Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-24 Planning Joint SS MIN JOINT STUDY SESSION ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION JULY 24, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Planning Commission Chair Mike Gardiner opened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Other Planning Commissioners present were Ray Kistler, Chris Hearn, Mike Morris, Alex Amarotico, Marilyn Briggs, John Fields, and Russ Chapman. Kerry KenCairn was absent. Councilors present were Susan Reid, Cameron Hanson and Don Laws. Cate Hartzell arrived at 8:15 p.m. Mayor Alan DeBoer was absent. Planning staff present were Bill Molnar, John McLaughlin, Mark Knox, Maria Harris, and Sue Yates. REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CROMAN MILL SITE McLaughlin reported that an application has been filed with the Planning Department for a re-zone of this property. It was an old lumber mill site and it’s been in the process of being dismantled over the last few years. It is zoned Industrial now (about 60 acres). This evening’s presentation will be about an opportunity to redevelop the site in more of a mixed-use approach. This is a private effort being carried on by a local developer. This is a “testing of the waters” to see the direction the developer would like to go and see if that is the direction in which the City would like to go. McLaughlin encouraged questions. McLaughlin said this will be processed as a legislative amendment which pulls away the ex parte contact issue that the Commission and Council would normally have. Staff has not been part of this effort except for a couple of meetings with the applicants. Maurice Turono stated that he represents Galpin LLC. He has worked hard to provide a plan that provides some components that the city might need such as jobs, affordable housing and intermodal transportation. He introduced the rest of the team consisting of: Marci McInelly, Joseph Reid, Kerry KenCairn, Bill Barchet, Chris Galpin and Bud Kaufman. McInelly passed out some written information regarding the project. The site is between Tolman Creek Road and Highway 66 and Highway 99, to the east of Mistletoe Road and the edge of the city. McInelly gave some background about their involvement. Their company is Urbsworks. They participated in some Ashland planning projects, working with the members of the neighborhood on the B Street plan for traffic calming, the Railroad charrette and the Siskiyou Boulevard plan. Urbsworks has been involved with this project for about a month. They have contracted with Galpin. McInelly said most often Staff, not a private developer, initiates a major planning effort. They are trying to figure out how it works for everyone. McInelly said in looking at a zone change, there are three criteria to consider. One is providing a public benefit to the City. This is a unique site, zoned M-1 and one of the last remaining large Employment zones in the City. They are proposing something that while it has Employment as a major portion of the development, it is also providing housing. They are asking for a zone change for a significant part of the property to have housing. They are also asking for a zone change for a portion for a village-like development that will serve the Tolman Creek study area. One public benefit is that it continues to provide employment. A significant part of the housing is affordable. The mixed-use village is serving an unmet need of neighborhood oriented commercial for the Tolman Creek plan area. They would amend the property from Industrial to Employment, Multi- Family, Residential, Suburban Residential and change the zoning from M-1 to a combination of zones including E-1, E-1 with an R overlay, R-1-3.5, R-2, HC. They have spent the last several days looking at street connectivity and transportation including a street hierarchy, character of the streets and an open space network that links to regional open space. They have looked at the land use mix and how the development character changes from a village to more rural character as it moves across the site. McInelly showed a map of the site. In looking at the site and surrounding area, the first thing they identified is the Tolman Creek Plan that identifies a number of opportunities for this district. One is that Tolman Creek could create a new main street type of retail/commercial neighborhood that doesn’t exist in the neighborhood right now. There are large neighborhood shopping areas that serve them but they are relatively car oriented. They have also noticed one of the major constraints of the Tolman Creek Plan is that there really isn’t any land left to develop in that manner on Tolman Creek. The Croman site might fill this need. The slope of the site is beneficial for moving storm water, possibly using the street as a storm water conveyance system. The railroad tracks provide an impermeable edge. It provides a defined edge to the potential neighborhood, but would not allow for linking to any adjacent uses. Mistletoe Road has some challenges. They are considering realigning portions of Mistletoe. The natural area at the southeast corner is part of their proposed sites. It provides an opportunity for a southern entry because of the pastoral setting with the pond. There is a large filled area at the northern end of the site. They do not know what it will take to move it. They are considering using everything that is in that fill on-site. There is an opportunity where there is a significant grade change to have certain types of development that might lend themselves to two levels. Underground parking is a possibility without much cost. Or, it could be a good site for certain uses that need a cloistered location like an Alzheimer’s unit. Main Street. There are three basic components of the project. They are talking about a neighborhood scale It is located at the assisted living care center of the study area so it would serve the Tolman Creek neighborhood. A major part of it would be an facility developed in a village manner using approximately six acres and containing 115 units. There is a commercial commercial village square component that would fit nicely into a area along with retail. It is approximately 8.5 acres of the mixed residential total site. They are thinking of E-1 zoning with an R overlay as well as HC and R-2 zoning. There is a village portion that will be primarily residential and mixed housing types integrated from block to block. It would be 50 units of affordable housing in the form of attached dwellings and detached cottages. Mixed throughout this zone would be townhouses, duplexes, and small houses. All garages are located off the alleys. This would encompass about 19 acres of the site and possible zoning designations would be R-1-3.5, R-2 and E-1 with R overlay. The edge of the site along the railroad Employment uses. tracks is primarily They envision it as a riparian edge that serves to convey the storm water to the lowest part of the site. This creates a regional recreational facility along the railroad. This is approximately 15 acres and possible zoning designations for this would be E-1 and in some cases they would ask to maintain the existing M-1. McInelly explained the street map. QUESTIONS Barchet asked McInelly to explain the transit advantages. McInelly said there could be an opportunity for building a railroad commuter rail station and this might be a good location. There are also two possible footpath crossings. Fields wondered if they had done any calculations for number units, etc. McInelly said they are looking at approximately 160 residential units. Briggs asked if they had prepared a graph showing land inventory. Barchet showed a map of current inventory in each zone and what they are proposing. He had handouts on current inventory numbers. Barchet said they began with the City’s vacant lands inventory. He said historically, there has been little interest in development of M-1 land. High electric and water usage businesses are likely to be located on M-1 land. He said they have a contract to purchase the land owned by Lininger (LTM). Lininger’s intention is to move the batch plant off the property. McInelly added that M-1 no longer becomes compatible because there is not good access. Fields wondered if this is a logical place for people with medical needs. McInelly said this type of assisted living is less and less associated with health care facilities. A little more investigation needs to be done to see if a facility would need to be accommodated in this area or not. Laws said he would be concerned if there is no demand for assisted living and it doesn’t develop, that would leave a vacant spot in the middle of the development. McInelly said they have identified a need for this type of facility. Maurice said this developer envisions an integrated retirement campus. Chapman wondered if they see any conflicts with the school traffic and residents on Mistletoe. McInelly has not looked into that yet. Gardner wondered about water usage and if multi-family residential would use less than in an M-1 zone. McLaughlin said it depends on the nature of the use. It is unlikely we’ll have heavy water users come in for a large business. It was expected JOINT STUDY SESSION 2 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 24, 2001 there would be Employment uses. Employment uses less water than Single Family, and Multi-Family uses less than Single Family. It probably relates some to landscaping. Laws thought this development might impact us if it entices people to come here who wouldn’t have come here otherwise. If we start increasing our growth beyond one and one-half percent, then we are going to run out of the water capacity before 2020. Gardiner said the question to the developer would be: Would this plan impact that set of growth goals? Laws would like to see some figures making some alternative projections about that. Reid reminded Laws that with Mountain Meadows, many people moving there were existing residents within Ashland. That would make the existing homes available. Laws said there is a lot to this development besides just a retirement community. Reid did not hear “a retirement community”. She didn’t hear it was going to be Mountain Meadows but maybe something more like Mountain View on North Main. Laws heard both. Maurice said the total assisted care area would be about six acres. Gardiner asked if the employment opportunities would be for medical support jobs. Barchet anticipated employment is for multi-level care facilities. Maurice said it is difficult to project the type of employment needed. They propose to generate at least 250 jobs. The care facility would employ at least 75 people. Briggs would like to see a 20 year inventory figure. What will this development do to the total picture? After knowing that, she would be willing to talk about individual uses. Laws agreed. Morris asked if there would be any annexations involved in this development. Barchet said it is proposed for a later phase that includes about 60 acres. About one-half is designated as open space area. Fields believes transportation is major and we need to look at the transportation element and how many vehicle trips per day 160 units would generate. If the property stays E-1, how many vehicle trips would be generated? If we had E-1 with no residential, we would be fairly guaranteed that the more jobs we have, the more traffic we have but it would only be two vehicle trips per day. With residential, the whole transportation complexion would be different. There was confusion about what type of residents and businesses this development would attract. Fields sees a number of residents facing a 25 minute walk to the nearest grocery store. That may not be the place we want to have transit oriented design happening. There are not enough houses to support a grocery store. Reid wondered if there is a magic number where people will walk a certain distance to the grocery store. McInelly said there are studies that have been done and a desirable distance to walk is about one-half mile. Ideally, it would be desirable to have transit-oriented development and also create a small scale residential with some commercial. McLaughlin said they have heard some specifics and some ideas for the property. The three-colored map represents the change in uses that are proposed. Today the property is zoned M-1, most likely to be E-1 type of uses. On one map, a portion of the property is Health Care for an assisted living type of use and some attendant uses to that. Another map shows the more residential type of use and E-1 is another. Will this community benefit through the change and in what ways? Is it through affordable housing? Is it through the provisions of Health Care services? Is it through something more defined in terms of E-1 rather than 60 acres of an old mill site? Is it putting in specific services that make that happen? Or, is that developing in a pattern and in a location that is inappropriate for Ashland? Is that the wrong location for this type of residential? Or is the affordable component enough to generate the community benefit? Laws believes we’ve raised two questions--one has to do with need (land inventory) and the second is the impact on transportation. He would be interested in looking at the potential increase in trips from the maximum to the minimum using the proposed zoning. E-1 could be all residential or it could be all Employment. What would be the impacts on the entire transportation system--all of Siskiyou to downtown, all of Tolman Creek Road, especially the intersection with Mistletoe and the intersection at Siskiyou, and the south interchange? He would like to have this information before looking at the specifics. Briggs believes we need to know how the Fire Department feels about response time for the different categories. She would be curious about the kind of housing and the anticipated impact upon Bellview Elementary School. JOINT STUDY SESSION 3 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 24, 2001 Kistler said he is a bit sad we don’t have a more diverse economy in this area with some family wage jobs. It seems when land is re-zoned away from this, we tend to just get service oriented, near minimum wage jobs. He also hears that this huge piece of M-1 land is just sitting there and we are not getting the kind of development that will provide family wage jobs. Hartzell does not think we are actively recruiting to find businesses that provide family wage jobs. If we are bringing in a lot more housing, are we bringing in a lot more jobs that will sustain families over time? Kistler said we can talk about a family neighborhood by making the lots smaller, but it is not happening. Reid believes what drives manufacturing to White City is the cost of land. There is a conflict. Reid said we have put in broad band fiber network and what we have driven is the kind of businesses that use that or that take advantage of it. The policymakers have consciously done that and it has happened. Fields said we don’t know where technology will be in five years. Briggs said if this plan were to go forward, she has made a list of the kinds of things she would to see out there: Mixed use Underground parking Affordable Housing Railroad line to connect with the Railroad District Continuation of the bike path Part of the buildings could be saved for a historical museum. Pond surrounded with eco-trees McLaughlin said this is the very beginning of what could be an involved process. It is different for us to look at the needs of a private developer instead of the City taking the lead. If anyone has any ideas, issues, or concerns, be sure to let Staff know. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. JOINT STUDY SESSION 4 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 24, 2001