, riparian areas, floodplain lands and
potential recreation areas.
Goldman introduced Parks Director Michael Black to discuss the Parks Commission’s review of
the plan. Black explained that the Parks Department found no current need to acquire land at this
time as public parks, and that they were in agreement with the location of the active open space
presented in the proposed plan. Black elaborated that the Parks Department would like to work
further with future development proposals on the details of locating trails.
The group asked questions of Black:
1) Would the Parks Department be interested in purchasing land within the neighborhood?
Black clarified that Parks would not be interested in purchasing land at this time.
2) Would the Parks Department be interested in accepting gifted lands? Black stated that that
absolutely be interested in accepting donated land if they have the ability to maintain the
property. He elaborated that Parks would be an option to consider for maintenance of the open
space.
Land Use Framework revisions
Goldman reviewed the land use framework and ordinance amendments that were made to reflect
the Working Group and City Council direction. Specifically he explained how the zone
designations and densities had all been modified to be more consistent with existing City zones,
and that the area designated as NN-2 had been relocated to the south along the railroad tracks.
The group asked questions of Goldman:
1) What were the Planning Commissions concerns regarding the area designated as NN-2?
Minutes for the Normal Working Group
April 15, 2015
Page 2 of 5
Goldman noted that the Planning Commission had discussed this location of higher density due
to the concentration of water resource areas in the vicinity and had concern over whether this
was the best location for NN-2 designated land given the physical constraints to develop outside
the riparian areas. Commissioners Dawkins and Kaplan concurred that the Planning
Commission had raised the issue but had made no formal recommendation during their study
session on March 31, 2015.
Transportation Framework revisions
Goldman showed maps reflecting the street network changes that have been incorporated into the
plan to address the Working Groups recommendations.
Mike Faught, Public Works Director discussed the report included in the packet by Hardy
Engineering, explaining the methodology used to calculate the cost of improvements to East
Main Street, and the railroad crossing. He noted that using the total developer portion of the
costs of these improvements, and dividing it by the estimated number of units (472) that the
estimated per unit cost calculated was $8700.
External infrastructure cost analysis. Public Works Director Mike Faught discussed SDC
charges and possible advanced financing options for both the East Main Street entrance and the
railroad crossing. His figures are based on the total number of potential dwelling units
represented in the current plan. If those amounts change, the figures would change too.
The group asked questions of Faught:
1) What’s the railroad’s willingness level to convert the crossing from private to public? Faught
not 100% sure, but understands that it is still possible, though it would not be an easy process.
The biggest risk is that this change might not be allowed in the future.
2) Are there grant funds for either project? Faught doesn’t think that they are many possible, as
it’s for neighborhood benefit, rather than city- (or county-) wide. East Main street might have a
better chance of finding funding. This doesn’t mean we can’t look for available grants.
3) Are there SDC funds on-hand? Yes, but those funds are competing with many other current
projects such as the East Nevada Street bridge crossing, the new street connection between
Washington Street and Tolman Creek Road, and many others.
4) Could the City build the improvements and borrow the money? No, because there is no
guarantee of development, so no guarantee we’ll get the monies back. We could do debt
financing from a dedicated source, like the streets fund but how that money is re-paid is
important and development is not a steady, reliable source.
A development agreement could help somewhat to protect the City from loss, if the City decides
to advance the funds for development. If there is a developer serious about developing on the
land, they should be willing to sit down with the City to work out financing and agree to
requirements of a development agreement.
Another option is phasing the project – doing only either the railroad or the East Main
connection. This would reduce the costs greatly while development builds out.
5) Do we have to build all of East Main Street improvements and the railroad crossing at the
Minutes for the Normal Working Group
April 15, 2015
Page 3 of 5
same time? Generally, no, both aren’t critical until traffic density is such that the infrastructure is
needed. We could phase the East Main Street improvements by only completing a partial
improvements 250 feet on either side of a new intersection, along with the sidewalk all the way
to Walker Avenue but leave the rest until development is further along. Or, if development
occurs only near the railroad, we could do just that crossing until further development near East
Main occurs. Once you do both connections, all the improvements on East Main become
necessary. Additionally, the traffic engineer \[Anne Sylvester\] suggested a signal at Normal and
Ashland street to protect left turns. Either phased approach gives the City time to collect SDC
funds to mitigate the costs involved.
Street network amendments: Group discussed internal roads and how they would be built
if multiple developers over multiple properties developed, but not all properties were developed.
Developer would likely build streets to three-fourths completion until further development
occurs. Group made no amendments to the street layout.
2. New Normal – family friendly housing template
Mayor Stromberg presented a plan (included in the agenda packet) based on the Council’s
strategic planning and the things he thought this group failed to have discussions about. They
included:
Family Friendly Housing. He proposes detached housing, with a certain number of
bedrooms required, or it could be cottage housing with amenities for growing
families.
Climate Change Awareness. He proposes that everything be required to be built with
specific energy/water/solar requirements.
Aging in Ashland. He proposes that housing be required to be built so that folks can
remain safely in their homes longer.
Cluster Development. He proposes that we build neighborhoods rather than
developments.
Micro-agriculture. He proposes that we require either open space with community
gardens or require that homes be built with systems in-place for grown their own
food.
Fire-adapted Communities. He proposes that we provide requirements and ways to
improve fire safety.
Stromberg’s idea is to make this development a proto-type for all future development (a “pilot-
project”) to help with State requirements regarding population requirements and also to possibly
help in getting funding for the public improvements. He also suggested that we could be the
advanced financer on unique projects (we buy solar panels, and owners pay us back the
difference in their lowered bills). He recognizes that the mechanics of this project would be
challenging. It’s more than just affordable housing – it’s how to tailor this project for middle-
class residents who are not only retirees.
Stromberg proposed to the group that he continues working on this “New Normal” plan with
Marsh and staff to see how his vision can be fulfilled.
Group discussed their reactions to this plan. Some were glad topics like urban farming (micro-
Minutes for the Normal Working Group
April 15, 2015
Page 4 of 5
agriculture) were finally being discussed, others felt it was too far into the process to be changing
direction. The group mostly agreed that the ideas the Mayor is proposing are al mostly already in
the plan.
The group discussed how this approach may or may not differ from master planning. They also
discussed annexation and the minimum requirements necessary which naturally lead to
discussions of what would be required for approval. The challenge is that without a pre-
determined plan developers are left with lots of uncertainty. This uncertainty has always been a
cause for contention between the City and the development community.
3. Public Forum
Randy Jones: He likes the general direction of the Mayor’s plan and believes it can be
incorporated into the current plan. He also appreciates Faught’s more firm numbers. He doesn’t
know how his group could phase the project and believes all the infrastructure needs to be
completed at the same time so that neither Normal Avenue or East Main take too much extra
pressure. Agrees that cluster housing is good but is still concerned with the location of the higher
density housing near the railroad. He prefers to build “workforce” housing rather than subsidized
housing and the current affordable housing requirements make the project a non-starter.
Reminded the group that the SDC numbers given by Faught don’t include all the improvement
costs.
Gil Livne: He has recently sold 20 homes in the valley, 19 of them outside of Ashland and of
those 20 only 1 was sold to a family with children. It’s the new demographics of the whole area,
not just Ashland. He believes that at the costs the group are suggesting, only the elderly would
purchase them. Family-sized style housing is always somewhere in the low $400s.
The group asked him to reiterate the statistics of only one house in twenty being sold to a family.
Jan Vidmar: Encouraged the group to really consider what families want in housing. She lives in
the Meadowbrook Park Estates subdivision and they are losing families because there are is no
room for families. One family moved to Talent recently because they could have a home with
larger yards. She worries that they are so many parts of town like her area with no yards or little
open space and families need more space.
Bryce Anderson: He is concerned about East Main Street. If the 10 acres likely to develop
(currently the Baptist Church) do develop there could be 70 new homes. The extra traffic and
population from those homes mean that East Main Street must be improved entirely or it will be
too unsafe. Believes East Main Street can’t be phased that any improvement must be full
improvement all the way from Toman to Walker.
Sue DiMarinis: Agrees that the Mayor’s design seems reasonable, and the space in-between
homes and extra open-space is good. Recently her son moved back to the area but wouldn’t buy
a home with the neighbors close by or with high traffic amounts. These requirements really
limited the available areas he could purchase in within Ashland. He appreciates that the Mayor
reiterated in the goals the suggestions the public attendees of these meeting have been suggesting
for three years. Believes his plan is not far from what we’re working on.
Minutes for the Normal Working Group
April 15, 2015
Page 5 of 5
Marsh took a moment to make sure the members of the public understood that the Mayor’s plan,
as presented, would have the same density as Meadowbrook Park Estates, which so many have
mentioned as a plan they don’t like.
Mark Prescott: Wants the group to take a big picture view of this plan. It could bring in up to
472 new housing units, which would mean roughly 1500 new residents. This is a 6% increase in
Ashland’s current population and would mean thousands of new cars on the road impacting not
just East Main Street but every side street near businesses like the Co-op, for example. Last
year’s water problems would just be exacerbated by a 6% increase in population. He wonders
how the group can justify this grown when Ashland citizens voted 8 years ago to limit the urban
grown boundary, and therefore limiting growth. Worries that we’re turning into a community
like Walnut Creek and that we’ll no longer be able to function.
Max Lawson: Recently moved to Ashland and lives on Normal Avenue. He has concerns with
whether this plan would mean the City would exercise eminent domain to take part of his land.
(Marsh confirmed that the City would not, that this plan is for many, many years down the road).
He would like the development to be done compassionately, with improvements taking into
consideration the impact on neighbors.
4. Next Steps
The group agreed that staff will need to cancel the upcoming public hearing before both Planning
Commission and City Council. They will need to be re-noticed at a later date. The group agreed
to meet on May 7 at 4:00 p.m. to discuss how to move forward with the plan and with the
Mayor’s proposal.
Meeting adjourned at 5: 46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diana Shiplet
Executive Secretary