Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-1028 Study Session PACKET CITY OF -ASH LAN D JOINT STUDY SESSION CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION HOUSING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 to 9:00 PM AGENDA Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving "NOW x2" 1. Review and Recommendation of Potential Growth Areas 2. Recommendation to Adopt Goals and Policies 3. Adjourn CiTY OF SHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION AUGUST 26, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Planning Commission Chair Russ Chapm~[n called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Kerry KenCairrl, Colin SwaleS, Mike Mor/is, Marilyn Briggs and John Fi61ds. Cameron Hanson, Ray Kistler, and Dave Dotterrer were absent. Council members present were Alex Amardtico, Kate Jackson and Chris Heam. Absent were Don Laws, John Morfison and Cate Hartzell. Mayor Alan DeBoer arrived at 8:00 p.m. Staff present were John McLaughlin and Sue Yates. GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING "NOW )(2" STAFF PRESENTATION McLaughlin said there have been three meetings on this topic. Each conununity in the Greater Bear Valley has been working on their individual comprehensive plans and their growth effort. The region is tightly linked with air quality, transportation, etc. This plan is looking at where growth can best occur and where it should be discouraged. What are Ashland's recommendations for growth areas? With all the various constraints, such as I-5 and hillsides, we are looking at relatively small areas. The purpose of this meeting is to get some clear direction from the Commission and Council that will be taken to the Council for their final recommendation and adoption for growth areas. McLaughlin's memo of August 26, 2003 describes the potential growth areas and the positives and negatives of each area: AD1, AD2, Mountain Meadows extension, and the Young property. KenCaim asked if the City can just say "Stop" under this plan. McLaughlin referred to the Greater Bear Creek Valley Goals and Policies, Goal 3, (Recognize and emphasize individual identity, unique features...) Should Ashland provide a greater amount of housing, but due to the constraints, end up spoiling the part that makes us an important factor in the region? Ashland has a certain character and desirability. Regional problem solving is a process allowed under state statute that allows for flexibility of the statewide planning goals. We have to comply with the goals, but we have flexibility with the Admininstrative Rules. One option the City could choose is to recommend none of the growth areas and start looking at other opportunities for infill or increased densities in some of the vacant areas we have. Swales asked about AD2. The western most side follows the bluff. Why does it go down into the gullies and cut back to East Main? Why the steeper land on the eastern side? McLaughlin thought it would be better under the City's jurisdiction than Jackson County's. As the areas develop, there are logical open spaces around the creek buffers that could be incorporated into an overall neighborhood plan some time down the road. That line is not necessarily fixed. Only the area that is accessed is what would be urbanized. McLaughlin added this is the time to look at the big picture for the region. We are looking at a major policy issue for Ashland and the region. Are we going to modify our boundaries to accept additional growth as well as in fill or are we going to say no? There are opportunities for amendments in future years. A process will be designed for that but it will be rigorous. The future growth areas are not for immediate growth. This is a long-term plan. We are still required to show the need for additional lands. Once the areas are identified for potential growth areas for Ashland, it will change their character. They will increase in value and there will be pressure to bring the lands in at some point. McLaughlin thought the letter from 1000 Friends of Oregon raise some very good points. DISCUSSION DAVID YOUNG said he owns the triangular section of land near I-5. He is interested in helping the City meet the pressing need for affordable housing. His would offer the entire parcel for 50 or more affordable housing units. He would be willing to sell the units under the City's affordable program for $140,000 each. It looks to Young like a natural continuation of the urban plain with multiple density housing on the other side of Mountain Avenue. McLaughlin explained that if this area was added as a growth area and the regional process is complete, Young could begin the process the next day. KenCairn wondered if it could be zoned for low-income housing. McLaughlin said it could be zoned for that purpose. Jackson asked about the road capacities for North Mountain and East Nevada. Would either one of these additional areas exceed the capacity? McLaughlin thought not. Hearn wondered if Gary Collord, Housing Specialist, had been able to come up with any land use possibilities for parcels like Dr. Young's? McLaughlin said Collord's efforts have been going into more immediate housing already within the City, rather than something that might be five to ten years out. Fields asked if this property would be a gift. Young said his plan would be to develop it himself and meet the City's intent. McLaughlin said the difficulty of the discussion is that we are looking at some really different timeframes. We are looking at land needs and future development patterns for the community as opposed to a specific development that may be needed fight now. That will evolve in the next five to ten years. Swales wondered if we have looked at the wisdom of having high density so close the freeway in terms of the aesthetics Ashland presents to travelers along the I-5 corridor, or just how nice is it to live in those places? MADELINE HILL said she and Larry Medinger own a piece of land east of Mountain Meadows. She commissioned a study of the land. It has never been used for agriculture. It is fight next to a developed urban area. It is a manageable size and close to North Mountain Park and the greenway. Services are only a foot away. They would be interested in working with the Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT). She and Medinger have been successful developers of affordable housing in whatever the City's program has been. ELIZABETH HOWARD(?) said there is clearly a need in Ashland for affordable housing. We use other valuable resources by forcing the workforce to commute to other communities. She finally gave up looking for real estate in Ashland, Talent or Phoenix. She would like the Commission and Council to seriously look at those who cannot afford to live in Ashland. She has also noticed the lack of racial diversity in Ashland. McLaughlin said they are looking at possibly rezoning some existing areas. We are still within the 20 year time range for all land classifications, but we are getting tight. Hearn left the meeting. KenCairn £mds it interesting them are owners of two pieces of property asking to be included as growth areas. If we have this intensive low-income housing need and are having a very hard time finding property to facilitate it and these owners are willing to accept zoning that would force them to do 100 percent affordable housing, it seems like an incredible value to the community. Her concern is that there would be an island of low-income housing. Chapman mentioned this could be done with AD1 or AD2 also. Chapman still wants to be able to call Ashland a small town. We have 20,000 people now. By the time we build out what is here, he thinks we'll be at 24,000 to 25,000 people. He believes at that point we have an obligation to protect ourselves as a small community and we need to say, "that's it". He is not closing the gate. There is a small town attraction, charm and beauty that we need to protect. He thinks the current inventory is enough. KenCairn responded that is what is increasing the problems with affordable housing. Fields thinks we have an opportunity to force that land in with affordable restrictions. Jackson asked if maintaining that small town feel would mean the rural feel of driving out East Main. Would AD2 enclose it more? Is it harder to describe senses of how different parts of town relate to each other? It is a difficult thing to pin down. You can physically del'me and limit the acres inside the city limits, but your population is always going to grow. You either accommodate that growth in higher density in attractive developments or you don't. To her, a big part of the community feel is that people that work here can live here. The small town feel to KenCairn is that people know each other; people work together and see one another in the evening. The less affordability there is, the less that can happen. Mayor DeBoer arrived. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND CrTY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 Briggs prefers the AD2 piece. It seems like a more natural place to put a growth area and the bluff behind it seems like a natural boundary. It has the flattest land for building. Chapman mentioned the areas of potential growth already in the UGB: The Croman property, the area around McDonald's, and two recently approved areas on North Mountain. The AD2 seems like the most logical area for growth, especially because it is in close proximity to the schools. Can the community absorb a potential 480 to 960 dwelling units? Amarotico asked if they recommend no change and in ten years the town is bursting at the seams, how possible is it to change then? McLaughlin said it would mean going through this process locally and at a regional level. There will be windows of opportunity, probably every five years, for communities to amend their plans. Jackson reminded the Commission and Council that we are a greater urban area. Regional transportation, growth, jobs placement, and housing can be better dealt with on a regional level than by each city by itself. From her viewpoint, she wants to be open-minded about the process. Swales said, in other words, politically, it is better to say we will do a little bit but with the understanding that we will keep tight control of what actually happens. McLaughlin cautioned everyone in looking at the specific need for affordable housing. We are really looking at future housing areas that are going to be a combination of housing types. We don't want to isolate one type of housing. KenCairn sees an opportunity with the two areas being offered by their owners to provide some affordable housing. Fields said there might be ways to do some creative things, like an affordable housing mitigation plan. Chapman believes we have an obligation as a whole not to grow beyond the carrying capacity of the resources of this community. If it were a choice of parcels, he would not choose either piece by the freeway. Swales feels it is not right to designate these areas as ghetto type housing. We have policies in place to allow for affordable housing and encourage infill and density. It would seem perfectly within our purview to take the lead and take that message to the rest of the valley. Chapman said by adding areas, we are abandoning our principles for growth. He would support Option 2 for no change. Swales said the demographics in Ashland are changing. The population moving here seems older and wealthier. He believes we should take this slowly and do our best to keep our compact urban form. Briggs wondered what could happen to the possible growth areas if we choose not to add them. Can they develop? McLaughlin said according to state statute, land within one mile of the UGB cannot go below ten acre minimums. Morris would like to see housing as a separate issue. It doesn't make sense to have low- income housing dictate decisions for our long-term UGB. DeBoer believes we should adopt Option 2. We can always add more land or deviate from the plan if we find the right pieces of property. We need to have a regional approach. The rest of the county should see how we've worked with infill. It is a great statement to use what we have first before changing our UGB. McLaughlin suggested doing a straw vote on how to proceed. Morris wondered about a density transfer for setting aside wetlands in AD2. McLaughlin thought it would be hard to end up with 900 units. Fields supports Option 2. Swales supports Option 2. He would like a statement of our vision and promote our vision to the rest of the valley. Jackson said since we are grappling with affordable housing, she would consider adding a few acres from the two proposals ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 and AD2. Our statement of rationale for bringing these areas in would be to provide the housing type for which we are running out of acres. Swales, Morris, KenCairn, Chapman, Fields, Amarotico and DeBoer support Option 2 (to varying degrees). No one seemed to like AD 1. There was no opposition to the Goals and Policies. OTHER Announcement Mayor DeBoer announced the Council will be talking about affordable housing priorities and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) at their next study session at noon on September 3, 2003. AIA Conference Briggs gave a brief report of the recent AIA conference in Portland. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 CITY OF -ASHLAND Memo DATE: TO: FROM: RE: August 26, 2003 Planning Commissioners, Honorable Mayor and City Council John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Now x 2 Potential Growth Areas Goals and Policies Attached please find the two potential growth areas proposed for the Ashland area - AD1 and AD2. Also attached is a map highlighting two other areas proposed by property owners for possible inclusion as growth areas. All areas proposed are primarily considered for residential growth. The proposed growth areas are not to be considered as proposed immediate expansions to our Urban Growth Boundary. Any expansions of our boundary still require that we show a need for additional land, as defined under state statutes and administrative rules. Rather, these future growth areas are where the next expansion of the boundary will take place, perhaps in 5 to 10 years, or perhaps longer. But they provide agreement about the future form of the city, rather than considering future requests on a piecemeal basis. Further, these potential growth areas are being determined for all jurisdictions in the region, creating a future development plan for the Bear Creek Valley. AD1 AD1 is approximately 90 acres of land located at the southeast end of Ashland, south of Siskiyou Boulevard and between Tolman Creek Road and Crowson Road. As shown from the topographic map, it's terrain is similar to that of the adjoining Greenmeadows area (to the west), however, with some more rolling hills. Assuming it is built out to a 5 to 10 unit per acre density, the number of potential homes in this area would be approximately 450 to 900. Positives The area is adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) on two sides, adjacent to Siskiyou Boulevard, and has relatively benign slope by Ashland standards. It has the potential to be serviced by RVTD if routes were extended out Siskiyou Boulevard to Crowson Road. The Croman mill site is located to the north across Siskiyou Blvd. and will be a future employment/mixed use center, likely with some limited commercial opportunities. Bellview DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us School is located nearby, serving also as a neighborhood park. Services are available to the site. Negatives The site is located at the extreme south end of town. While relatively close to the Tolman/Ashland St. commercial center (Albertsons/Bi-Mart), it is located a substantial distance from downtown and continues the historic linear development pattern of Ashland. The area is currently open and primarily in pasture use, and serves as an open space gateway to the community. Access would have to be developed off of Siskiyou Blvd and likely connecting with Tolman Creek Road. Tolman is currently only improved to county standards. Access to Tolman will likely disrupt existing residences. The numerous parcels within the area will require cooperative efforts among property owners, and coordination on the timing for the provision of facilities. These can be very difficult depending on the needs of individual property owners. Staff Recommendation Area AD1 is currently zoned RR-5 under Jackson County's zoning, and is not considered prime farm land. It's proximity to current and potential employment allows for opportunities for work related trips to be taken without cars. It provides opportunities for a variety of housing, given the variety of slope, however, higher density multi-family is not likely. Given that the area is a wedge of land between areas currently in the UGB, it would be an appropriate area for future growth. AD2 AD2 is an area of approximately 96 acres located on the north side of East Main Street, from the current city limits near Mill Pond/National Guard Armory out to Interstate 5. The area proposed for inclusion would be the area "on top of the bluff" and not located downslope in the floodplain area. Most of the sloping areas are not proposed for development as well, due to access difficulties. Development between 5 - 10 units/acre would result in this area accommodating 480 to 960 dwellings. Positives The land is centrally located, relatively close to commercial areas, schools, and transportation networks. Transit would be possible along East Main with a modification of existing routes. Since the south side of East Main Street is located within the UGB, the ultimate development of East Main Street as an urban arterial would be more efficient with the development of this property. The "top of bluff" area is relatively flat, and could accommodate higher densities. Sloping areas or creek areas could function as neighborhood open spaces. A variety of housing types could be possible. Services are available. Negatives The land is currently zoned EFU (exclusive farm use) and is considered farm land. It provides the clear rural/urban interface that many people value about Ashland. The open space nature of the property provides a perimeter buffer for the community along Bear Creek and the view towards I-5. The narrowness of the property running parallel with East Main DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w,mv.ashland.or.us Street will provide for some development challenges. Drainages in the area will require riparian protection from development. Staff Recommendation This area was recommended for consideration as an alternative to AD1 during a public meeting. It does provide some logical development options for the community, and an extension of the development pattern being established along East Main Street. The loss of agricultural land is difficult to measure, since few high value crops are grown here. It primarily serves as pasture, with the majority of good farmland in the floodplain area being preserved. However, the Planning Commission and Council should carefully consider the open space impacts - or loss of open space associated with development of this side. Staff is neutral on this property. Mountain Meadows Extension Madeline Hill has proposed that approximately 15 acres located to the east, and behind, Mountain Meadows community on North Mountain and Nepenthe Road be included in the potential growth areas. Development at a density of 5 to 10 units/acm would yield 75 to 150 new units. Positives The area is adjacent to the existing Mountain Meadows development and services and access could be extended from that area. Two streets ar8 already stubbed out to this property (Nepenthe and Creek Stone). Negatives Concern has been raised in the past about the amount of development that should occur on the north side of Bear Creek, with North Mountain as the primary access point. While the North Mountain neighborhood plan envisioned higher densities, this area was not proposed for development. Traffic concerns and emergency vehicle access during floods is a concern. Given the area, transit service is not likely at this time. Staff Recommendation Staff does not recommend that this area be included as a potential growth area at this time. Further development adjacent to I-5 is not desirable, nor the further extension of the community in this direction. However, the Planning Commission and Council should consider testimony and discuss this possibility. Young Property This ama encompasses approximately 5 acres and is a triangle of land located between I-5 and East Nevada. Given the slopes and configuration of the property, densities of 5-6 units per acm would likely be the maximum, yielding 25-30 dwellings. The ama has relatively steep slopes down to the Bear Creek floodplain DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Tel: 541.488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Staff Recommendation Given the relatively small area, slopes, proximity to I-5, and the issues raised with the Mountain Meadows property outlined above, staff does not recommend this area as a potential growth area. PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL OPTIONS The Commission and Council have the option of choosing to recommend any one, or any combination of future growth area, or the City could recommend that no future growth areas be included. This has been brought up as an option by several citizens and briefly discussed among the commission and council. As shown on the attached Regional Goals and Policies, Policy 3 under Goal 1 is that "overall urban housing density shall be increased to provide for more efficient land utilization." While Ashland has taken several steps towards this in the past, there are other opportunities for increasing densities, such as considering higher density multi-family for a portion of the Croman Property, and upzoning areas along East Main Street north of the railroad tracks, and currently undeveloped, but in the existing UGB. It should also be remembered that the potential growth areas can only be added to the UGB at the approval of the City Council. It is a decision based on need, and includes discretion by the decision makers. However, not indicating any future growth areas could make it difficult for a future council to expand the boundary in a timely manner, since agreements will need to be reached on a regional level, as well as at a local level. Option 1 Recommend inclusion of one or more of the potential growth areas outlined in this memo. Option 2 Recommend that no potential growth areas be adopted at this time, and consider infill and increasing density in future development areas within the UGB, and review overall community form and development specific to Ashland. ADOPTION OF "GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL GOALS AND POLICIES" Staff recommends that the Council and Commission direct Staff to bring the final version of a resolution adopting the proposed goals and policies for the regional planning process to the next Council meeting for adoption. Other communities have adopted these policies, and they serve as the guiding principles for this planning effort. They are well balanced and are in the interest of the City of Ashland. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT Planning D iv is ion Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www,ashland.or, us 0 X //,,/ 0 × t,.O 0'~ "1 Il .'q'. o° / { ppue Sl!tU!l ,/ CITY OF 4kSHLAND JOINT STUDY SESSION ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 22, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chair Russ Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Cameron Hanson, John Fields, Dave Dotterrer, Marilyn Briggs, Kerry KenCairn, and Ray Kistler. Absent were Mike Morris and Colin Swales. Mayor DeBoer was present along with Council members Don Laws, Chris Hearn, Kate Jackson, Alex Amarotico, and Cate Hartzell. Councilor John Motrison was absent. Staff present were John McLaughlin and Sue Yates. PRESENTATION OF NOWX2 by Michael Cavallaro, Ro,que Valley Council of Governments John McLaughlin introduced Michael Cavallaro. Cavallaro explained the NOWX2 project that he is heading up. What brought everyone together to collaborate? The majority of the population is in a concentrated area in the county. A lot of people came in the past, a lot of people are coming now, and a lot of new people will keep coming. We need to deal with this eventuality. The Regional Problem Solving Statute allows regions to establish an issue they have regarding land use and propose solutions. The solutions may be incorporated into Comprehensive Plans even though they may not precisely follow the statewide planning goals. This region has identified some specific problems. Lack of an established mechanism for collaborative planning. Increasing loss of separation between communities as cities grow closer to one another. Relatively short-term planning horizons creating uncertainty about the direction of growth. Inter-jurisdictional hissy fits and hair pulling. Loss of important farmland. At the end of this project we hope to identify growth areas and non-growth areas. It makes more sense to look at how we will handle doubling the population versus projecting population over a period of 50 years. Cavallaro said information about the proposed plan and regional problem solving has been distributed valley-wide and a questionnaire was included. He reviewed the survey results. He showed the two Ashland areas we are looking at for growth. McLaughlin said our growth area is limited and we will not cross I-5. The East Main area came from a public meeting as a logical site for urban growth. It is light on agricultural use and seemed appropriate. The area on Siskiyou and Tolman would be a way to incorporate a future growth area that can link transportation. Cavallaro said an issue discussed extensively is the idea that cities that did not want to expand their boundaries are free to do so. It appears there are enough receptor cities to take enough of the population that it would be possible for some cities not to expand a great deal. Laws wondered how much population we can accommodate in the future growth areas. Laws is concerned that as we get behind in the growth curve that the pressure on land prices will increase. Chapman asked for members of the public to speak. David Young, Medford, mentioned affordable housing. He has a five acre parcel on the edge of Ashland. Part of the parcel is in the city and the remainder in EFU zone. He would be delighted to work with the city to make this piece of land available for affordable housing. Allen Duman said if we follow what everyone wants to do, we may lose track of the rate of growth in the region as a significant factor. Is it important to pay attention to who the population is? Cavallaro noted the land within the future growth areas will be the number one priority for growth into Urban Growth Boundaries. The cities would always have to show need to bring the areas into the UGB. With regard to demographics, we are ahead of the curve in terms of the aging population. Madeline Hill made a formal request that a piece of land be added to AD 1 and AD2. It is a 15-acre piece bordered by the City on one side and the freeway on the other side. She believes this is a logical growth area. It is not on a steep hillside, it has never been used for agricultural land, etc. She would like to have this piece seriously considered. Mayor DeBoer asked the size of AD1 and AD2. McLaughlin said one is 86 acres and the other 91 acres. Debbie Miller asked that when working with the other groups in the valley, do we really mean to double the population? When you urbanize, there is commercial, transportation, etc., and always a negative affect on the agricultural lands. Class 2 and Class 3 soils can grow great things as well as Class 1. The more we can grow here for ourselves, the better offwe are. She would urge the group to work with the state and other cities and regions within the state. Cavallaro agreed with the impacts of urbanization on agricultural land. They are working on a regional buffering so there are not urban/rural conflict zones. Pat Acklin worked on the process on the Citizens Advisory group. The Regional Problem Solving document discusses open space and it would be nice if that portion had some political backing. She is not sure you can solve Ashland's problem by bringing in a lot of land or by limiting land. We have the highest poverty in the valley. A portion of AD2 is the last vestige of the Dunn agricultural area. Acldin said all in all this has been a successful workable program. Chapman wondered about how infrastructure was being addressed. Do we have water to support additional population? Where are jobs coming from? Cavallaro said there is a restriction on growth because physical geography, air quality and water are restrictions. With some conservation, this valley can probably support double its population. There are a lot of issues involved that could tip that. In terms of transportation, Cavallaro said they've drawn some basic lines on a map of future transportation areas and most of the lines are improvements to existing corridors. Chapman was talking about public transportation. Cavallaro said there is some uneasiness about density and that discussion will have to occur in each jurisdiction. Mayor DeBoer supports going together as a county and getting rid of industrial inventories in Ashland. He believes we need to get rid of restricting roads through farmlands. We can restrict what happens along those roads. We have to clarify what agricultural land is. He thinks the question for this group is: Do you want AD1 and AD2? We are limited with water. His opinion is to not have AD1 and AD2 and work with the other communities and let them take the growth. He's not sure he would want to live in Ashland if it was twice the size it is now. He is concerned irrfill is becoming too much in Ashland. He does not like AD1 because a creek runs through it. AD2 might be a good place to have affordable housing. Kate Jackson asked when Ashland's population doubled. DeBoer said 1960. Cavallaro said this is an opportunity to apportion different zoning to other areas in the region. The state is more likely to move toward more flexibility. Briggs wondered about water availability. If the population is twice what we have now, how can there possibly be enough water? Cavallaro said with between ten and 20 percent water conservation, it can happen. We can't continue to use water the way we do now. Heam asked the reason for doing such a long-range approach instead of moving out slowly and incrementally. Cavallaro said they were taking a holistic approach. Looking at land is more than looking at individual pieces. The price of land keeps rising too. Laws thought it seemed more like a process of elimination. We took away the land that was inappropriate and ended up with the land that is appropriate. JOINT STUDY SESSION ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 22, 2003 Jackson noted this project has been a gradual, but positive in moving the process forward. They haven't tackled any of the more current questions that have come up. Much of the work that was done will change. In terms of potential growth areas in Ashland, she does not think that is the hard issue to face right now. As a willing partner, there will be more opportunities to trade housing density or manufactured land and make other trade-offs. Hartzell would like a study session to take a closer analysis of the maps of the proposed areas and why they were proposed and those that were not proposed. She would like a discussion that is really focused on Ashland. Heam agreed. ADJOURNMENT - Chapman adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. JOINT STUDY SESSION ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND CffY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 22, 2003 August 22, 2003 To: Mayor Alan DeBoer, Ashland City Council and Planning Commission Re: Followup to 4/22/03 Council/Planning Commission Study Session on Regional Problem Solving (NOW x2) During your joint study session in April conccr~2ng Ashland's growth, we proposed the City consider a 15 acre property (39-1E-03, Tax Lot 600) for inclusion in Ashland's urban growth boundary (UGB) reserve to accommodate future growth needs. This puts our verbal suggestion into a formal written request that the property be included in the regional plan and in any future City UGB expansion. The property meets the City's expressed goals as well as the goals laid out in RVCOG's regional planning publication dated 12/06/02: · maintain lands in agriculture for agricultural uses, · preserve open space, · maintain buffers to protect community/city identities, · develop areas which can readily receive urban services, · reduce traffic congestion, and · avoid areas near the Ashland watershed. The property proposed for inclusion also meets the concerns raised by City Planner John McLaughlin during the April work session. It · is southwest of I-5, not across it, · is not in the Ashland watershed, thus poses no forest fire danger, · will not impact Talent, or the maintenance of separate identities for Ashland and Talent, · is relatively close to downtown Ashland. Suitable Location and Size: You can't get any closer to the Ashland City Limits than this 15 acre parcel because it rests right on the City Limit's boundary line. It's of manageable size, just two blocks from an arterial street (North Mountain Avenue) and only 1.3 miles from the Ashland Plaza on the southwest side of Interstate-5. The parcel is three blocks from the Bear Creek Greenway and less than 1,000 feet from the city's North Mountain Avenue Park. It's immediately adjacent to an established compact urban development, and its small size makes it the appropriate size for planning and accommodating residential units when the City expands its UGB (see attached maps). This parcel is not in an "area of separation" and can be easily urbanized. City services (water, sewer, electric, natural gas, AFN, cable, and phone lines) are already installed underground right to the property line, and three paved streets connect directly to the property, separated only by one foot wide City "street plugs". The property is highly suitable for future residential growth. Need: The 15 acre piece proposed for urban growth reserve inclusion could accommodate needed affordable housing options through such vehicles as the Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) and/or an employer assisted housing program, among others. We are proposing that a major portion of future development on this acreage be devoted to affordable housing. The portion on Kitchen Creek would be placed in open space use (trails and gardens). We share a personal and professional passion for affordable housing. For example, Madeline was a founding Board member of ACLT, was a member of the City's Housing Commission for many years, offered her professional real estate services for free to facilitate many affordable housing transactions in the Clear Creek subdivision, and was honored by Advocates for Severely Handicapped by naming their home on Walker Avenue that now provides permanent affordable housing for 10 severely retarded adults "The Madeline Hill House". Larry currently serves as a Board member on the State Housing Council, and has been an active participant since 1989 on various versions of what is now known as the City's Housing Commission. He was a member of the City's Planning Commission for 5 years and has been a developer working with the city's various affordable housing programs for several years. We look forward to working with City staff, the Housing Commission, the Ashland Community Land Trust Board, and other public and private housing groups so that an appropriate portion of the housing on this parcel will remain affordable for many generations of Ashland families long into the future. Additional Considerations: Two other considerations are addressed for your information. 1. Protection of Agricultural Land. The property is currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) but it does not qualify as agricultural land. Included is a Soils Evaluation Report (4 pages) prepared by George J. Badura, a professional soil scientist (see Attachment 1). Mr. Badura's on-site evaluation breaks the property into six (6) units, only one of which (Unit 4) contains class III and IV soils and is 1.17 acres in size. The only other Unit which comes close to EFU classification is Unit 5 which contains 2.95 acres. The other units contain Class VI soils and are not farmable due to terrain and rock. Also attached is a one page summary of reports from the Oregon Soil Survey (USDA), backed up with 8 pages of data from the Natural Resources Conservation Se~ices plus a map prepared by that agency. The data shows that the property has slopes ranging from 3% to 15%, and topsoil with an estimated depth of six inches which is full of pebbles and cobbles. Between 15 - 35% of the soil is clay (see Attachment 2). The property is on Talent Irrigation but has not been used for agriculture in recent years, and historically may have been used for grazing. Finally, Nepenthe Road, an undeveloped public road located on the south side of the property, provides access to two other properties and buffers the adjacent land which is located largely on Bear Creek and is in agricultural use. 2. Transportation Impact. The intense use in the Mountain Meadows development represents "smart growth". The Mountain Meadows Owners' Association and Skylark Assisted Living provide and coordinate bus trips to Medford and into downtown Ashland for plays, concerts, and shopping, thus reducing transportation impacts on the Valley. Once the bridge is built across Bear Creek at Hersey, a bus line is proposed to run along North Mountain Avenue just two blocks from this property. Thank you for giving this proposal your serious consideration. Vie are requesting that you include this parcel in your recommendations to the regional planning committees for review and adoption. You can rely on us to produce what we promise. Madeline and Hunter Hill & Larry Medinger 828 Boulder Creek Lane Ashland, OR 97520 Email: hunter~mind.net Attachments: Maps Soils Analysis Report from George J. Badura Oregon Soil Survey Report (USDA) Cc: Michael Cavallaro, Ex. Director, RVCOG SOIL MANAGEMENT SERVICES GEORGE J. BADURA PROFESSIONAL SOIL SCIENTIST 2840 DAVID LANE - MEDFORD OR. 97504 541-535-1779 Soils report for Madeline Hill's property May22,2003 This soils report covers the area of approximately 15 acres located east of the Mtn. Meadows development and north of Nepenthe Road. It is triangular in shape with the eastern boundary being the Freeway (I-5). It is tax lot 600 in T39S, R1E Section 3 - Willamette Meridian. The original soils mapping was done for the Jackson County Soil Survey by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) which is now the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). I have divided the acreage into soil units for the following discussion and are so labeled on the attached map. Unit 1 The northern end of the acreage has been covered with rocky fill material. It was originally soil mapped as Darow soil but is no longer considered agricultural soil due to the fill material placed on it. This fdl has removed it from the category of "Exclusive Farm Use" (EFU). Unit 2 Just south and below this filled area is a soil that I have mapped as a shallow variation of Debenger soil. I dug two soil examination spots and one was 14 inches to sandstone and the other was 11 inches to sandstone. The soil colors and textures were similar to the Debenger soil however the Debenger soils are moderately deep (20 to 40 inches) over bedrock. Slopes are approximately 20°4 with a south to southeast face. The original soil mapping here shows Darow soils however Darow soils are deeper and darker in color and has much higher clay content. This area more closely fits the Brader- Debenger soil map unit, however, the shallow soil depths and slopes of 10 to 20 percent in this area take it out of"EFU" and place it in the Land Capability Classification (LCC) Vie. As stated above, I measured soil depths of l l inches in one pit and 14 inches in another. Unit 3 The strip along Kitchen Creek provides access to a community garden with raised garden beds. The eastern end (about 100 feet) of this creek bottom shows a live running stream. In places the soil meets the wetland defmition of hydric soils but it is not continuous due to the entrenchment of the channels and the material (rock and soil) dumped on site, probably from the fi'eeway construction. The original Soil Conservation Service soil mapping called the soils here Cove. Cove soils in their natural state are black, clay and very poorly drained on floodplains. In the natural state, Cove soils are classified as LCC IVw. The approximately 100 foot section from the community garden area to the freeway does not meet this classification and is not farmable due to the narrow width and the stream channel entrenchment. The area from the western boundary to the eastern access for the raised garden beds is not farmable due to the narrow width and raised garden beds. This area is not "EFU". Unit 4 South of this Kitchen creek strip is a slightly raised terrace of soil called Carney. It is in a temporary flooded condition from irrigation water. Carney soils are clayey, moderately deep (20 to 40 inches) and moderately well drabbed. They are classed as LCC IVe if not irrigated and IIIs if irrigated. The soil I evaluated here is very similar to and would be considered Carney soil. It was 36 inches deep to rock material. Unit 5 Moving south, the next area is a more northern facing slope and is very similar to the Debenger soil. The soil is moderately deep, 20 to 40 inches, I found weathered tuff at 24 inch depth. Slopes here are near 15 percent. This area was mapped by the Soil Conservation Service as Brader - Debenger soils. A complex of 60 % Brader and 20 % Debenger. I separated the Brader and the Debenger soils based on slope position and field evaluation. The Debenger soils are below the Brader soils which occur in Unit 6. This Unit 5 is mostly LCC IVe due to slope and soil depths however, it must be understood that there are shallow soils (less than 20 inch deep soils within this unit). These shallow inclusions will classify out as LCC Vie which is not suited for farm tillage. Unit 6 The southern portion of this property is a Brader type soil along the convex ridge. The Nepenthe road is in the complex of Brader soil and Rock outcrops. The soils are shallow to very shallow with a very high content of cobbles and stones in them. There are stones at the surface along this ridge area. Evidence of the cobble and stone content of this area is the row of rock 15agments along the fence line just south of Nepenthe road. This area is a combination of LCC Vie and VIIe depending on the stone/rock content. It is not "EFU". If a field review or specific questions arise, I will be happy to meet with you to show field locations or answer the questions. If you would like me to accompany you to the city of Ashland for questions or explanations, I am available. George J. Badura Professional Soil Scientist Attachments: 1. Map showing soil units with approximate acres. 2. Work history for George J. Badura Approximate ~il unit acreage's: Unit 1 - 2.75 acres Unit 2 - 2.81 acres Unit 3 - 1.00 acres Unit 4 - 1.17 acres Unit 5 - 2.93 acres Unit 6 - z~.34 acres Total of 15 acres. WORK ItlSTORY FOR GEORGE J. BADURA 1963 Graduated from Califbrnia State Pol~echnic College at San Luis Obispo, California with Bachelor of Science in Soil Science. 1963 - 1964 Trainee Soil Scientist with Soil Conservation Service in Cedarville, California, Modoc County ~vorking on the Surprise Valley Soil Survey. 1964- 1968 Soil Scientist with Soil Conservation Service in Alturas. California conducting soil surveys, developing soil management and soil drainage projects for agricultural lands. 1968- 1972 Lead Soil Scientist on the Klamath National Forest, Yreka, California conducting soil surveys, developing soil management prescriptions for tbrest projects and participating in Transportation Planning. Work centered in the relatively undeveloped Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains and the Coast Range Mountains. 1972- 1973 Lead Soil Scientist on the Nez Perce National Forest in Grangeville, Idaho developing soil management prescriptions for forest projects. Worked on development of the Land Management Plan tbr the NezPerce National Forest. 1973- 1974 Supervisory Soil Scientist for the completion and publication of the Siuslaw National Forest Soil Resource Inventory, Report. This work was in the central Coast Mountains of Oregon. 1974- 1976 Supervisory Soil Scientist for the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests Soil Resource Inventory mapping in the Coast Range Mountains and the Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains. 1976- 1998 Soils Program Manager for the Rogue River National Forest Medford, Oregon. Directed the completion of the Rogue River National Forest Soil Resource Inventory. Developed soil management prescriptions tbr seed orchards, progeny plots, timber sale projects, restoration projects and miscellaneous tbrest and nurseD' projects. Expert witness for the Oregon Forestry Dept. 1998 - To Present Started Small Business "Soil Management Services" consulting on wetlands, crop land, vineyards, home sites, soil fertility and soil surface and subsurface drainage conditions, and reviewing Environmental .Analyses and Environmental Impact Statements both tbr the Forest Service and other interested parties. Specialized Training: Soil Science Institute at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. Army Corps of Engineering Courses include - Soil Engineering, Drainage, Pavements, Roads and Airfields, Topographic Mapping and Photo Interpretation. Hill Property (known as the Matthews 15 Acres) Summa5.' of Soil Sur~;ey of Jackson Count3.,: Natural Resources. Conservation Services, Oregon Soil Survey Reports (USDA) The 3 to 15 % sIope of the site, the iack of absorption capacity for septic systems due to bedrock, and the wide range of soils in the immediate area suggested the testing and evaluation by Badura. The 15 acres is ranked as Class IVe. The "e" indicates that erosion is a major factor. An estimated depth of top soil is six (6) inches but full of pebbles and cobbles. The Shrink-Swell potential is moderate at 6 - 13 inches. A total of i5 to 35 % of the soil is clay. The current Mt. Meadows development is located on Darrow silty clay loam soils with slopes ranging from i to 20%. Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Eor example, in this area near to the Hill Property, there is Central Point sandy loam (3 lA) with 0 to 3% slope and Darrow silty clay loam (43B) with 1 to 5% slope as well as Brader debenger loam (17E) with a 15 to 40% slope. Some of the soils are shallow to bedrock. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. The amount of gravelly clay and rock in this area create conditions not suitable as septic tank absorption fields. The terrain, depth of soils, and prevalence of rocks and cobbles preclude this from being used for productive agriculture. Summary Prepared by: Carol N. Do~ ,:~ Dory Consultative Services P. O. Box 5!1, Bandon, OR 97411 Attachments: NRCS Information & Map pno~ ~q~u~daN OA!-~Cl ~opo0l~i u.co~unolsl '~S oulp'uoN 'IS ou!puoN © BOYDEN SURVEYORS "SINCE 1923" MARK E. BOYDEN R.P.L.S. ORE. 281 108 MISTLETOE ST., MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 PHONE (503) 773-6000 September 18, 2003 City of Ashland Planning Department c/o John McLaughlin Winbum Way Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Neil Ranch Property in Sec. 1,2, 11 & 12, T. 39S., Jackson County, Oregon R. 1 E., W.M. Dear John, From our recent discussions regarding a proposed extension of the Urban Growth boundary into the Nell Ranch, lying adjacent to the Northeasterly boundary of the Ashland Airport. Please find a rough map of the Neil Ranch to be added to the planimetric map previously furnished. The ranch has lost its usefulness as a cattle ranch. Please consider this very important addition, in stages, for the city's future planning. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss these matters with you and the city. Very truly yours, //Jo~ Nell Boyden t-~ark E. Boyden Enclosure MEB:sb 122° 40' 0.00" W 122° 39' 0.00" W ,.,, /. ...... [;.. ~z. M.., I _/¢ . ',.- ', ' X'!~..-I ...... --' -,'" " '" ' - -- - .i -. x. , , ~sy .' - ~ -, .' ,., '.:_u.~-, ', .-~ -i ' .:~...p( ..~' / n -~our ...... ,, 22° 38',0.00" W ,~ ~Zf 77 ' . '\ ! \, % _.. \ N.. Rt~ri ny, . ?.-,.:p r 122' 38' Name: ASHLAND Date: 10/7/2002 Scale: I inch equals 2000 feet Location: 042* 12'21.1" N 122° 39'27.1" W Ca ption~MA4~,~af~R RANCH / Aerial Target Locations Copyrlght (C) 1~7, Maptech, Inc, ''t