Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-0316 Council PACKET Important: Any citizen attending council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda,unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you wish to speak,please rill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion,the number of people who wish to be heard,and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL March 16, 1999 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers. II ROLL CALL: III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting minutes of March 2, and Executive Session of March 2, 1999. IV SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: 1. Presentation of retirement plaque to Assistant Fire Chief Don Paul. 2. Update and presentation by the Airport Commission. /VCONSEN,TAGENDA1Mnutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees, 2. Monthly Departmental Reports. 3. A motion to approve the move of a designated historic structure at 134 Church Street. 4. Approval of Liquor License Application from Don Mercer dba/Omar's, Inc. 5. Approval of Liquor License Application from Salvador De La Cruz dba Si Casa Flores. VI PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker. All hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent meeting). 1. Consideration of a Resolution calling a Special Election to submit to the voters the question of contracting a general obligation bonded indebtedness in the amount of$7,600,000 to finance the expansion and renovation of the city's historic Carnegie Library. Ci ouncil Meeting Pkt. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN CITY RECORDER VII PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total.) VIII UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) IX NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Council Meeting Look Ahead. 2. Request for Sewer Service outside the City limits, but within the City's Urban Growth Boundary (Bill and Shannon Beebe, agents of owner Mary Barr, 3103 E. Main St.) 3. Update and presentation by Fire Chief regarding priority dispatch. 4. Update and presentation regarding the Ashland Fiber Network. X ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: Reading by title only of"A Resolution of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, Calling a Special Election to Submit to the Voters the Question of Contracting a General Obligation Bonded Indebtedness in the Amount of $7,600,000 to Finance Expansion and Renovation of the City's Historic Public Library Facilities." Reading by title only of"A Resolution Reducing the Special Benefit Assessment Imposed on Parcel No. 2, Partition Plat No. P-33-1991 (Richey Property) in the Ann and Clinton Streets Local Improvement District No. 71." Reading by title only of"A Resolution Setting a Public Hearing to Hear a Petition For, and Any Objections to, the Vacation of New Street from its Intersection with Oak Street to its Terminus All of Which is Located between "A" Street and the s.,. , im rst uan ading o n Ordinance Requiring Minimum Response Times by Aerators for Life Threatening Emergencies." XI OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS: XII ADJOURNMENT: NOTE: The next study session will be held on Thursday, March 18 at noon in Council Chambers to discuss the Fire Station. April study sessions will be held on April 8 and April 22 at noon. 117:1.5-99 310\ 14: 16 FAX 51)9 lib 6447 OPRU HQ Z002 I• All decisions concerning certificates of approval under this section are subject to appeal to the board and/or pertinent city council as provided in Section 2.28 . 120. The ordinance should explicitly describe the action commission can take in response to a design review app that the The commission should have the lication. power to approve or reject applications, but it should also be given the power to suggest or require modifications to an application, or to postpone deliberation. The subject of postponement is a delicate one to a property owner in the midst of a remodeling job. The ordinance should require that the commission act on every application within a relatively short period of time following submission of the application, but that period of time sufficient should give the commission arid its staff provide that opportunity to study the application. Most statues an application not acted upon within thirty or perhaps sixty days is deemed to have been approved, but the ordinance should also permit the commission to block the automatic approval in specific cases where more time is needed. demolishoallandmark controls. building bwithin n historic property istrict is the single most controversial subject facing the drafter of an historic preservation ordinance. The issue is usually resolved in one of two ways. In some communities, the commission has the power to ultimately prohibit the demolition of historic structures. In others, the commission is limited to enforcing a delay period, structure. the ocommunit communities permanent denial tof a demolition permit is permissible, the delay tactic appears to be the sanction used most often to prevent demolition. However, an ultimate prohibition of demolition is a legally permissible alternative. The invocation of a delay serves several purposes. First, it allows private preservation groups, public agencies, or other parties the opportunity to formulate plans for the historic property that don't involve demolition. Delays also permit public opinion to be formed in hopes of convincing the owner to reconsider plans for. ,demolition. Some statutes authorize. the commission to extend previously=granted delays. if progress is being made -toward preservation of the property. A delay period should also be available .to' permit the to determine if a commission ..particular building is eligible for landmark status, even, .though , ;it has not .yet., been designated.- Such an interim protection provision is extremely important in order to protect historic properties which have not designated. yet been formally 51 (19 15,99 )ION 11: 17 FAX 505 373 6117 11 H9 10007 Eugene Municipal Code Section 2 . 414 provides a mechanism to protect buildings which have been identified on an inventory, but not yet designated as landmarks: 2 . 41 on-Landmark Historic Pro erties - building, structure, object or site has been identified as a primary (strong eligibility for city landmark and/or National Register status) historic resource in a survey acknowledged by the board and the State Historic Preservation office, a Permit for new construction, alteration, moving or demolition may be withheld for up to 90 days from the date of application. During that time, the city may decide whether it should be designated as an historic landmark according to the provisions in Section 2 . 407 . If demolition is permitted, the ordinance commission the power to require the owner to mit should give the igate the loss by documenting the building prior to demolition. Such documentation usually takes the form of detailed photographs of the building and/or drawings of particular features of the building. Since such documentation could be expensive, the ordinance should explicitly provide whether the property owner must bear the cost of the documentation. In addition, the statute should provide that the completed documentation must be deposited with a local or regional archive. If such documentation is required, the ordinance should give the commission the power to establish or adopt standards for the documentation. For example, the commission may decide to require documentation meeting the standards formulated by the Historic American Buildings Survey. Another might be to require preservation of certain hi form of mitigation storic elements of the building, and possibly setting standards for the disposal of the elements once they have been removed from the building. The ordinance should treat the removal of a building from its original site as requiring the same review process as a demolition. An example of an ordinance provision for the demolition or moving of an historic property is Eugene Municipal code Section 2 . 411 which provides: 2 . 41 Historic Pro ert MDv—inq and Demo ition - Procedure and Criteria. 1. No person may move or demolish an historic property unless the board or council has approved an application to do so and a building permit has been obtained from the building official . 2 . Pre-a lication re ireme is de olition . submittal of an app Prior to l property the owner shall n ndeavorl�to an historic economically feasible plan for its preserva tion. Ataa minimum, the owner shall solicit purchase offers for the 52 (13�15�99 )IOS 14:17 FAX 5(13 378 6447 UPRD NU m 001 historic property by giving notice of sale of the Property as follows: a • Listing the property in both the Registe__ r Guard and the Oreaonian at least eight times and at regular intervals beginning 90 days before submitting an application; b• Posting and maintaining a visible for sale sign on the property beginning at least 90 days before submitting an application; C. Making a financial prospectus on the status of the property available to interested persons beginning at least 90 days before submitting an application; and d. Listing the property in at least two preservation newspapers or magazines at least 30 days before submitting an application. 3 • A licatio submittal . An application shall be submitted in a manner prescribed by the planning director. A demolition application shall that include sufficient proof the pre-application requirements listed in subsection (2) of this section have been completed. 4 . N tice u lic ea in and decision. a• Unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period, the board shall conduct a public hearing within 45 days following receipt of a complete application. At least ten days prior to the hearing, the city shall post a notice summarizing the application and stating the time and place of the hearing in at least three places within 300 feet of the affected Property and mail this notice to the owners and occupants of the historic property, the applicant, and to the owners an occupants of property within 300 feet of the perimeter of the affected property. b• Within 15 days following completion of the hearing, the board shall decide whether to approve or Postpone the moving or demolition application. The decision of the board shall be in writing and contain findings and conclusions if a postponement is required. The board shall approve application unless the board finds that the Postponement will likely result in preservation of the historic property or retention of the historic property at its current site. A postponement shall be for a maximum of 120 days from the time a 53 15.99 MON 11: 18 FAX 507 378 6117 OPRD Ho ®OUS complete application is filed. The board may consider the following in assessing the likelihood Of preservation or retention: (1) the state of repair of the historic property and the financial and physical feasibility of rehabilitation, moving, or leaving the property in its current state or location. (2) the effects of the moving upon the use and development of the historic property. (3) the marketability of the property and the willingness of the property owner to sell the property. C. The city shall mail a copy of the board ' s decision within one day of the decision to the owner and occupants of the historic property, the applicant, and parties who have requested a copy, d. Unless appealed, board decisions are effective on the eleventh day after they are rendered. Before moving or demolishing an historic property, the applicant shall obtain the permits required by chapter 8 of this code. 5• ecord ::,If demolished and moved isto ical ro ertfes. If an historical property is to be demolished or moved, the board shall mitigate the loss by requiring the owner to produce one or more of the following: photographs of the historic property and its site; measured architectural drawings of the historic property and its designated historic features; and, additional graphic history, data, and commemorative materials . The documentation materials shall be the property of the city or its assignee. The board may also require that certain specific artifacts, architectural features, materials, or equipment saved from the building or structure are to be stored. The board may assign documentation and storage .00sts for no more than two years to the historic Property owner. 6. Appeals. Appeals shall be filed and decided in the same manner as provided by Section 2 . 407 of this code relating to designation appeals. 7. NNVw location designation. When an historic property is moved to a new location, the historic property status is automatically retained for that property at the new site unless the board, using the process required for designation, determines that landmark designation is no 54 113 '15.99 WIN 14: 18 FAX 503 318 6447 OPRD H9 QJOOti longer appropriate. If the property retains historic Property status at the new site, the board may review and modify the development standards and designation as L appropriate, using the processes required for designation. 6• Review Procedures for Public Projects. The ordinance should specifically state that projects sponsored by the city or other government agencies are subject to the same review as private projects. 9. Enforcement. Since the commission has the power to approve or reject certain activities, the commission should also have the Power to enforce its orders. Some other agencies will also have enforcement powers. For example, that a if the commission rules building permit or demolition permit shall not be violator can be fined or otherwise dealt issued, a with by the planning or building department. However, many actions of the commission will not be subject to enforcement by other agencies. exterior painting does not require For example, the issuance of a building Permit, but may nevertheless be subject to review by the commission, which must have the power to enforce its own orders. The commission should not be required to enforce its orders file a court action to , although an aggrieved party should have the right of appeal from the commission, as discussed below. In other words, an order issued by the commission should be enforceable by the building department or other agency without prior review, court approval, or other delay. Thus the commission should not only be Permitted to "comment" on alterations or demolitions, but also to order compliance with the rulings of the commission. In addition, the commission should have the power to rectify situations where its decisions have been violated. The two most commonly used remedies are fines and orders to restore. when the commission has the power to issue fines, the commission should be permitted to order the property owner to restore the property to its condition prior to the unauthorized alteration, and a restoration order should be capable of being combined with a fine. For example, the commission should be capable of ordering removal of an unauthorized addition to a building, together with a fine of $500 plus $50 per day for every day over thirty days that the illegal' addition remains standing. Although these remedies may seem harsh, the commission should have the power to impose them when . conditions warrant, such as a flagrant violation, and the maximum fines must be high enough to provide a deterrent. If the maximum fines are small , violators will view them as nothing more than permit fees. 10. Appeal and Review. The ordinance should specify the types of rulings by the commission that are subject to appeal or review, the procedures to be followed in seeking an appeal or review, and the body which will hear the appeal or review. 55 o3 '16,99 TCE 0.5: 16 FAX 503 778 6447 OPRU HU 01)D2 Title ? Ch. 978 H1STOltIC DISTRICTS AND 101 section, HISTIJRIC PROPERTIES .r of said MIAWY:P A.17-339 added subs« :On shall m9111.IsA.643I4deIrtedmvtoVS sua(opai ns.(bp),ai u1se fnw e w m drrWwViain il oe f ndi eidua S p openy i¢dbiri i a Tau eslaplish- it NdordinarAS amendments as$ubsea. b)md oncumng enlwyingdsstncta Orercelutg mwanns ill act U Submc.(d)roNtrlhen Subset., ( (e�Nacei pmvuiov rereommpaion mdrsiherybip,appammsnta.etc.in iwa vn¢nci,e end sw Placed pry.sgon fQ9 mplinl;nsfu dremu,memben enJ.ddu,g provldareasern urdanee TeSUI ncnb. 1djA previdsdr(,M sing talcs in subset.(e)rather Nan subset.(a)and'sdded 1I ad((leas remcW"I e,ords and n formaay requike tot pal>'dty-ago in ptepas(ny applications,added subeees.in mCf(he and(91 w paanan ail reo ds end information ayuind b b seat to Lite stain hial"al cemmivaian.asnendcd Provision re P in the sueptence o/yrents aM einy and emplor rat e(pcn¢ned,6o dy is Subaes.(a),and des ed it v Subsee,(h)enl V R each eddad subsea.U)end(j3 re mulrirle ca+,niniem and yAn One w more re)dcnb of hisbnc distfr2 be ind9ded ee cnennt w��'P.A.81411p amtnded$uysac.(J)m ruiulre Inat e years. 'W+amwion ae OrJnpus 4r alVJTelke. original C'ted 153 c.16o,cite.Ill C.199.cited 1294-.737.729. subr 6): sn and a cited.2270.7I.'/7,yr until his npcnsa- Sec. 7.147d. Certificate of appevpsiatel"CU: Parking areas, (a)No building or struetuto shall be erected or altered*4thin an historic district until after an appHcadon for a certiticatc of appropriateness as to exterior architectural feature'.has been submitted nsistent b the historic district commission and approved pppoved by said commission. icrnts In c No permit for eteeliw3 of a building Or struetutc or rot alteration of an exterior srchitecturd) feature within a7 historic district and no demolition permit for demolition or removal of a building or sttucturc within an historic district shall be issued iutions, by a in rueipality or any department, agency or official themof until s certitica(c of :gerein. appropriateness has been issued. A Certificate of appropriateness shall be required whether or not a building permit is required. only of der this (c) The histoi is disulct commusio7 may request such plans,elevations, specifica- and the bons,material and other information,ilicluding in the case of demolition or removal,a Histor- statement of tho proposed condition and appearance occticut or removal. Ac may be reasonably doattsed a by the commission to enable iit to during makoa determination on the application The style,material.size and location of outdoor )priate- advcn isingsignsandbillposterswithina nhistoricdistrictsha llalsobeunderthecontrgl rotation of such commission. The provisions of this ea ion shall not be construct! to extend to the color of palm used on the exterior of any building or structure. clerical (d) No areaVithin an historic district shall be used for industrial. .nmmercial,buea :he car- ne�Cs,home industry ur Occupational parl`ing,whether or not such area is zoned for such of such use,until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to parking has been submitted to the commission and approved by said commission. The provisions of this Section shall apply to the enlargement oral icration or any such parking area in existence h mule on October I, 1973. (1961,PAL 636,S.41 l%),P.A 41M.S.2:P.A.73473,S. I:P.A.60.310-S.4.) I SlatJt Ps air'e a p9r ieW of"Rillcalc and eecl ded fwl" naae Wills,ten�es,signs,light I'mures,steps and {b)re parting areas:P.A.84)14 de)ered"rte DANta4lor(rixn pmvitions orsection;P.A.13.473 added Subset. tuatiOn 1?CW a ^rmmsu ored moved ardemsllsbaJ"end rtm¢ued deanilionol'e=teriorns Aizeiural 5Mpos- slgnsard<slv;arpilnleOla�ysevtouslY 51)ftm'iriear�of app 9Driatanees.added$ubsec.(c)includine prnoo-", Sroups oe^Pldl'AJaa end reteti eref orme+Subsw.(b)sr(SVbab,:�,winsr rW ioforrnnien as neee:siry(or<ommission'sdecisian (d) a atlees Cited. 153 C.160.Cited.171 C.199.Cit.&189 C.777,729,133,738 Gted.)%C S%,t1rr, do walk Vie'•z9 CA 26.40.41. [ration Crr T-74'r.. a ,. r .. u9�16�99 TCE 08: 17 FAX 5113 978 6447 OPRD H4 ®003 108 MUNICIPALItIFS Tinc 7 I Ch, 970 I with the provisions of this oart;(2)reject the rellortot the committee.stating its reasons for such rejection: or (3) return the report to the historic properties study committee d molitionpc: with such amendments and revisions as it may deem advisable, for consideration by arics of an hiss the committee. The commiuee shall, within sit.ty-five days of such return, submit an or official the, ascended report to the Icgislative body and mail by certified mail a copy of the amended a1 propriatcnei report to the owner or owners of record of each proposed historic property covered by the report.The committee need nor hold a public hearing other than the one provided (c) The hi; for in subsection (d) of thin section. Unless pelwos holdiuy arty per cant ur more of I cations,mated theownershipinterestinaproposedhistoricprof)crtyobjecttotheproposeddwignation a statement of within thirty days of receipt of the amended report by written submission in the manner or removal, as set forth in this subsection,the legislative hndy of the municipality may accept or reject nM.lre adeterml the amended report as provided in this subscctitsn. adaertising sig (h) Any ordinordinance.or amendment thereof,enacted purs be under the c uant to this part,which des- construed toe. ignates or altars historic property boundatic., ritall curtain a Icgal description or the area to be included within each historic property. The legislative body, when It passes (d) No aroe such an ordinance, or amendment thereof,shall transmit to the municipal clerk a copy cor.unercial,be of the tndinanre..or amendment thereof. Such drdinaneo, or amendment thereof, shall - i-e zoned to, suc be recorded in the land records of the municipality in which such real property is located parking has bee and indexed by the municipal clerk in the grantdr index under the names of the owners (F.A,M-M,s., of record of such property. (P.A."MA S.7.) I ,Sec, 7.1471. Properties 7-147r. Historic Properties mmtnissl upty t applicatiot fon.(a)The first ordinance enacted by shall follow the I a murucipaliry to designate any historic properties shall provide for the creation of an siens in reviowi; historic properties commission and for the termination of the historic properties study tri".. committee or committees.The historic propenios eorrunission shall administer the pro- visions of this part relative to all historic properties then or thercdflvr dcsiguawtt by the municipality and. relative ro such historic properties. the commission shall have all tee 7.14711 of the powers and duties that historic district cdmmissions have over historic districts wise provided is pursuant to pan Iof this chapterrnceptAsisothe+svise provided in this part.Amunicipal appropriateness, sty may designate an historic properties commission to administer historic districts in take Into account accordance with part I of this chapter in the event that no historic district commission distriacommissi exists when the historic propenics commission iscreated.Amunieipality may designate nit an existing historic district commission to administer ng histuricdistr ister historic properties in accordance sof historic with this part. lion to any other p (b) The historic tamperiies cnmetiusion may from time to time,in accordance with rnr(totc and matt•. section 7.147q,initiate the designation of additilmal historic properties or the enlarge- only for the purr ment of the boundaries of an existing historic ptbperty, objes;ls, sires or p M-K 94-736,S.7.) of the historic prr (P.A.a4.296,S.6.) Sea 7-147s. Certificate of appropriateneft.(a)No building or structure located within the boundaries of an historic property shall be erected or altered until after an Set:. 7-147v, appticatiun for a eerlillcMe of appropriateness ak to exterior architectural features has conditions or loca been submitted to the historic properties commission and approved by such commission. ofanVprovision , No earthworks or site of recognized historic or archaeological importance within the hardah?p upon the boundaries of an historic property shall be aluevett until after an application for a tenth- cations shall have sate of appropriateness has been submitted to the historic properties commission and part,provided suc approved by said commission. purpoter:and intent (b) No building permit for erection of a but(ding or structure or for alteration of ptoyctt) shall be ' an exterior architectural feature within the boundaries of an historic property and no may impose such t fulfill(be purposes In n.7.16,99 TUE 08:17 FAX 507 378 6447 OPRU 110 Anna Tint 7 Ch. 974 HISTORI(J DISTRICTS AND 109 ' reasons HIST001C PROPERTIES i 'nmlaee, demolition permit for demoli6Onorrem ova IofabuiIdingOrstructurcwithin the bound- ation by ( aries of an historic property shall be issued by a municipality or any department,agency ibnut en L or official thereof until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued.A certificate of ,mended appfoprlarcuoss shall be required whether or not a building permit is required. �ered by irovided (c) 1?re historic properties commission may request such plans,elevations,spccifi- more of cations,material and other information,including in the tact,of demolition or remvval, ignation a statement of the proposed condition and appearance of property after such demolition manner or removal, as may be reasonably deemed necessary by the commission to enable it to orrcjw make a determination on the applieatiolt.The style,material,size and locationofoutdoor advertising signs and bill posters within the boundaries of an historic property shall alsn be under the control of such commission. The provisions of this section shall not be "ch des- construed to extend to the color of in of the paint used on[he exterior of any building or structure. ::posses (d) No area within the boundariesol'an historic property shall be used for industrial. 6.a copy commercial,business,home industry or occupational parking,whetheror not such area of, shall is toned for such use,until after an application fora certificate of appropriateness as to :located i parking has been submitted to the commission and approved by said Commission. owners T.A.94.286,S.a.) , Sec. 7-1471. Procedure for application for certificate.In reviewing and acting upon applications for certificates of appropriateness,the historic properties commission acted by shall follow the procedures set forth in=;lion7-147eforuaebyhistoriedistricteommis- on of an signs in mvic ing dppiications forcerrllicares of appropriateness affecting historic dis- es study i tricts. the pro- d by the (?.s.34.286.S.s) have all Sec. 7-147u. Considerations in determining appropriateness. 8xcept as other- districts wise provided in this part,in reviewing and acting upon applications for certificates of :ntctpal- I appropriarenncs,the historic properties commission ;hull apply the same srandards and ;:nets to take into account the sameconsidarauoneassetforthin section 7-147fforusebyhistoric mission district commissions in reviewing applications forcertificatesof appropriateness affect- csig^ate ing historic districts. In passing upon the appropriateness of alterations to earthworks or sites of historic or archaeological imponance.the commission shall consider,in addi- tion toanyotherpertincntfactors,theirvalueandsignificance,size,design,arrangement, ace with texture and materials. In its delibcrations,the historic properties commission shall act enlarge- I vnly for the purpose of controlling the etcetion or alteration of buildings, srructures, Objects, sites or parking that are incongruous with the historic or architectural aspects of the historic property. (P.A."-tae,S.6.) !OCatcd after an Sec. 7-147v. Vat-iatlorL% pentriM rle when. Where, by reason of topographical urec hse conditions or location or because of other unusual circumstances,the strict application c,tsston. of any provision of this part would result in exceptional tracheal difficulty or undue ithin the hardship upon the owner of the historic property,the commission in passing upon appli- a ccrtifi- cations shall have pnwer to vary or modify strict adherence to the provisions of this +ion and part, provided such variance or modifice..tion shall remain in harnenv v,;th th& r�ral • 03:15:99 XON 14:18 FAS 503 378 0441 OPRD H9 16007 Chapter 18.26 Demolition Standards -010 Demolition of Buildin s; A. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required before a building can be demolished, B. Application for permits for the demolition of buildings shall first be referred, for review, and recommendations, to the HARC Corn...ission, C. In considering the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a building, the HARC shall utilize the criteria, standards and procedures set forth in this chapter. D. Demolition of a structure may only be approved by the HARC when it finds the following to be true, in its opinion: 1. That the building in question is not designated on the Landmark List, or 2. That the building in question is not structurally sound, or has been condemned and cannot, in the opinion of the HARC, be restored for costs comparable to anew building of the same size and value, or 3. The existing configuration of the house and the uses permitted in the zone make the retention of the structure unfeasible and an unreasonable hardship on the property owner. 18.220 $t_�of De�o2' Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of any primary or secondary building or structure, a stay of demolition may be imposed by the ,HARC for 180 calendar days in the case of primary buildings, or 120 days in the case of secondary buildings beyond the normal review and action period for applications set forth in this ordinance During the stay of demolition notice period, the applicant shall; A. Provide mailed notice of the intended demolition or removal to the Southern Oregon Historical Society and State Office of ff1storic Preservation to seek assistance in evaluating the significance of the proposed action and alternatives thereof. B. Acknowledge that he/she is aware of information relative to financial incentives available for the renovation of historic structures. C, Utilize all available means to solicit broad public involvement in the preservation of the historic structure Or property by posting notice in a newspaper of general circulation within Jacksonville, on the property and in prominent locations throughout the City. 111,15.99 MOS 14: 19 FAX 501 178 61,47 OPRD HO IdjuUB D Seek purchasers of the huildi1111 or struCtui . which will result in structural renovation. This shall include: Listing the property in both the Medford Mail Tribune and the Oregonian at least eight times and at regular intervals, Posting and maintaining a visible 4 square foot "for sale" sign on the property, Making a financial prospectus on the status of the property available to interested persons, and Listing the property in at least two preservation newspapers or magazines with sufficient time for response. E Prepare a thorough photographic and architectural record of the building and site. This may include extensive photo-documentation or measured architectural drawings of structure and additional graphic history, data, and commemorative materials The documentation materials shall be the property of the city or its assignee. F Solicit public funds for the acquisition of fee or less than fee ownership of the building or structure. The applicant shall provide evidence that all of the above options have been adequately pursued. 1S.26.030 Issuance of a Certificate of A ro riateness for Demolition of a Buildin : A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be issued At the expiration of the stay of demolition period provided in this chapter, provided A The stay of demolition period may be extended 60 days for a total period not to exceed 270 calendar days in the case of primary buildings, or 180 days in the case of secondary buildings if the HARC determines that there is a program or project underway which could result in a public or private acquisition of the building or structure and that there is reasonable ground to believe that such program or project may be successful. B. If a valid written offer has been tendered to the property owner to move the building or structure, the property owner shall offer the structure, free from liens and encumbrances to that party free-of-charge and the party willing to move the structure shall thereafter be obligated to assume all costs associated with finding a suitable site and moving of the structure. Under these circumstances, a building or structure must be moved within 90 days following the date the offer for moving the structure has been accepted by the property owner. C A bond in the amount of the reconstruction value of a new building of the same size and value as the building proposed to be demolished is submitted to the city by the property owner. This bond will obligate the property owner to build a replacement structure within one year of the demolition. D Any artifacts, architectural features, materials, or equipment that HARC requires to be saved from the building or structure are salvaged and proof of storage and/or delivery to an approved assignee provided to the city. The HARC may assign documentation and storage costs for no more than two years to the historic property owner 113,1599 AON 11: 19 FAX 507 775 6447 OPRD H9 �iui9 18.26.040 Destruction I)v Fire or Casual[ Any primary or secondary historic structure dama5cd by fire or easualt or natural disaster, shall be entitled to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition within forty-five damage or destruction, provided: } five (45) calendar days following such Greater than fifty percent (50%) of the exterior wall area has been destroyed, or, B The appraised value of the remaining structure has been reduced to less than fift structure's true cash value immediately preceding such damage. } pu cent (50%) of the C Any damaged structure which does not meet the standards contained in Subsections A and B of this section, shall be subject to all demolition requirements contained in this chapter, or shall be restored, renovated or remodeled in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, 18.26.050 Removal of Landmark Des- nation: If a historic landmark is demolished, the landmark site is automatically removed from the Landmark List unless: A. the landmark was part of ensemble designated as a historic landmark; or B. the site itself was designated as a significant feature of a historic landmark; or C. other buildings, structures, or objects on the property are historic landmarks. Chapter 18.30 Exce tions to and Relief from Standards 1810 Ezce lions to and Relief from Standards: The HARC or City Council may grant relief from strict compliance with standards contained in this title in cases where documented evidence proves that it is impossible or,impractical to comply with the standard for one or more of the reasons set forth in the following Subsections. The facts and conclusions relied upon to grant relief from a particular standard shall clearly be set forth in the FrINAL ORDER of the HARC or City Council. A Exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to the subject property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, which conditions are a result of lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control tnake strict compliance impossible or impractical; or, B. Relief from the standard for reasons set forth, will result in equal or greater compatibility with the architectural and/or site planning style and features which exist in adjacent and nearby primary and secondary historical buildings; or C In the case of renovation or remodeling primary or secondary historical buildings, a finding that relief is neccssary to allow a particular archit(-rtural nr ;t- r , 09 15.99 NUN 14:21) FAX 501 178 6447 OPRD HQ (7) The process for removing a landmark or historic district designation may be initiated by the Board, the Commission, or by any interested person who submits to the director an application for removal of the designation. The Board may amend or rescind its designation by following procedures required by this ordinance for designating a landmark, including the adoption of appropriate findings. Secon 6. Demolition a d ovin . (1) No persons shall move, demolish, or cause to be demolished a landmark or a significant resource in an historic district director. , unless a permit to do so has first been obtained from the Application for a permit shall be on a form provided by the director and contain information deemed necessary by the director. (2) Upon receipt of a complete application, the director may issue a permit for moving or demolition if the resource is located Within a designated historic district and is classified as a resource that does not contribute to the character of the district. All other requests shall be Included on the agenda for consideration at the next available Commission meeting. 8 Of this The Commission shall hold a public hearing pursuant to Section application has dbeen received b cn 45 days after a complete y the department. (3) In determining whether the requested demolition or moving is appropriate, the Commission shall consider the following; (a) applicant;ans, drawings, and photographs submitted by the applicant; (b) Information presented at the public hearing concerning the proposal ; (c) Provisions of the applicable comprehensive Plan; (d) The purpose of this ordinance as set forth in Section 2 ; (e) The criteria used in the original designation of the resource. (f) If within an historic district, the resources contribution to the district and the subsequent integrity Of the district if the resource is demolished or moved; (g) Whether denial of the request will involve substantial hardship to the applicant; HISTORIC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE PAGE 5 80 07.15,99 )ION 14: 20 FAX 509 978 0447 OPRD Hy ®011 (h) Whether issuance of the permit would act to the contrartial detriment of the public welfare and be y to the purpose and scope of this ordinance; (i) The economic, social , environmental and energy consequences of demolishing or moving the resource compared to preserving it; and (j ) The physical condition of the resource. (4 ) The Commission may approve the demolition or moving request after considering the criteria in this section. If no appeal with3,all,o her c odes and ordinances ofe thercounty compliance (5) The Commission may disapprove the demolition request if after consideri or removal ng the criteria in this section it t a thn so ef historical or r rc should no bedemolished or moved. (6) The Commissi for on may postpone taking final action on a request issuance of a demolition or moving permit for a period fixed by the Commission as follows: (a) For landmarks, no more than 60 days following the date of public hearing. Further postponements may be made for a period not to exceed a total of 3,20 days from the date of hearing, if the Commission makes the findings specified in subsection (c) of this section. (b) For a resource located in an historic district, no more than 120 days following the date of public hearing. Further postponement may be made for a period not to exceed 210 ddas, with the total postponement not to Commission makes therf ndings specified ina subsectif (c) of this section. (c) Further postponements as stated above may only be made if the Commission finds: (A) There is a program or project under way that could result in public or private acquisition of the landmark or resource; and (B) There is a reasonable ground for believing the program or project may be successful . (d) After granting a further postponement, the Commission may order the director to issue the permit if it finds: HISTORIC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE PAGE 6 11-3,15,99 MON 14:21 FAX 507 379 6447 nPRD H9 fool (A) All programs or projects to save the resource have been unsuccessful ; (B) The application for demolition or moving has not been withdrawn; and (C) The application otherwise complies with county ordinances and state law. (7) A decision by the Commission to Postpone issuance of a demolition or moving disc a further postponement may be a disapprove or ppealed to the Permit Board by grant aggrieved party who appeared in person or through an attorney re the Commission hearing and presented or submitted testimony related to the request under consideration. An a be in conformance with Section 9 of this ordinance. ppeal shall (8) If no decision on the application is made b within the periods specified above, the director shall issue the Y the commission Permit. (9) At the time a demolition or moving application is made, director shall review or to is or with the owner of the the federal resource, to moving Preservation programs. 9 local , state and (10) During a period of Postponement, , the property owner to: Commission may require (a) List the resource for sale with a real estate agent for a period of not less than 90 days. The real shall advertise the resource in local estate agent and state newspapers of general circulation .in the area minimum of 10 days over a 5 week period. for e (b) Give public notice by posting the hearing notice on-site in addition to a "For Sale', sign which shall read: HISTORIC BUILDING TO BE MOV$D O R DEMOLISHED - th FOR SALE. Lettering on e sign shall be at least one foot in height, The sign shall be provided by the county Posted in a In and conspi and be cuous place within ten feet of a public street abutting the premises the resource is located. The applicant is responsible on which for assuring that the sign is posted for a continuous go_ day period in conjunction with (a) above. (c) prepare and make available any information related to the history and sale of the property organizations, and agencies who to all individuals, inquire, HISTORIC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE PAGE 7 �i.3 15.99 310S 14: 21 FAX 503 378 6447 DPRD H9 O13 (d) Assure that the owner has not rejected the highest bona fide offer for sale and removal of the resource. (11) Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the director shall issue a press release to local and state newspapers of general circulation in the county. The press release shall include, but not be limited to, a description of the sificance of removal, and resur , the reasons for the proposed igdenmolition or Possible options for preserving the resource. (12) As a condition for approval of a demolition permit the Commission may; (a) Require photographic documentation, preparation of architectural drawings, and other graphic data or history as it deems necessary to preserve an accurate record of the resource. The historical documentation materials shall inedthe property of the county or other party P b y the Commission. (b) be to Require that specific artifacts, materials, or equipment materials. The applicant h e owner may keep all such of persons capable of salvaging the resource. a list (13) This ordinance shall not be construed to make it unlawful for any person, without prior approval of the Commission, to comply with an order by the Board to remove or demolish any landmark determined by the Board health, or property. to be dangerous to life, Sectior�7, xterior Alter t o (1) No n New o s ruct 'on. Person shall alter a landmark or any significant resource in an historic district nor shall any new structure be constructed in an historic distr b t lore o o landmark site unless approval is fi n a rst obtained under this made section. a major anbhis Impr district o ement shall lese approved by the Commission. (2) Application. for alteration of a landmark or new construction in an historic district or on a landmark site shall be made to the director. The application by the director. shall 'be on a form provided by the director and shall contain information deemed necessary (3) The director shall approve the alteration-request if; , a) There is .no change in the a ppearance o resource as it exists; or r material of the HISTORIC LANDMARKS . ANDMARKS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE . Y PAGE a 2-20-1995 6:JJ4t I FRUtI GEORGE KR'At 1ER. t 1S HP SC 1 482 91=;8 p 3 vyr ♦ ' •\.M V'J �V \p.\ VVJ JIV VVYI VrEll OW X1111[ As Recommended by the Portland Planning Commission February 2, 1996 Demolition Review and Demolition Delay Introduces the chapter's demolition delay and review sections. 33.445.400 Purpose Over time circumstances affecting the balance of values on which a decision to Protect, a historic resource is based may change. Economic, energy or social values may grow in importance and out weigh preservation values. The economic consequences of such protection may also change. Circumstances may lead to a situation where preservation prevents the economic use of the property on which a protected resource is located. When these circumstances appear to exist it is appropriate to consider allowing the demolition of the resource. Demolition review can delay and, where appropriate, prevent demolition of certain historic resources- Delaying the demolition of historic resources provides time to explore opportunities to avoid demolition, relocate the resource, or salvage historic or architectural elements. This time also gives the community an opportunity to inform the owner of the benefits of renovation, or to pursue public or private acquisition and restoration. Requires demolition delay of all protected historic resources and a demolition review process for resources designated as Historic Landmarks that have used one or more of the historic preservation incentives. Protected resources are those listed in the City's Historic Resources Inventory, designated as landmarks, or included within a Historic or Conservation district. Maps identifying primary, secondary, contributing, and historic resources are included in the design guideline document for each district. 33.445.410 Historic Resources Subject to Demolition Restrictions Either a demolition review or a demolition delay period is required for the demolition of most historic resources. When demolition review is required the review process may result in the requirement of a demolition delay period. A. Demolition review, Certain historic properties may not be demolished or relocated without the City's approval. Consideration of a request to demolish or relocate such a property occurs through demolition review. Properties subject to demolition review are: 1• Historic Landmarks that have used one or more of the historic preservation incentives provided in this Chapter; and Page 40 2-20-199S 6:4SAM FROt 1 GEORGE KR4t4ER. t 1S HP Sd 1 482 91:;8 P, a rV• 1VVV •U✓ 'rV VV \IIY ,vV ,iV V171 Vl\t✓ IlW i .yJVVJ As Recommended by the Portland Planning Commission February 2, 1996 I I 2. Historic Landmarks that are listed oil the National Register of HiStotic Places. i B. 'Demolition delay. Unless exempted by the provisions of 33.846.050 Exempt from Historic Design Review and Demolition Delay, requests to demolish !the following resources will be delayed for 120 days i 1. Conservation Landmarks; I 2. Primary structures identified in Conservation Districts as being of primary significance, secondary significance, contributing or historic (maps identifying primary, secondary, contributing, and historic resources are included in the adopted design guideline document applicable to the district); '3. Historic Landmarks; 14. Structures in Historic Districts identified as being of primary significance, secondary significance, contributing or historic (maps identifying primary, secondary, contributing, and historic resources are included in the adopted design guideline document applicable to the district); and, I 5. Rank I, II, and III resources identified in the Historic Resources Inventory. Should the owner of a property included in the inventory as a Rank I, II, or III resource request that the property be removed from the inventory the property will be removed at the end of the demolition delay period. C Exempt from demolition review and demolition delay. Historic resources not assigned to Rank I, II, or III in the Historic Resources Inventory are ;exempt from demolition delay and demolition review. i I i I Page 41 -20-1995 b: 15411 F RUI I GEORGE KRAt4ER. t 1S HP 54 1 !82 0.138 P. 5 V J.1V. do VGV Vo.z4 r.AA JVJ J11 V441 vrnV nV let VV4 • I As Recommended by the Portland Planning Commission February 2, 1996 I Provides the schedule for starting the demolition delay period applicable to certain historic resources. Although this topic has been discussed extensively by the Landmarks Commission the provisions of this sectiosl are th 1 ose of state law as listed in SB 588 adopted by the 95 legislature. 33.445.420 Demolition Delay Period Timing Historic resources subject to a demolition delay begin their delay period the day the City receives the application for a building permit for demolition. Historic Landmarks subject to demolition review may have a demolition delay period imposed as a result of the review. When the review body imposes a demolition delay period as part of their decision, the delay period begins the day the review body's decision is final. i I Requires demolition review of Historic Landmarks that have taken advantage of the incentives for historic preservation provided by this Chapfer. 33.445.430 Demolition Review of Historic Landmarks. The deolition review requirements of this section apply to Historic Landmarks that hav me received approval to use one or more of the historic preservation incentives provided by this Chapter. A. Purpose. Demolition review ensures that historic resources that have taken advantage of an incentive for historic preservation are protected. B. Review sequence. A building permit for demolition will not be issued before a final decision has been given in a demolition review and the appeal period has expired. C. I Actions. Demolition review will result in: 1. Denial. The review body may decide to deny a permit to demolish or relocate the landmark; or 2• Delay and conditions. The review body may delay issuance of a permit for demolition or relocation. They may impose a delay of up to a year in issuing a permit for demolition. The review body may include conditions of approval in their decision to approve issuance of a permit for demolition or relocation. At the end of the demolition delay period a i permit for demolition or relocation may be issued; or Page 42 -.0.1995 6;4bA1d FROrl GEORGE KRAt IER. tIS HP S41 4 82 94_$ • • WjVUJ As Recommended by the Portland PIanning Commission I February 2, 1996 3. Demolition. The review body may approve the request for demolition and remove the resource's landmark designation. The review body may i approve the relocation and either remove or retain the relocated i resource's landmark designation. When the decision is final and the appeal period has expired, a permit for demolition or relocation may be issued To ensure the cbmmunity's awareness of the pending demolition, posting and a notice of the proposal is required. The City's zoning fees will also need to be amended to reflect the subscription notice service for interested parties'. The subscription fee will be $50.00 per year. These provisions create an opportunity for discussiolt of alternatives to demolition before a historic resource is demolished. Alternatives to demolition whicli may be explored include preservation, relocation, or salvage of significant architectural features or historic artifacts. 33.445,440 Notification of Demolition Delay A. Applicability. Posting and notice of an application to demolish a his resource is required for historic resources subject to a demolition delay. I3. Posting a demolition notice. Within 14 days of the start of a demolition delay Period, the owner or the owner's agent must post a public notice on the site of the historic resource proposed for demolition. The posting must meet the fI ollowing requirements: 1,. Number and location of posted notices. Notice must be placed on each street frontage of the site occupied by the historic resource proposed for demolition. Notices must be posted within 10 feet of the street lot line and must be visible to pedestrians and motorists. Notices may not be posted in a public right-of-way. 2. Content of the posted notice. The notice must include the following information: a• The statement: "Structure to be demolished;" b. The address, if any, of the structure proposed for demolition; i Page 43 2-20-1995 6:46At4 FRO 1 GEORGE KPAPIER. t G HP S41 482 9438-, �V P. As Recommended by the Portland Planning Commission February 2, 1996 t I c. The statement, "Demolition of this structure has been delayed to allow time for consideration of alternatives to demolition. Alternatives to I demolition might include restoration, relocation, or architectural salvage;" d. The name, address and telephone number of the owner or the party acting as agent for the owner; e. The date of the posting; and f. The date the demolition delay period will end. •3. Removal of the posted notice. The posted notice may not be removed until the demolition delay period is ended. The posted notice must be removed within 30 days of the end of the demolition delay period. G Notice to recognized associations. Within 14 days of the start of a demolition delay period, the Director will mail a notice of the proposed demolition to all recognized organizations within 1,000 feet of the site on which the resource is located and to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). If the proposal is to demolish a resource located in a Conservation or Historic District and the district has a Historic Advisory Committee that has been recognized by the neighborhood association or the Historic Landmarks Commission notice will also be sent to the Historic Advisory Committee. The notice will include the same information as in Subsection B, above. D. Notice to other interested parties. The Director will maintain a subscription service for organizations and individuals who wish to be notified of applications for demolition of historic resources protected by demolition delay. There is a fee for this notification service. Within 14 days of the start of a demolition delay period. the Director will mail a notice of the pending demolition to all subscribers. The notice will include the same information as in Subsection B, above. i i I • I i Page 44 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL March 2, 1999 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m., in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Laws,Reid,Hauck,Hanson, Wheeldon,and Fine were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilor Fine requested that his statement on the bottom of page 5 of the regular minutes of February 16 be amended to read as follows: "Fine indicated that while he feels the$2000 requested is reasonable,he has concerns that this might give the appearance of the City's endorsement of a government that has never held free national elections in the lives of those present in the City Council chambers." The minutes of the regular meeting of February 16, 1999 were approved as amended. The minutes of the executive session of February 16, 1999 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS&AWARDS 1. Mayor's Proclamation declaring the month of March, 1999,as Hunger Awareness Month. Mayor Shaw read the proclamation in its entirety. Councilor Hauck noted the existence of the Ashland Emergency Food Bank as another local resource in the fight against hunger. 2. Mayor's Proclamation of Y2K preparedness. Mayor Shaw read the proclamation in its entirety. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards,Commissions and Committees. 2. Monthly Departmental Reports. 3. Six-month Financial Report for period ending December 31,1998. 4. Approval of Liquor License Application from Gerald Allen dba/Oak Tree Northwest. 5. A motion to adopt the findings for the approval of Planning Action 99-006, "Neuman" Annexation (Applicant.Doug Newman),adjacent to the Washington Street extension,east of Jefferson Avenue and north of the railroad tracks. Reid asked that item 3 be pulled for discussion. Councilors Wheeldon/Hanson m/s to approve the remainder of the consent agenda. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing to levy special benefit assessments for Lot 129 and reducing assessments for Lots 126 and 127 in the Dogwood Way Local Improvement District#75. Public Works Director Paula Brown provided background on this item,noting that the LID notice was sent out with lot 129 missing and lots 126 and 127 assessed for full lots when each should have been assessed half. Noted that lot 129 had been noticed of this hearing,and that no response had been received. City Council Minuta 0310111999 Public hearing opened at 7:15 p.m. No speakers came forward. Public hearing closed at 7:15 p.m. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Levying Special Benefit Assessments in the amount of$1,791.64 for curbs, gutters,and paving improvements for Lot 129 and reducing assessments for Lots 126 and 127 in the Dogwood Way Local Improvement District No. 75." Councilors Hauck/Fine m/s to adopt Resolution#99-15. Roll call vote:Laws,Reid,Hauck,Hanson,Wheeldon, and Fine,YES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM Skip Andrews/AshlandY2K Community Preparedness Group/Thanked the Mayor for her proclamation. Suggested that the risk inherent in the uncertainty of the Y2K situation justifies contingency planning as insurance. Emphasized that the potential problem has less to do with computers than with people's reaction. Requested that the City appoint an officer to coordinate neighborhood and community preparedness, perhaps organizing the City by grade school districts. Stated that it is advisable to prepare for a few weeks of problems,and suggested that a liaison between the City and the citizens was essential to preparedness. Mayor Shaw suggested Councilor Hanson take on this position. Brent Thompson/P.O.Box 201/Asked that the Council sponsor the Alternatives to Growth-Oregon workshop which is to be held at the Ashland Community Center on April I I'from 10:00 a.m.to 3:00 p.m. Also requested that the fee for renting the Community Center be waived. Mayor Shaw asked that this item be moved for discussion under"New and Miscellaneous Business" later in the meeting. Ryan and Eric Navickas/711 Faith Avenue/Expressed their concerns about the proposed expansion of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area.Discussed hazard zones and potential landslide areas,and noted their concerns that the City should try to encourage a more sustainable project. Noted the possibility for public images problems and a possible boycott of the City by environmentally-conscious tourists. Councilor Fine noted that a study session had already occurred on this issue,with testimony from scientific authorities,and that this presentation would have been more timely if it had occurred at that session. Councilors Laws/Wheeldon m/s to extend the public forum by seven minutes to allow time for the remaining speakers. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Amy Amrhein/804 Ashland Street&Barb Heyerman/555 Carol Street&Kevin Cooney/1280 Madrone Street/ Representing the Ashland Schools Coalition. Expressed their concerns with the funding of K-12 education in Oregon, emphasizing that the proposed budget would mean the loss of six teachers in Ashland. Noted that they have been lobbying at the state level,and are very concerned with the education funding levels in the proposed budget. Asked for a resolution of support from the Council that they could take to the Legislature to urge adequate funding for the local school districts. Councilors Reid/Wheeldon m/s to place this item on the agenda. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Reid/Wheeldon m/s to direct staff to work with the Ashland Schools Coalition in drafting a resolution in support of finding more funds for education at the state level. DISCUSSION: Mayor Shaw stated that she supported the idea of a resolution,and Reid endorsed this option. Laws stated that he feels the situation with the state's funding of education is unfortunate,but he is uncertain where additional money might come from. Cooney suggested that school funding should be the number one priority,despite the fact that when adjustments are made for inflation,the proposed budget would spend less for education than was spent in 1991. City Council Minutes 0310211999 2 Emphasized that 20 teaching positions have already been eliminated in Ashland since Ballot Measure 5 was passed,and the proposed funding levels would require the elimination of 6 more. Shaw suggested that she believed that funding levels in Ashland have actually increased since 1991,but are still not enough to meet needs. Shaw suggested that the"kicker"state tax refunds should be kept and used to fund education. Shaw also noted that people had the option of giving their personal"kicker"refunds to schools,and suggested that an increase in the City's recreation serial levy be considered. Emphasized that the proposed levels of funding are unacceptable,as students need to be prepared to compete in today's world. Amrhein stated that two steps are necessary here-a short term way of dealing with this emergency situation now,and a longer term means of finding some stable financing. Wheeldon stated she was uncertain where cuts could occurto find money for education at the state level,but emphasized that State Representatives are in office to figure this out,and the people need to send them a message to try harder. Shaw urged the Council to agree to draft a resolution, to include the suggestion that the state to keep the "kicker" refunds and earmark them for education. Fine noted that he supports a resolution, but had concerns about where funds could be found. Suggested that the proposed resolution be mindful of the fact that finding funds for education should not mean abandoning programs for the disabled,state highways,police,or other essential state services. Laws questioned whether the"kicker"refunds were adequate to address the problem,and suggested that a resolution should indicate that proposed funding is inadequate,emphasize the need that education be a top priority,and urge the state to find adequate funding for K-12 education. Councilor Reid/Wheeldon m/s to amend the motion to include Councilor Laws concerns. Voice vote on amended motion: All AYES. Motion passed. Amrhein noted that on March 9'",there would be a"State of the Budget"meeting with John Daggett and Loren Luman. On March 11'",there will be a letter writing campaign at several middle schools, and on March 13'", at McLaughlin Junior High in Medford there will be a Community Forum with state legislators. Noted the need for the drafting of this resolution in a timely manner. Amrhein confirmed for Wheeldon that she believed the Ashland School Board supported the efforts of the newly formed Ashland Schools Coalition. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Council Meeting Look Ahead. City Administrator Mike Freeman offered to answer any questions the Council might have about the Look Ahead. The Council had no questions 2. Update on the Oregon Department of Transportation Draft 2000 - 2003 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan. Public Works Director Paula Brown explained that this was a quick status update on the proposed plan,and emphasized that she had fought to be sure that the improvements to Siskiyou Boulevard from 4'to Walker were included. Noted that the listed projects were important to a jurisdictional exchange,as the funds listed would be part of any exchange payment. Emphasized that discussions of an exchange are at very preliminary stages. City Council Minute 0310211999 3 Reid questioned whether the barrier near the signal at 2nd and Lithia would be removed,as it affects handicapped access. Brown stated that she believed all three signals would be corrected in that stretch and that all would be brought up to current code. Stated that she would verify this with ODOT. Brown confirmed for Wheeldon that signals would be improved to current standards at the time of repair. 3. Overall status update on the Wastewater Treatment Plant and related issues. Brown noted that improvements have been significant,and pointed out two small changes in the contract. Explained that the current pump station is awful,as are the pumps. Stated that preliminary costs for replacement with a new pump station were under $1 million, including design, and without replacement there is the possibility of a raw sewage overflow into the Creek. Noted that this station was a problem during the 1997 flood as well. Stated that she would like to move ahead with the necessary pump station improvements and include them in the coming budget process. Reid stated that she supports these improvements,but questioned why this issue was not raised in the original discussion. Brown explained that in the 80's when the project began,they were looking at it as part of the bigger picture and had proposed pump replacement in the plan twenty years ago. The pumps were replaced, but an entirely new facility is really needed. Stated that she thought this had been included in the project 3 years ago, but that it was apparently missed. Explained that the pump station is more than forty years old,working conditions are horrible,and the station is really not worth further efforts to rehabilitate it. Wheeldon questioned the varying reports of final costs she has heard. Brown noted that the last page of the update presented in the Council packets includes costs. Explained that it is difficult to compare costs between the various studies that have been conducted,as they do not allow for an apples-to-apples comparison. However,the$28.4 million figure is the total cost as the entire project currently stands,and includes the wetlands,the land purchase,and the pump station replacement. Council discussed the Food and Beverage Tax, and noted that it had never been intended to pay for the entire Wastewater Treatment Plant. The tax was to be combined with sewer rates to fund the project,and as costs rise there will need to be an increase in sewer rates as well. If the project comes in below estimates,sewer rates would be reduced. Brown noted that staff was looking at final costs,and has spoken with the DEQ about varying the loan for an additional amount. Stated that it appears that the DEQ would be willing to allow this to replace the pump station,and this would ensure low interest rates. Wheeldon questioned if the improvements would bring treatment up to a Level 4. Brown stated that it would not. Explained that the project is presently almost three months ahead of schedule. Explained that the oxidation ditches should be done in June or July,and that things are on schedule and going well. Pointed out that the ultra-violet system is up and running,which meets the first hurdle in complying with DEQ requirements. With regard to the off-site spray irrigation/bio-solids reuse program concerns,noted that the area involved is nearly%, the size of the City(1.25 square miles for the site versus 5.2 square miles of City lands). Noted that the design is 95% complete. Noted that DEQ review has occurred for the spray irrigation,bio-solids and interaction with the Wastewater Treatment Plant,but that there has been no final approval. The DEQ has asked for further detail on the bio-solids area, relative to whether tilling would occur and what the application rate would be. Stated that the Oregon Water Resources Division of Dam Safety has given conceptual approval but has asked for monumentation details, having to do with preventing the movement of the larger facility. Explained the site arrangement, noting slope stability concerns which have been addressed by the arrangement and construction of the bases. Stated that the effluent reservoir has the capacity to hold 65-69 million gallons of water,and that this is 30-days of storage for the year 2020 demands. Emphasized that storage will only be used in the summer City Council Minutes 0310211999 4 when it is too wet to spray. The placement is such that it is in the most stable location,and avoids creating cut banks and unstable soil areas. There is also storage for one year's worth of processed bio-solids. Explained the drying process on the site,and noted the irrigation zones and the placement of"big gun" sprinklers to spray treated effluent. Each of the five zones will have one sprinkler on for 10 minutes,and then the sprinkler will change based on conditions in that zone, including wind,weather and soil saturation. Emphasized that the sprinklers will not spray if there is a possibility of drift,and that there are sensors to detect run off and turn off the spray. Noted that there will be water in the reservoir in May,and then again from September to November or December,and that the City can discharge into the creek beginning in November or December when the creek flows are up. Further discussed the site and the possibility of failure of the systems. Noted that while there is a possibility of slumping in wet condition,catastrophic failure is not possible given the design.. Brown confirmed that there would be no run-off,and that if run-off did occur,it would collect in the tail-water areas. Emphasized that these will address what they consider to be a worst case scenario-that one sprinkler was left on for 24 hours. Discussed level 2 treatment versus level 4,noting that level 2 is considered to be suited to agriculture re-use. Brown stated that treatment to level 4 might increase project costs by$2 to$2'/2 million or more. If conditions were as they have been in peak months, with 5'/: million gallons per day(mgd)produced, costs would be as much as$4 to$4'/2 million more,and discharging into the Creek would still not be permitted. Explained that this had to due with DEQ phosphorous standards,and also noted that the chlorine used in level 4 treatment would be bad for agricultural use and fish. Stated that level 2 treatment is acceptable for agricultural use under DEQ health and safety standards, and that if treatment were raised to level 4 for Parks use, it would be even more costly still as a distribution system would be needed. Shaw questioned if raising the treatment to level 4 now would save money over the long run. Brown stated that it would not. Laws noted earlier cost estimates of$40 million to return water to the Creek,and questioned,with recent advances in technology,what the cost would be to return the water to the Creek now. Brown stated that this would require tertiary treatment,and she did not have numbers readily available. Laws questioned if some portion of the$9 million being spent on off-site facilities could be added to the treatment plant for tertiary treatment,and Brown noted that there would still need to be money spent on off-site facilities to address the bio-solids. Brown clarified for Laws that there could be an anaerobic digester added adjacent to the treatment plant site,but that up to ten truck loads of bio-solids would need to be directly applied to some site. Laws requested that staff bring back ball park figures and details for getting back to discharging into the Creek. Shaw concurred,and also stated that she would like to know the costs for the various options required to address bio-solids through off-site irrigation versus keeping things closer to the plant,and to what degree funding could be pulled from the off-site improvements to upgrade the treatment plant for tertiary treatment. Reid suggested that the value of the land at the spray irrigation site also needed to be considered. Reid stated that there was a need to talk about wetlands again. Freeman stated that a discussion had occurred some weeks ago,and it was determined that wetlands site was not a likely solution. Brown noted the neighborhood meetings that had occurred,and cited the concerns that were raised:odor,site geology, impact to TID canal,effluent/bio-solids disinfection levels,hillside appearance,effluent sprinkler system and farming practices. Explained that the proposed agricultural use of the site would be for rotated cattle grazing,as is done in Napa City Council Minutes 0310211999 5 Valley in California. Noted that there is still a LUBA appeal decision pending,which Nolte indicated should be issued April 15th. Hanson stated that Laws had a good point in seeking to considering upgrading the treatment plant to allow discharge back into the Creek. Emphasized that he,and many people in the community,do not like the idea of spraying,and he feels that the Council should look at putting water back into the Creek. Shaw called a break at 8:30 p.m. Opened to public comment at 8:42 p.m. Mayor Shaw noted that speakers would be strictly limited to three minutes to ensure that there was time for all those who wished to speak tonight. Steve Pierce/700 Butler Creek Road/Read a prepared statement in opposition to the off-site spray irrigation site. Stated that the proposed use is a dangerous and improper use of EFU land,and that an Environmental Impact Study should have been done as part of the planning process. Efforts at community meetings on behalf of the City have only been patronizing attempts at placating citizens. Because of this,the citizens'group has initiated LUBA litigation.Noted frustration at withdrawal of the County Conditional Use Permit application, and expressed concern for potential environmental effects and devaluation of property. Noted instability of the site, and concerns over landslides. Suggested that the proposed agricultural use of the site is merely a way tojustify final treatment of effluent and sludge on EFU land. Questioned the presence of pathogens in bio-solids. Suggested hooking up to the BCVSA pipeline or looking in to better filters at the new treatment facility. Urged the City to follow the Valdez Principles that it has endorsed. William Craven/1999 Eagle Mill Road/Emphasized that he is not one of those involved in LUBA litigation. Stated that in response to Brown's comments,he has spoken to Dr. David Lewis, PhD., an EPA researcher on the issue of hazardous waste. Noted that Lewis is currently serving as an expert witness in a New Hampshire wrongful death suit due to sludge fumes. Stated that according to Lewis,EPA sludge rule 503 was passed without the consensus of EPA scientists or the outside scientific community. Expressed concerns that the ultra-violet treatment does not work according to Lewis,that treatment is not to the level originally promised, and questioned the effectiveness of the big gun sprinklers in limiting drift when wind is a factor. Stated that this is a threat to the tourism economy,as well as to the health and well-being of the community. Suggests that the spray irrigation project be scrapped. As it is,the project has missed addressing the health and environmental concerns of the community. Laura Craven/151 Ashland Acres Road/Conceded her time to William Craven. Bonnie Ryan/1330 North Mountain Avenue/Stated that she is a Rogue Valley Medical Center neo-natal nurse,and lives within a few feet of the spray site. Expressed concerns about the potential pathogens released through the spray irrigation process. Suggested that this might be of particular concern given the number of older people in the retirement community nearby. Joseph Iverson/1720 North Mountain Avenue/Stated that his home is the second closest to the project,and feels that there is a significant risk to the neighborhood and the community. Quoted a University of Arizona study concerning the danger of pathogens,viruses and parasites in sewage sludge,and the difficulty in accurately measuring the presence of pathogens. Stated that the project is a serious mistake that has been inadequate in considering the safety of the neighbors and the community. Urged the City to use tertiary treatment to discharge into the Creek or to use the BCVSA regional treatment option. City Council Minutes 0310211999 6 Larry Bradford/720 Meadowlark Way/Noted that he worked on the Sewer and Water Board in Mendocino,Cali fornia before moving to Ashland,and he saw how project costs could escalate. Noted that in speaking with the superintendent of the Mendocino Wastewater Treatment Plant, concerns were raised with level 2 spraying as it creates a bacterial aerosol effect and is very dangerous. Suggested that the Council's decision to pursue this project has isolated it from the community,and it should reconsider before proceeding. Emphasized that BCVSA or discharge into the Creek are both viable options,and both are safer than spray irrigation. Katherine Iverson/1720 North Mountain Avenue/Spoke of the "Mulholland Effect",wherein William Mulholland built the Saint Francis dam in the San Fernando Valley,and the dam broke killing more than 450 people. Concerned with the 13-acre reservoir on this site, when there are earthquake faults nearby, as well as homes. This causes nightmares for her,and she does not feel the City can legitimately say that catastrophic failure is not a possibility. Asked why the City would continue on its present course when there are better options available. Tertiary treatment allows San Luis Obispo,California to return water to their creek. Patricia Tilford/1235 North Mountain Avenue,#5/Manages the mobile home park,and is the second parcel below the proposed dam. Represents the park's owner. Noted that when their septic system had to be replaced,they had to bring the treatment to level 4 on their own land. Questioned why this standard should apply to the citizens and not to the City. Cannot believe that spray from the sprinklers will not carry,and applauds Councilors Laws and Hanson for their suggestion that other options be reconsidered. Emphasized the importance of this issue,and urged a decision that takes into account the health and safety of all involved. Begged Council to look at other avenues to address this issue. Closed to public comments at 9:05 p.m. Brown responded that the DEQ has said that level 2 treatment is acceptable. Stated that the project does not pose a threat to public health or the environment. Noted that her memo in the Council packet addresses the issue of pathogens. Explained that level 4 is treated ten times more than level 2,and while treatment at the Wastewater Treatment Plant exceeds level 2 it is not meeting level 4. Stated that spray irrigation can be controlled,because there is a three hundred foot buffer zone. Emphasized that this exceeds the state's seventy foot requirements,and was done in order to address concerns over wind. Hauck questioned the timeline necessary for DEQ compliance,versus looking at other options. Brown stated that the City has until December of 2000,with application at the spray irrigation site to begin in May of 2001. Construction needs to begin summer of 1999 to meet the DEQ requirements. Brown stated that she could provide Council with a quick financial analysis of alternatives in April,but without a full design being in place there would need to be DEQ approval for an extension. Noted that the City has failed to meet DEQ deadlines in the past,and while DEQ has been flexible,they would be very skeptical of allowing discharge into the Creek without meeting their goals. Shaw questioned Tilford's statement that a septic system had been required to treat at level 4. Brown stated that she would need to look into that. Laws clarified that the DEQ's allowing agricultural use at level 2 is because the area is a restricted site. Wheeldon questioned the pathogens in sludge. Brown noted that the current process would be different if there was tertiary treatment at the treatment plant, due to the use of a digester. Brown stated she would bring information on options back to the Council, and noted that her source of scientific information is Carollo Engineers and their subcontractors. Brown clarified that sludge is not considered to be"toxic waste"as suggested in some public comments. Brown also noted for Council that there would either be staff on-site at the spray irrigation area or regular daily monitoring with routine checks 3-4 times each day. City Council Minutes 03/02/1999 7 Laws questioned the possibility of transporting waste to Medford for class V treatment and release into the Rogue River. Noted his concerns for the potential effect this would have on Grants Pass' water supply. Reid and Shaw asked that Brown look into the article mentioned by Mr. Bradford mentioned from Mendocino, California,and bring information back to the Council about how this information relates to what is being proposed here in Ashland. 4. Removal of the property at 209 Almond Street from the Ashland Heritage Landmarks List. City Attorney Paul Nolte noted that,as explained in the packet,there is a state statute which states that historic status may not be imposed without consent,nor may removal from a historic landmark lists be prevented. Stated that by state law,the City must remove this property from the landmarks list at the owner's request. Noted that the letter received from the owner's attorney requested removal from the list, and this falls under the state statute. Emphasized that the Council has no discretion in this matter. Hauck clarified that the City adopted the Heritage Landmarks List in 1989, with this property included without the owner's consent. At the owner's request,the Council must now remove the property from the list. Fine agreed fully with Nolte,explaining that by his reading of the law the Council has absolutely no discretion in this matter and must grant the request. George Kramer/386 N.Laurel/Historical Consultant/Noted that the statute adopted discussed imposition,and had to do with the owner at the time of historic designation. Stated that this law has never been challenged,and may not be legal. Stated that his assumption is that the owner at the time did not object to historic designation. Laws suggested postponing a decision, allowing time to research the history of the property before considering the request. Shaw noted that Kay Atwood may have information on whether objections were made by the property owner, or it may be in the record,but that in either case, it would likely be easy to determine if an objection had occurred. Hauck questioned the definition of"imposition". Nolte stated that while it might be possible to look at the intent of those who passed this statute, in general, in looking at legal matters, silence is not considered consent. As such,the property owner's failure to object to being placed on this list did not constitute consent. Laws asked that this matter be postponed,to allow time to gather information for making a decision. Jud Holtey/575 Liberty Street/Attorney for the property owner/Explained that the legality of this situation is as it was explained,and emphasized that there is no ambiguity in the statute. Noted that Javna purchased the property,and considered restoring it,but it is now uninsurable and poses a threat to the neighborhood. Previously,moving the house was approved,but that fell through due to the SDCs not going with the structure. Stated that the Javnas had no idea the property was on the Heritage Landmarks List when he purchased the property,and that they had purchased and restored the house next door. Noted that restoration would be more costly than building a new house. Pointed out that the previous owner would not have spoken at a public hearing, and that the ordinance adopting this list did not require notification to the property owners,and constitutes an involuntarily imposed restoration. Emphasized to the Council that there is no leeway in the statute. Discussed the meaning of the word"impose". Wheeldon stated that she would like to hear those who wish to speak. Reid suggested that the item could be postponed, but since it was not she then questioned what year the property was placed on the list,and suggested that Javna would have known of its status on the list as a neighboring property owner. Holley emphasized that the house is a hazard,and that it is preventing the owner from getting insurance on his entire property and thus putting the owner in jeopardy. City Council Minutes 0310211999 8 Shaw questioned Nolte as to whether postponing a decision was an option. Suggested three options: 1)Continuing to hear the matter;2)Granting the request now;or 3)Postponing a decision. Councilors Hanson/Fine m/s to remove the property at 209 Almond Street from the Ashland Heritage Landmarks List. DISCUSSION: Wheeldon noted the level of concern in the community for this house,and suggested a dialog with the owner about somehow securing the house. Hauck agreed,and that absent positive action by the owner he feels this constitutes an imposition and that there is therefore no discretion in the matter. Roll call vote: W heeldon,Fine,Laws,Hauck,and Hanson,YES. Reid,NO. Motion passed 5-1. Jim Lewis/640 A Street/Questioned whether there is a demolition and moving ordinance that would hold up under this statute, or whether there might be an existing ordinance that addresses this elsewhere in Oregon. Nolte stated that a commission would be upheld, but explained that approval could not be withheld based on inclusion on a Heritage Landmarks List. Stated that he did not know of an existing ordinance elsewhere. Kramer asked that the City's ordinance be changed so that this will not occur again. Suggested the creation of a citywide demolition ordinance that is not linked to historic status. Noted that the current demolition ordinance only deals with properties in the historic interest area,excluding many very significant homes. Noted that other Oregon cities,such as Portland, have such an ordinance,and can say no to the demolition ofa house. Under such an ordinance,the City could require the sale of the property with an agreement to restore. Suggesting changing SDCs so that they stay with historic houses rather than lots,to provide a penalty for the demolition of a historic structure. Reid suggested that such an ordinance should be atop goal in the strategic plan. Shaw and Fine agreed,with the request that Planning Department staff begin gathering information on such an ordinance,in cooperation with Mr.Kramer,and report back to Council as quickly as possible. Reid noted that something might be able to be done with the SDCs in this case to facilitate moving the structure. Chris Rose-Merkle/185Almond Street/Neighbor. Recognized that history is important,but the current circumstances are also important. Discussed the previous owner,and noted the hazards created by the state of this house. John Javna/215 Almond Street/Wanted to set the record straight. He supports historic preservation,and has been put in a difficult situation. Noted that he had restored the house at 219 Almond,and the restoration has been received with respect and was nominated for the Historical Preservation Award. Noted that no one else expressed any interest in purchasing the house in the six months that it was on the market,noting the horrible condition the house was in at the time of purchase. Noted that he bought the property and spent$8,000 to explore the possibility of restoration,even though he had the opportunity to demolish the house at no cost. It was determined that restoration was not a reasonable possibility,and there was a failed attempt to give the house away to be moved. Shaw questioned this situation's having put Mr. Kramer and Mr. Lewis at odds with Mr. Javna. Shaw recognized Lewis'contribution to the community through his leadership on the Historic Commission,and stated that this situation is very upsetting given that she feels both Javna and Lewis ultimately want the same things. Javna agreed,and expressed concern that the Historic Commission was turning allies into enemies. Reid left at 9:57 p.m. Javna stated that he may not demolish the structure, and will look at options, but that he no longer had faith in the process and had requested removal from the list for that reason. Laws concluded that staff should look into the ordinance changes discussed. Emphasized that the Historic Commission has done a remarkable job at persuading residents to preserve historic structures in Ashland. City Council Minutes 0310211999 9 5. City of Ashland Telecommunications Franchise Agreement with Ashland Fiber Network. Councilors Fine/Hauck m/s to approve the City of Ashland Telecommunications Franchise Agreement with Ashland Fiber Network. Roll call vote: Fine,Laws,Hauck,Hanson,and Wheeldon, YES. Motion passed. 6. Update and presentation regarding the Ashland Fiber Network. This item was postponed to a later meeting. ORDINANCES.RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Levying Special Benefit Assessments in the amount of$1,791.64 for curbs,gutters,and paving improvements for Lot 129 and reducing assessments for Lots 126 and 127 in the Dogwood Way Local Improvement District No.75." (Dealt with under "Public Hearings"above.) OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL Discussed Consent Agenda item#3,"Six-month Financial Report for period ending December 31, 1998." Wheeldon questioned whether this was the document needed to move ahead with scheduling further budget committee meetings. Freeman noted that the Audit Report was the document needed. Councilors Wheeldon/Laws m/s to approve Consent Agenda item#3, "Six-month Financial Report for period ending December 31, 1998." Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Councilors Fine/Wheeldon m/s to approve the request for a fee-waiver in the February 26"request from Brent Thompson. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Council confirmed for Thompson that they intended to co-sponsor the"Alternatives to Growth-Oregon"workshop as he had requested. Wheeldon noted a request from Myra Erwin regarding the creation of an ordinance to deal with outdoor lighting and light pollution,as has been done in Eugene,OR and Tucson,AZ. This was referred to Administrative Services Director Dick Wanderscheid for consideration. Hauck noted that City lights already meet the standards in these model ordinances,so any ordinance adopted would be to apply to private lights. Wheeldon questioned whether work could be done to include the Y2K issue in the Emergency Management Plan. Freeman expressed his hesitancy to include organizing the community within the plan,but suggested that the community could be made aware that there is an Emergency Management Plan in place,and that a Y2K simulation had occurred on February 25, 1999 and went very well. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to an executive session pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(e)(which allows the City Council to meet in executive session to consider the potential purchase of real property)at 10:00 p.m. The meeting was resumed at 10:17 p.m. Councilors Hanson/Fine m/s to place the purchase of real property discussed in the executive session on the agenda. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. City Council Minutes 0310211999 10 Councilors Hanson/Hauck m/s to approve the purchase of real property discussed in the executive session for the amount discussed in the executive session. Roll call vote: Laws, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon, and Fine, YES. Motion passed. The meeting was adjourned at 10:19 p.m. Derek D. Severson,Assistant to the City Recorder Catherine M. Shaw,Mayor City Council Minutes 0310111999 11 Council Communication Ashland Fire & Rescue Don Paul Retirement Recognition March 16, 1999 This evening we will recognize the retirement of Assistant Fire Chief Don Paul, who has served our community for the past 12 years, capping off a distinguished service career of nearly 33 years in the fire service. It is difficult to capture with printed words the essence of Don's commitment to his community. Wherever Don has worked, his contributions have always reflected his caring attitude for the people that he served. We are all familiar with the verse, "by their fruits shall ye know them". Certainly this admonition can be applied to "knowing" Don Paul. We have all been the beneficiaries of the "fruits" of Don's professional labors in our community. Chief Paul's service career began in 1966, when he entered the fire service as a paid firefighter for the City of Fairfield, California. He steadily worked his way up through the promotional ranks of fire engineer, fire captain and finally, fire battalion chief. Obviously, Don's extensive knowledge, skills and abilities were noticed by his supervisors early on in his professional career. In August 1982, Don & his companion for life, Rita, considered a move to southern Oregon when Don applied for the position of fire chief/building official for the City of Central Point. Don was selected for the position and they both left their home town of 16 plus years in Fairfield. In Central Point, Don effectively wore three "hats". He served his community both as Fire Chief, Planning Director and head of the building department. This constituted a tremendous work load, a combination of responsibilities somewhat atypical for a fire chief, and testifies to Don's immense professional abilities and personal desire to "do whatever the job requires" for his employer. Council Communication March 16, 1999 Page 2 In November 1987 Don was offered a promotional opportunity with the City of Ashland as a fire battalion chief. Once again he and Rita packed up, left friends and acquaintances, and relocated to their new home in Ashland. In March 1991, Ashland recruited a new fire chief following the retirement of Chief Leroy King. A department reorganization followed, and the new chief soon recognized that Chief Paul's substantial abilities were not being fully utilized by the department. A new department position of assistant chieFfire marshal was established, and Don was promoted into the position. Don's duties involved administrative support to the fire chief, fire and life safety plans review, fire code enforcement, radio communications equipment, liaison with the business community and the coordination of numerous special events for the department. Don has been instrumental in the adoption of a modern fire code, and fire loss reduction programs within the city. He has further been successful in gaining building owner support for the installation of automatic fire sprinklers in some of the commercial buildings downtown, where systems were not required by law. Don possesses the uncommon ability to gain property owner compliance with fire code requirements, and he does it in a way that the people who are regulated seem happy to do it! He has developed numerous programs to assist the public, such as the smoke detector placement program for low-income families, arson prevention initiatives,juvenile firesetter counseling and the fire self-inspection program for Ashland businesses. The annual "House of Hazards" public fire safety open-house was developed by Don to better educate families within our community regarding the presence of fire hazards in the home. Don's service to others has routinely extended beyond his duties Council Communication March 16, 1999 Page 3 within the department, as he has served twice as president of the Rogue Valley Fire Chiefs' Association, and has just finished his year as Ashland Kiwanis Club president. Don has represented the department as a member of the Ashland Fourth of July Committee and assisted with the public aerial fireworks display at SOU. While most of us were laying in the grass enjoying the breath-taking fireworks displays with our families, Don was working hard at "ground zero" making sure the launch site was safe and that the fireworks were headed in a proper trajectory. Long after the crowds went home, Don could be found walking the athletic field with a flashlight checking for unexploded fireworks. Don's love for young people is evident in his on-going interest in supporting activities within the Ashland Schools. His work in coordinating the fire department's support of homecoming week and other athletic activities, such as the bonfire and parades, will be sorely missed. Don is best known to some as the voice of the Ashland Grizzly girls' and boys' basketball teams, as he has announced the games for the past two seasons. He can always be found in his place at Grizzly Stadium, cheering on his hometown football team. It never seemed to matter to Don Paul whether he was in uniform or not, because as far as he was concerned, he was always on duty. In 1998, while enjoying a quiet dinner with Rita and some friends at a local restaurant, a woman burst frantically through the front door exclaiming that her husband had collapsed outside in the parking lot. Don dashed out the door, found the man in cardiac arrest, and began mouth to mouth resuscitation until paramedics arrived. Don & Rita later visited the man in the hospital, and learned that their "patient" was sitting up in bed conversing with his wife. Because of the selfless efforts of Don Paul, Council Communication March 16, 1999 Page 4 the man returned home to his wife and family. A few weeks later the woman came into the fire station, and with tears in her eyes thanked the man that had given her companion back to her. Don always cared about everyone. Now, Ashland Fire & Rescue faces a future without the familiar face of Don Paul among its ranks. We hope that the world continues to produce Don Pauls'. We need them. The world would be a little less warm, friendly and caring a place without them. The fire department will go on, but not without a knowledge of the special legacy we have all received from having had the honor of working with him. From time to time, we will pause and reflect on the career of Don Paul. He is part of our history now, and our new recruits will have the benefit of a historical role model to follow. He is more than a professional peer, he is our friend and we will miss him. ,•tl MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL March 2, 1999 CALL TO ORDER Council Chairperson Don Laws called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. IN ATTENDANCE Councilors Laws,Reid,Hauck,Hanson,and Fine were present. Mayor Shaw arrived late. Staff present included:City Administrator Mike Freeman,City Attorney Paul Nolte,Director of Community Development John McLaughlin,Public Works Director Paula Brown,Administrative Services Director Dick Wanderscheid,Ashland Police Chief Scott Fleuter, and Telecommunications/Marketing Manager Ann Seltzer. Assistant City Administrator Greg Scoles and Senior Programs Director Sharon Laws arrived late. STRATEGIC PLANNING WRAP-UP City Administrator Mike Freeman noted the handout titled "Suggestions for Strategic Plan Study Session"which had been provided to the Council,and suggested that this session be used to focus on those items that had not already been discussed by the Council. Suggested that each of the goal statements be assessed,followed by a quick vote on whether it should be retained. Then come back and flesh out the remaining items. Freeman suggested that the Council not look at the policy statement under each item, but instead consider the development of these policy statements to be an ongoing item for the coming year. Freeman confirmed for Council that the goals listed in the handout are in no particular order, and that no priority has yet been determined. Under"Citizen Participation and Involvement"it was agreed that item I should be retained. Council agreed to retain item 2 with the change ...... outlining the basic minimal steps the City will follow as it seeks public input on City programs," in the third line. For item 3, Laws questioned retaining the Police Citizens Academy given budgetary constraints. Hauck suggested that the concept of citizens academies be translated to other departments as a longer term goal. Fleuter discussed the cost of the Police Citizens Academy,and Laws withdrew his objection if future sessions could be conducted at no additional cost. Item 3 was retained,with the wording corrected to indicate "Police Citizens Academy." For "Environmental Resources" there was discussion of whether items that are in progress, such as the riparian ordinance, should be included in the plan. After discussion, item 1 was retained. Items 2 and 3 were removed. In discussing the need to review the Environmental Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan,it was suggested that this could be better addressed under"Organizational Effectiveness" with the regular review of each section of the Comprehensive Plan. Item 4 was removed,noting that the duties listed for the environmental liaison position fall under Administrative Services Director Dick Wanderscheid job duties. Wanderscheid confirmed that he does address these items in his day to day work,and Council asked that they be updated if this changes. It was emphasized that the Council considers the environment to be a top priority issue. In discussing"Housing,"item I was retained. Councilor Hauck explained the community land trust program,where land would be purchased and owned by a non-profit group and program participants could purchase houses on the land. This will significantly reduce housing costs. Noted that this would begin with CDBG funds to purchase three lots,and that there are also federal Fannie Mae funds available to establish this program in Oregon. Hauck emphasized that this is an affordable housing strategy that has already been adopted, and explained that he is working with ACCESS to develop the program. Discussed funding. Seltzer noted that having this item as an adopted goal would be useful in seeking funding. For item 2, McLaughlin explained health care overlay(HC)zoning,noting that it is higher density. It was noted that this item was addressed through the Comprehensive Plan,and that any expansion of this overlay zone would come to before the Council. Item 2 was removed. City Council Study Session Minutes 03-02-1999 1 Item 3 was also removed, with McLaughlin noting that there is an inventory of buildable lands within the UGB in progress now. Item 4 was removed,noting that current policy encourages renovation as it is cheaper. Discussed the SDC process and coming changes therein. Noted that people currently circumvent the process in a number of ways. Item 5 was reworded to indicate "Encourage the redevelopment and remodeling of existing structures." Item 6 was discussed,with Fine explaining that it was originally his idea as a way to reduce sprawl. McLaughlin noted that current density standards encourage smaller lots, but not necessarily smaller structures. Fine emphasized that he feels smaller structures would lessen non-point-source pollution. Laws expressed concern with dictating structure size to citizens. Item 6 was removed,with Fine noting he would reconsider this item and bring back new wording next year. For "Energy, Air and Water Conservation," item 1 was retained with Brown noting that a 20% reduction in summertime demand is part of the comprehensive water plan. Fine emphasized the need to address landscaping as a form of water conservation. Item 2,development of a recycling center at the south end of town,was discussed. It was noted that this would be costly and than changes in the curbside recycling program will greatly increase opportunities to recycle. Noted that it would be more appropriate if this idea were initiated on the part of Ashland Sanitary and/or the Conservation Commission. Item 2 was dropped. It was recommended that item 3 be removed and referred to the Conservation Commission. Wanderscheid noted that the Conservation Commission is already working on "green business"programs. For item 4,there was discussion of the fact that the City is looking at alternative fuel vehicles,and that this is part of the fleet replacement plan. Item 4 was removed from the Council's list,but will continue to be addressed at the staff level. It was explained that item 5 had to do with potential deregulation of the electric industry,and would allow for a system benefit fee to encourage conservation. It was noted that conservation is already a recognized priority,and this item was dependent on deregulation, and the item was removed. In the discussion of the "Parks, Open Space and Aesthetics" goals, Shaw explained that item 1 had to do with developing the neighborhood through the purchase of the Delatore and Railroad properties. Noted the possibility for a wetland site here. Stated that this really would not be for open space,but rather for mixed use development. Freeman suggested that this item might be more appropriate as an "Urbanization"goal. Shaw noted that she would like to see this developed with City direction. Laws questioned whether there were resources to commit staff time to develop a plan in the coming year. Freeman recognized that there are numerous items before staff,and priorities will need to be determined. Shaw feels that this item needs to move ahead,as it is an important property. McLaughlin noted that there is currently nothing on the site, and a plan is needed to control development when it occurs. This item was retained, with the intention of developing a plan for the property,but moved to be number 3 under"Urbanization." Item 2 was discussed,with Laws explaining that the Parks Commission is working on a Capital Improvement Plan with steady funding levels for each year. With this in mind, Laws suggested that the item could be removed. After discussion,the item was retained. It was noted that the Parks Commission has a lineal parks system concept in place,and item 3 was removed. Items 4 and 5 were also removed. Looking at "Urbanization," it was agreed that item number 1 should be set aside for further discussion. For item 2, the neighborhood planning process was discussed. Laws suggested that the neighborhood planning process is too diverse to attempt standardization. It was noted that it might be possible to create a general process,with flexibility built in to suit individual neighborhoods. McLaughlin stated that the City's efforts at neighborhood planning are ongoing, and that staff will bring back this item if necessary. The item was removed. City Council Study Session Minutes 03-01-1999 2 In the "Historical Sites and Structures" category, item I was kept as is. Item 2 was revised to indicate "...city eam[mmtEp owned historic buildings...". Item 3 was removed as Reid noted that Wally Cannon already has a museum in place. For"Social and Human Services,"it was noted that item I was last looked at in 1985-`86. Discussed that this would normally be handled through the budget process. Shaw suggested creating an ad hoc committee,with Councilor Hauck as chair. Stated that no staff support would be needed,and that the committee should be advertised and the attempt to include some budget committee members should also be made. Item 2 was removed in light of the inclusion of a goal under"Transit"which would analyze the transit needs for the whole community. Item 3 was combined into item 1. In considering the"Organizational Effectiveness"category,there was discussion of the review and re-codification of the Ashland Municipal Code listed as item 1.City Attorney Nolte stated that this was a housekeeping matter that should be done, but emphasized the time consuming nature of the project and the fact that it would require continual re- examination. Discussion of whether there are sufficient resources available for an on-going,systematic review of the municipal code, in light of conflicting budget priorities. It was suggested that this could possibly be hired out to a consultant if funds become available. This item was removed. Council noted that there was also a need to set a schedule for the timely review of all elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Items 2 and 3 were discussed,and it was noted that they were being done and should be removed. Item 4 was removed. Item 5 was retained. Freeman noted that there was still a need to discuss the items that had been tabled,and to set priorities within the goals that were retained. Hauck suggested that the goals for the coming year could be grouped by department to allow Council to prioritize. Shaw requested that they be grouped by department and prioritized by the department heads, in terms of level of difficulty and estimated cost,to provide the Council with the information needed to set priorities. ADJOURNED The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m. Submitted by Derek Severson,Assistant to the City Recorder City Council Study Session Minutes 03-02-1999 3 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Steve Armitage. Other Commissioners present were Anna Howe, Russ Chapman, Alex Amarotico, Chris Hearn, Mike Gardiner, Mike Morris, Marilyn Briggs, and John Fields. There were no absent members. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Maria Harris and Susan Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS January 12, 1999 Regular Meeting Minutes were approved. January 12, 1999 Hearings Board Minutes - Hearn moved approval, Morris seconded and the motion carried. January 12, 1999 Findings (Neuman -Washington Street)-Gardiner moved to approve the Minutes and Chapman seconded the motion. Everyone approved. PUBLIC FORUM-No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 99-008 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO ESTABLISH A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (STATE FARM INSURANCE). OFF-STREET PARKING IS TO BE PROVIDED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, OFF THE EXISTING PUBLIC ALLEY. 600 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD APPLICANT: LAURIE BIXBY Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits by were made by all. Hearn disclosed that Bixby is his insurance agent. He believes he can be objective in the hearing. Bixby has used Hearn's law firm from time to time and came to his office to speak with him about the application. Before she got into it at all, Hearn told her he could not speak with her about the application because he is a member of the Planning Commission. He urged her to talk with the Planning Staff. Howe noted that Bixby is her insurance agent. STAFF REPORT Harris reported that all the abutting property owners were noticed, and mailed with that notice was the approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review. Several letters were received today in support of the proposal and copies have been distributed to the Commissioners. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan, the primary difference being in the back of the property in the parking. Also submitted was a parking bay study. A memo was distributed by Harris outlining revised and new conditions. There are some professional offices in the area, a traveler's accommodation on the corner of Sherman and Siskiyou and a home occupation office next to the proposed application. Seventeen of the noticed properties are residential uses and11 the others have some commercial aspect. The applicant is proposing to use the existing single family residence as an insurance office and also as a studio apartment. Primary changes to the lot would be the addition of a paved parking area in the rear off the alley. There will be only minor changes to the building with a door added to give separate access to the apartment. Landscaping will be added around the perimeter of the parking with interior walkways. The property is in the Historic District. The office will be approximately 1600 square feet and the studio apartment will measure about 240 square feet. Most of the issues raised by Staff are"big picture" issues that pertain to the Comprehensive Plan and the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit. The application seems to imply that the use as an insurance office is justified because it is on Siskiyou Boulevard, having relatively high traffic volumes on a major street and therefore, it is unfit for residential purposes and, therefore, a professional office should be allowed. Staff feels this is a zoning issue. Many people, both residents of Ashland and those visiting from out of town, notice the residential presence on the Boulevard and that there is not, unlike many communities, strip commercial development on the street, but rather a strong residential presence and a break up of the commercial strip zoning. There were two nearby professional offices mentioned in the application. In 1983, 622 Siskiyou Boulevard was approved and the complex next to Safeway was approved in 1971. Both are R-2 zoning. The applicant has used a segment of the first goal and policy from the Housing Element of the Comp Plan to support her application, citing the mixed use portion. It says that mixed uses should be considered in an urban environment and can be a good thing. Harris showed the entire goal and policy on the overhead, pointing out that throughout it, there is language that strictly qualifies. It states, "Do not allow deterioration of residential areas by incompatible uses and developments". "Mixed uses can be used to create a more interesting setting and urban environment." The last sentence says: "....and should be considered as a development option, however, it will not disrupt an existing residential area." That is reiterated later on in the policy. In addition, Harris said in both the Economic Element and Transportation Element, there is discussion of designing streets as public spaces and not turning our backs to the street. Harris explained Staff s concerns are with the ordinance language concerning a professional office, the definition of the impact area and target use of the zone, and the adverse material impacts on livability of the impact area as outlined in the Staff Report. Also noted in the Staff Report as areas of concerns are the off-street parking and the size of the proposed apartment as well as long-range planning of the area. The Historic Commission was concerned about the alleyscape. They find the sheds and small outbuildings along the alley as an important feature of the historic neighborhood. They requested the applicant consider saving one or both of the structures at the rear of the property. The applicant has redesigned their parking based on the Historic Commission's suggestions. They have shortened the parking spaces and are showing they will save the existing garage on the east property line and provide landscaping. The half shed on the west side will come out. Signage was another issue that came up at the Historic Commission meeting. There was some discussion about what was appropriate in size to preserve the historic integrity of the neighborhood. In Harris's memo, she added a condition limiting the size of the sign, taken from the travelers accommodation portion of the ordinance. Drainage is an issue that has come up since the Staff Report was written. Harris added a condition that the applicant submit a plan showing fill and retaining, and how the storm drainage is going to be handled. The Tree Commission looked at the walnut tree and there is a patio in this area. They were not too concerned about changing the walks and any construction affecting the tree. Harris said in Staffs opinion the applicant has not met the burden of proof in terms of the CUP criteria, particularly the effect of the proposal on the livability of the impact zone. Chapman asked Harris to explain the vehicle trips per day as noted on Page 6 of the Staff Report. Harris said when a CUP is evaluated, they look at the effect compared to the target use of the zone. The target use is two multi-family residential units. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the number of trips per day for the target use is 12.2 trips, 6.1 per unit. The applicant is proposing to have the insurance office and studio apartment. That would be 6.1 trips per day for the studio apartment. For the office, it is based on square footage and that would be 15.5 trips per day for the office, adding up to 22 trips per day, compared to 12 trips for the target use. That represents a 77 percent increase in the number of trips. The applicant has been tracking how many office visits they get per day and she understands they ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9,1999 average 10.6 trips per day by auto from customers. That is higher than the numbers coming from the ITE manual. If you add the customers plus eight for the employees (two to go to work and two to go home), the total would be 24-25 trips per day. Gardiner said with regard to the singularity of the professional offices, what would be an example of a professional office that did not have any support people? Harris said Staff interprets that to mean the same number of employees as a home occupation which is one professional and one support person. Hearn disagreed saying most offices he is familiar with would have more than one support person. Harris said this interpretation has been controversial for several years. PUBLIC HEARING RICHARD STEVENS, 336 West Sixth Street, Medford, OR, representing the applicant, stated that DARRELL BOLDT will also speak on behalf of the applicant. They find the additional conditions acceptable on Page 12 but would like clarification of Condition 7. Stevens said a CUP shall be granted if the use can be made to conform. That means if the applicant can demonstrate compliance with the criteria and the Commission does not find a significant or material adverse effect, then the Commissioners shall grant the permit. If it is found there is a material or significant adverse effect, they must consider if there is a condition that can mitigate the impact and then grant the permit. Stevens cited LUBA comments. Conditions have already been suggested for that purpose. Stevens does not believe there are any Comp Plan policies in which they are in conflict. The mixed use can be used as a tool to be beneficial to the City. The Historic Commission recommended this property as a professional office which will insure the historic significance of this building be preserved. Stevens referred to the Definitions section of the Ordinance (18.08.010). Singular is plural in all instances in this ordinance. On Page 11 of the Staff Report, Stevens said spot zoning is discussed but is not an issue before the Commission. Spot zoning is granting a special privilege that is not extended to other persons or properties in the same zoning district. Every person who owns a R-2 property has the right to ask for a CUP to establish a professional office. Value is not a criteria and should not be considered. Stevens knows of no limitations to the availability of public facilities. Stevens addressed Criteria C (adverse material effect). He believes Staff has misconstrued his findings. He identified Siskiyou Boulevard as a negative factor with regard to livability for residential purposes, specifically for single family residential purposes. Siskiyou Boulevard has over 20,000 vehicle trips per day, vehicle noise, Safeway, other professional offices and mixed uses, and in his opinion creates a livability problem. The proposal will be similar in scale, bulk and coverage except for the parking spaces. With regard to generation of traffic and effect on surrounding streets, there will be minimum impact. Streets have the capacity to serve the use proposed including the alley. There is more noise and light from the Safeway store than this use. Chapman considered that Stevens seemed to be arguing that this area is failing or has failed already as a residential area and asked Stevens if he thought we should go ahead and accept this as inevitable and give up on Siskiyou Boulevard as a residential boulevard that says something unique in the state; that a major state highway goes past these residence? Is Stevens saying we should abandon that? Stevens answered that he is not saying that but he is looking at the intent of the ordinance which says to preserve the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9,1999 residential character of Siskiyou Boulevard (or R-2 zones). In addition this is a historic structure to be preserved. He does not believe the environment on Siskiyou Boulevard is conducive for single family residential uses. Therefore, this type of application is one of the better methods the City has to accomplish these objectives. The residential character is still maintained and the historic structure will not be altered. Chapman responded that if we accept that this area has a problem as a residential area and we are going to allow this development to have more traffic than what the targeted use allows, are we making things worse? Stevens agreed there will be a few more trips than the target zone but the extra trips will be spread across eight to ten hours per day which would make one trip per hour average. Howe is concerned about the domino effect. She is more concerned about the trip generation from the alley, not Siskiyou Boulevard. That has been talked about as having a seven percent increase in use. Every property along the alley has a right to ask for a CUP and with this application, it will be a significant rise in traffic on the alley. Another business on that block will make an even stronger reason why the rest of the block should forget its residential character and become a business character(historic, but not residential). This is the effect she is concerned about. If this is the only application the Commission were to allow, it can be accommodated, but the cumulative effect makes the alley almost unusable by the residents on the other side of the alley and it takes away the residential character of the neighborhood piece by piece by piece. Stevens agreed this area may reach a point where the alley reaches capacity, however, we are not there yet. He does not see a significant change in the area with this use. It has been 15 years since there has been application in this location. Armitage asked Stevens to address the apartment use currently and in the future. There has been a concern in the neighborhood that there be a residence in place in these types of CUP's. He is concerned that down the road this could be converted and there will be no residential component. McLaughlin explained that many times the Commission's approval of a CUP for an office will be specific to an applicant's proposal. That is saying the Commission has made an agreement with the applicant and if the applicant is no longer on the property and the use changes, the CUP will not run with the property. Stevens' concern with Condition 7 is that if this particular person is no longer there, the CUP is null and void. He would like to have that changed so if there is a change in use, the Commission reviews it to see if there is any change in operational use (similar to traveler's accommodation) rather than having to go through a CUP process again. McLaughlin said it would be appropriate for the Commission to review the application if they wish to make a change to the apartment. Fields wondered if an adverse material effect would occur if the residential aspect disappears. Is it a creeping commercial effect that is slowly eroding the residential character? Stevens said the apartment will add to the residential dimension. BOLDT said they have no problem with the site plan Dale Shostrom proposed. RUSS DALE, 585 Allison said he also owns 125 Sherman which is somewhat impacted by this application. He has lived on Allison for 25 years and maintained an office in his residence for as many years. He enjoys the mixed use in the area. The alley receives quite a bit of pedestrian traffic. He knows the applicant and finds her a person of extremely high integrity and is confident she will follow through as she has stated with this application. He does not have a problem with any of the changes proposed by Bixby. He wants the architectural integrity of the structure retained. Because of the yellow striping at the corner of Sherman and Siskiyou, it could cause cars to park further up Sherman. LINDA(AND LARRY) HILLIGOSS, 869 Harmony Lane, own 590 Siskiyou, stated she is fully supportive of Bixby's project. They have no concerns about traffic generation or with the outside changes she is proposing. She is thrilled ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9,1999 about having Bixby as a neighbor. Hilligoss' husband has run a business out of 590 Siskiyou for the past fifteen years. PAT COLWELL, 129 Bush Street, favored the proposal. HELEN ALTHAUS, 136 Sherman Street, owns the property on the corner of the alley and Sherman. She was pleased to find her house in a mixed use neighborhood. She believes this is a good use to preserve the historical appearance of the property along with the apartment use. The traffic on the alley is two-way and you just drive a little slower. LAURIE BIXBY, 571 Oak Hills Circle, believes this proposed use represents everything a small town should have on the boulevard. She contacted several of the neighbors and all but one were supportive. She came up with a different system of analyzing the traffic that visits her office. She came up with an average of 8.21 visitors per day. She determined 72 percent of those come by auto. Bixby said it ranged from a low of 5.42 and"a high of 9.6 clients per day. JOANNE JOHNS, 650 Spring Creek Drive, said she is representing Bixby as her broker on this property. She assured the Commission that Bixby would follow through with what she said she would do. Johns noted that she has always parked in the parking bay when visiting that house. When people visit Bixby's office, they only stay about ten minutes. Staff Response Harris said the City Attorney noted that the word"significant" is not included in the language in the criteria and it is the Commission's discretion to determine what is the material effect on the livability of the area. Harris noted that Stevens saw the residential component of Siskiyou Boulevard as a negative, but that is just his perspective. The livability of the area is the Commission's discretion. Stevens' interpretation that it is not a livable place for residential uses is in conflict with the general philosophy of the Comprehensive Plan and many of the policies. Harris stated that just because the target use for that property is a duplex, does not necessarily mean it has to be a developed as a duplex. Harris read a suggested condition: That the Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission if the studio apartment is reduced or eliminated. McLaughlin said if the Commissioners believes that much of this application is based on the integrity of the applicant and that is a significant part of the application, then the use can be restricted to this applicant. Or, the Commission may wish to approve the insurance use. McLaughlin referred back to Fields' comments about housing and Stevens' comments about livability and that they had never been identified. McLaughlin said that was identified in the pre-application conference(at that time there was no residential component in the application)and Staff said it would be raised as a loss of housing and neighborhood concerns based on Staffs experience from previous applications regarding compatibility with surrounding residences and lack of visible residential presence. There is an art of being a planning commissioner according to McLaughlin and an art of community development that the Commissioners have an opportunity to review here. These are conditional uses. They are not outright permitted because they have to be truly appropriate for an area of the zone. That is the purpose of them being conditioned. Under certain conditions this will work. There is an art of looking at the neighborhood, the impact on the boulevard, and the long-term effects. It is the Commissioners'job to look at the larger picture. It may be this application starts the domino effect. This may be the application that forces the legislative change that says something else should happen on Siskiyou Boulevard. Or, this may be a point at which the Commission says this is inappropriate. There is a balance. There are the adverse material impacts. Rebuttal ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9,1999 Stevens interprets the"material effect"to means"significant". With regard to the apartment, there is a demand for efficiency apartments and it adds residential character to the property. Stevens asked Condition 7 read: That the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be limited to the proposed insurance office and (apartment). Should the insurance relocate from 600 Siskiyou Boulevard, any other commercial use shall be required to obtain approval by the Planning Commission. In Stevens' experience, singular has always meant plural in ordinance language. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Gardiner moved to approve PA99-008 with the changes suggested to Condition 7. Harris provided the following wording: That the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be limited to the proposed insurance office. Should the insurance office relocate from 600 Siskiyou Boulevard, any other commercial uses shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit approval as a new application. The new Condition 14 is: That the Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission if the studio apartment is reduced or eliminated. Hearn seconded the motion. Hearn favors the application. Three neighbors said they would not mind living next to this conversion and this application will preserve the character of the building. Howe concurs with Hearn. She believes there is an adverse impact on the traffic to the alley. At this point it is not significant but there will be increased pressure on the residential units nearby. Gardiner believes that this is a good planning action but with each application that comes before the Commission comes with it more pressure on the Boulevard. Where this is good, at some point in time, it will not be good. Briggs spoke about the domino effect. The application"looks like"a residence but it is not. She is very sensitive to something that looks like something but it is not. She is concerned where this application is taking us. Just because housing is on Siskiyou Boulevard, does not automatically mean it is not a desirable place to live. Armitage said at some point this will become too much, but maybe it is not there yet. He reminded the Commissioners that when ICCA(2nd Street)was approved, it was a very contentious issue with a lot of neighbors speaking in opposition. Even though that application was approved, that had reached the point of overload. The motion carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 99-011 REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FROM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(R-2 AND R-3)TO COMMERCIAL(C-1) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 75 HELMAN AND 138 NORTH MAIN STREETS. THE REQUEST IS ALSO FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO ALLOW FOR A HOTEL USE AT THE SAME ADDRESSES. TEN MOTEL UNITS AND TWO APARTMENTS ARE REQUESTED AT 75 HELMAN STREET(TAX LOT 900). SIX HOTEL UNITS/STUDIO APARTMENTS ARE REQUESTED AT 138 NORTH MAIN (TAX LOT 1200), EACH UNIT UNDER 500 SQUARE FEET. APPLICANT: JONATHAN WARREN Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts-Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Molnar noted the applicable criteria. The proposals involve the rezoning of two parcels, one at 138 North Main (R-2 to C-1) and the other at 75 Helman (from R-3 to C-1). This application requires a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to operate hotel units as well as construct a new building for hotel use. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9,1999 At 75 Heiman, the existing residence is proposed to be removed and in its place construction of a 6,000 square foot two- story structure, housing 12 hotel units. Ten of the units will be approximately 350 square feet and two of the 12 units will be 750 square feet with kitchen facilities that could be used for long-term rentals. The applicant proposes to retain the structure at 138 North Main and do some cosmetic changes to the exterior. The larger building currently has four units that will be converted to four hotel units. The smaller building will be converted to two hotel units. Each of the units will have separate kitchen facilities and can be leased long-term. The only exterior change on this property is the small cottage structure. Twenty-one parking spaces(19 required) are required off the alley located behind 138 North Main. The alley is paved and the parking area will be required to be paved and landscaped. Access will generally be from Heiman. The parking lot has been designed slightly in order to have curbing to try to introduce cars from Heiman as well as exit out towards Heiman, making it difficult for cars to go down the alley toward the rear of other residential properties. It is the Commission's job to find that one of four factors exist. That there is a public need, a need to adjust to new conditions, a need to correct mistakes, or circumstances relating to general welfare. The primary arguments made by the applicant are that the Comprehensive Plan projects that ultimately from 1990 to 2005 that the city will see a 42 percent increase in tourism and there will be a need to accommodate tourists with additional hotel accommodations, and projects a need for approximately 400 units by the year 2005. The Comprehensive Plan supports accommodating tourist accommodations within the city limits since visitors are visiting areas of interest in the downtown. The accommodations are preferably within proximity of the downtown, allowing visitors to walk to their destinations instead of using valuable parking or increasing traffic in the downtown. The applicant also says there is little vacant land with the current commercial zoning in the downtown to accommodate the additional demand in tourist accommodations. Heiman Street, over the years, as the Bard's Inn expansions have taken place, and with the approval of the Haines development across the street, has taken on a much more commercial character and the property at 75 Heiman is more a part of the commercial corridor with a change of conditions in the area which warrants inclusion of that piece of property. Due to Bard's Inn proximity to the downtown and serving as the major tourist accommodation, has turned away approximately 5500 reservations. A zone change carries a heavy burden. In general, Staff supports the plan policies in trying to provide accommodations near the downtown where visitors are frequenting, however, with the arguments in the evidence presented, Staff tends to be hesitant to see there is a public need for additional tourist accommodations. In fact, a study done by SORSI and SOU based on city Finance Department occupancy rates, showed rates of occupancy declining over the past four to five years. While there is lack of vacant land in the downtown, there are some opportunities for development, for example, the Haines property across the street which was a three-phase approval/development which would accommodate 30 condominium units, 65 hotel suites or a combination. In addition, the Mark Antony in the next eight to 12 months is scheduled to be in full operation with 80 units. The current zoning of R-2 and R-3 does allow for tourist accommodations through a current Conditional Use Permit. Both properties combined could accommodate up to 13 units. A property owner would have to be present on-site. The primary concern with the Conditional Use Permit and Site Review(75 Heiman) is the size of the structure proposed (two-story, 6,000 square feet). It is in scale with the Haines development but not with the residential area. The impacts of a 21-space parking area adjacent to residential areas are significant. That was not discussed in length in the application. The Historic Commission reviewed the application and recommended denial. They were mainly reviewing the impacts of this proposal on the residential area, specifically along Central Avenue. It has a unique streetscape that is definitely residential. They felt the property at 75 Heiman is more a part of the residential corridor rather than the commercial corridor along Heiman. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9,1999 Staffs concerns are outlined in the Staff Report. Is there a public need to expand at this time? The Historic Commission raised some valid points as well as the neighbors in the area. There are plan policies for considering development that have a detrimental impact on existing residential areas that might ultimately degrade long-term residential use of properties. Staff is concerned with the scale of the building and the consolidation of a large parking area. Staff has offered 14 Conditions should the Planning Commission wish to approve the application. Howe wondered if the parking lot could be developed to the full 21 spaces even without the plan to put in more accommodations. Molnar said the ordinance allows only ten percent above the required amount or it can be accompanied with another proposal within 200 feet walking distance. They could not develop 21 initially but it could possibly be graded for future expansion but it would have to be landscaped. Amaratico wondered of the 96,000 rooms available from July through September, how many are within walking distance of downtown? Molnar did not have those figures. JONATHAN WARREN, Bard's Inn,132 N. Main RAY KISTLER, 165 Orange, architect on the project Warren said the project conforms to the neighborhood. Best Western has had to turn down 5500 reservations last year at Bard's Inn. These people are automatically sent(company policy)to the nearest Best Western which is on the freeway. Bard's Inn sends some people to traveler's accommodations. The Heritage Inn is filled up every night. This is causing more traffic and pollution because they are driving in from outside of town and those tourists are not paying transient taxes. Bard's Inn is filled 127 days from the beginning of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival 1999 season until the end of this season. Occupants do not want to use their cars while staying at Bard's. Warren said the parking lot will be grass crate and will look like a hidden parking lot. He will put up screening with lots of landscaping. The alley looks pretty terrible right now. There will be no doors or balconies on Central. There are large buildings across Helman. He had some letters from those who do not mind the development. The houses on the existing lots, according to Warren, are total wrecks, especially the Main Street house. It will cost approximately $400,000 to fix it. Briggs asked if Bard's Inn is 100 percent full during the summer season. Warren said almost. In the winter they have a 60 percent occupancy or maybe not quite that much. RAY KISTLER said Brad Roupp is making plans to move the existing house on Central. BARBARA ROSS, 148 Central Avenue, did not testify but is against the proposal. LOIS VAN AKEN, 140 Central Avenue, has lived in the neighborhood for 13 years. The neighborhood is unique and very residential. All types of families live there. It is a fragile neighborhood on the edge of a commercial zone. This application is not asking for a Conditional Use Permit but a zone change. The properties are adequate as R-2 and R-3. Looking at the statistics, she does not see a need right now for more accommodations. She believes people will still use their cars at the proposed units to travel to scenic attractions. She believes the zoning laws were put in place to protect a neighborhood such as hers. There is the Haines project across the street and a clinic at the end of the street. There is a point at which one draws the line and she is drawing the line. She believes the residential character and livability of the neighborhood will be impacted. People will start moving out. There is a big difference between owner occupied traveler's accommodations versus hotel units. She does not believe one individual's need outweighs the needs of the whole Community. It goes against the Comp Plan policies which is to preserve the integrity of neighborhoods. Neighbors need to walk downtown too. The R-3 zone is still ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 9 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9,1999 is affordable to many families. Howe asked VanAken what it is about the corner property that makes it more part of Central Avenue than Heiman. VanAken said the view down the street(Central) is that it is clearly part of the street; you don't turn the corner--there is not any commercial right along Central. That would be the first piece to go commercial on Central Avenue. The scale is so much bigger than the rest of the homes on Central. Visibly, it feels like it is encroaching. Armitage wondered how Van Aken feels about the North Main property. VanAken feels there has to be a really good reason for zone change. She is less vested in that piece but still would argue it will have an impact. SIDNEY BOWLAND, 165 VanNess and JOSEPH TRAVISANO, 155 Central did not wish to testify but both are in opposition to the application. SHERI BOWLAND, 165 VanNess, initially sent a letter favoring Warren's plans but she did not understand there was a change in zoning. She has withdrawn that support. She has lived on VanNess for less than a year. She looked for property for three years before purchasing. They were seeking a safe, quiet neighborhood in which to raise their children. They understood there was R-2 and R-3 zoning. Buying R-3 zoning was the only way they could afford to live in Ashland. They did not expect to be living in the center of a commercial district. She believes their property values will go down. She believes the zone change will have a tremendous environmental impact. She does not want to feel like they are next to a 24 hour football field. Bard's Inn is a great place for traffic, pollution and litter. Her children know the Bard's Inn is a great place to pick up beer cans and bottles to recycle. The historical nature of the neighborhood will be compromised. She fears changing the zoning would cause a snowball effect. Hearn moved to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Briggs seconded the motion and everyone favored. DIANE PAULSON, 156 NORTH MAIN, addressed the Conditional Use Permit criteria (C). The proposed structure is too large for the Historic District. (6100 square feet). A ten unit hotel is not similar in scale, bulk and coverage. The six unit hotel is also not similar in scale. She is concerned with a 21 car parking lot. The Ashland Hostel on the other corner already impacts her. To increase that traffic is going to be detrimental to the people, children, cats and dogs that walk the alley and that area. She does not think they will park there for three days without moving their cars. She is concerned about car alarms going off at all times and that will generate noise as well as lights shining in her home. That will decrease her property value. Eighteen additional units will negatively effect the air quality due to their laundry and cleaning affluents. She is appreciative of the hostel having a curfew on their guests. She does not think that will be true of the hotel. Spot zoning seems to be a problem in this case. ROD MONROE, 150 North Main Street, stated he owns the Ashland Hostel. Warren is a good neighbor. However, they are concerned about maintaining the integrity of the historic neighborhood, the impact of traffic and subsequent congestion in the alley. As owners of the hostel, they are acutely aware of how a lodging business effects the traffic noise, parking and litter. During the theater season, they contribute adversely to the parking in the neighborhood. They do not allow their guests in after midnight. Many of their guests cannot go to the Britt Festival because they can't get in on time. He is not sure the proposed commercial use would be as considerate. He does not believe a Best Western is in keeping with the historic ambiance. Howe asked Monroe how he felt about the development of the Victorian house? Monroe did not think it looked run down. He would hate to see it changed. He is not as worried about an overnight accommodation but is worried about the parking. KERRY KENCAIRN, 147 Central Avenue, lives on Bush Alley and Central. She is effected by both developments. There would be six apartments behind her house. The traffic congestion now is almost unbearable. The hostel folks try to find the fastest and easiest way to get to where they are going. She believes the guests at Warren's place will park on Heiman and Central. She is concerned with the size of the building on the corner. If that corner is commercial, then that will follow down Central. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 9 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9,1999 Staff Response Molnar said he believes Van Aken's remarks were well framed: On one hand there is a need to retain downtown vitality and accommodations in accord with the plan but also there is tremendous concern about the incremental erosion of neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown. Those neighborhoods are generally zoned R-2 and R-3 and reflect a broad cross-section of community members and housing types and accommodate affordable housing. Is the need compelling enough for the zone change at this time? Will 18 units solve the problem or ultimately will the city need to look at a more comprehensive review of the downtown to see where a greater number of accommodations can be met over a longer period of time? Briggs moved to continue the meeting until 11:00 p.m. The motion was seconded and everyone approved. Rebuttal Warren said he designed the building on Heiman for little impact on Central. He designed the parking so cars could not drive through the alley. The existing building will be moved. He thought, instead of an apartment building on the corner it would be better to have a hidden parking lot. The lights will not be shining into homes. He has designed the parking lot with lots of screening. His guests are showing up at 11:00 in the morning, not 11:00 at night. They will walk to the hotel. There will be very few getting in and out of their cars. His guests will not be going out onto Central but onto Heiman. He noted there is a 75,000 square foot building approved to be built across Heiman Street. The youth hostel is causing congestion now because they do not have enough parking. Armitage read a letter written by Roann Lyal, Main Street Inn, into the record. Howe said the Planning Commission is charged with deciding if the city is in need of more accommodations. The statistics seem to indicate there are lots of vacancies. Does Warren have any additional information showing how many more units the downtown can support? Warren said there are no other hotels downtown and would rather have accommodations downtown than having folks drive in from outside of town. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Chapman moved to deny PA99-011. Briggs seconded the motion. Chapman said the application fails to meet the criteria for bulk, scale and coverage. There is no need shown. There may be an in-house Best Western need, but the need has not been shown for the community. There is a noise, light, and glare issue. Twenty-one parking parking spaces on a narrow alley will produce congestion and difficulties. This development is turning the corner to where the neighborhood will be significantly impacted. Hearn stated the applicant has to bear the burden of proof. Although there is a problem of the occupancy rates being spread over the city, not just downtown, the applicant has to show something besides the Best Western statistics and lack of available units. Briggs feels the proposed building on Heiman is just too huge and overwhelms the houses on Central. Fields said the house on the corner of Heiman and Central is a transition. It breaks down the massing of the commercial. By the time you get to Central you feel like you are in a residential area. He believes the R-3 zoning is still appropriate. Armitage believes the parking, noise and light can be mitigated. However, the burden of proof has not been met. The Commissioners voted unanimously to deny the application. ELECTION OF OFFICERS ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 10 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9,1999 Howe moved into Vice Chair when Bass left. Armitage was nominated as Chair and the vote was favorable. Gardiner was nominated Second Vice Chair and the vote was favorable. OTHER Briggs moved to have Staff work on wording to be reviewed by the Planning Commission concerning the saving of trees. Armitage seconded the motion and everyone favored. ADJOURNMENT- The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION .11 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9,1999 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mike Morris at 1:35 p.m. John Fields was present. Anna Howe was absent. Staff present were Mark Knox and Sue Yates. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 99-010 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY USE FOR"JAVA GYPSY ESPRESSO" LOCATED AT 2268 ASHLAND STREET(SHOP-N-KART). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMERCIAL;ZONING: C-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP#: 39 1E 14 BA; TAX LOT: 1500. APPLICANT: LYMAN & HOLLY HALL This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 99-012 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS LOCATED AT 1320 PROSPECT. ACCESS TO EACH LOT FROM LEONARD STREET. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP#: 39 1E 15 BC; TAX LOT: 800. APPLICANT: MARTY JACOBSONIYVONNE FRIED This action was approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1999 CALL TO ORDER - Vice Chair Jan Vaughn called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Joe McKeever, Joan Legg, Steve Hauck, Gerry Sea, Larry Medinger and Carlus Harris. Sondra Nolan was absent. Staff present were Bill Molnar and Susan Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The Minutes of the December 16, 1998 were approved. COMMUNITY LAND TRUST CINDY.DYER,'ACCESS, INC. spoke to the Commissiorf regarding a Community Land Trust with the City of Ashland. She distributed materials.to the Commissioners. Molnar clarified a statement he made at the last meeting where he mentioned the Housing Commission itself could act as the actual trust board. Upon further research, he found that without a 501(c)(3) designation, they would have to let ACCESS, or an organization with that designation, be the trust board. The Housing Commission would be advisory until such time there might be.a transition if Ashland created its own land trust and applied for a 501(c)(3) designation. Medinger asked Dyer what will happen if ACCESS dissolves. Dyer said they cannot just dissolve, they would have to dissolve into something else. Dyer sees this as an opportunity to get started and running the trust now and explore other avenues. She explained further that the idea of a community land trust is to get the community involved and then bring them on board but that will take some time. In the meantime an agreement of intent could be drawn up if the city chooses to form a 501(c)(3). Hill is interested in ACCESS being the board for six months or until the city can set up a 501(c)(3). McKeever said he understands the city's involvement with a community land trust (CL T) to be only with the municipal code, building and planning. Medinger said the primary source of wealth in terms of contributions is going to come because of acts of the city either by cash or density bonuses. There is no other source so there should be no other control. That doesn't mean we couldn't hire ACCESS to run it for us. Dyer said though she can understand wanting the city to control the CLT, ACCESS would be working at obtaining other grants and resources, not just from the city. They might also be interested in looking at a county-wide program. She wondered why, when you can leverage so much more, would the city want to have sole control? Hill thought daily operations should be separate from the board.. Harris'understanding in looking at the models for CLT's, is that the land trust is not awned by the city or anyone. It is a stand alone 501(c)(3) and the agency was attempting to get the city to come on board and be an active partner in making the land trust viable. Therefore, there is another possibility that the 501(c)(3) can be its own entity. Hauck said the city has the expertise to speed up the process and make the transition. ACCESS can act as the board until it is up and running then the city could forma 501(c)(3). They could appoint the board and have them run it. As the board goes along, the members may decide it best to separate it into its own entity and that could happen later on. McKeever thought it was the ultimate goal that the CLT becomes self-governing. Legg said this brings up several questions for the interim board. Who will make policy decisions, who owns the assets, and as it goes along, who hires and fires staff? She wondered how many of ACCESS's board of directors are residents of Ashland. She would want to have full input from the city of Ashland during the interim period. She believes there is a process we owe the residents of the city to have a process showing the fairness in making decisions. Whenever the process is circumvented then we are getting political and we are not serving the best interest of the city. Dyer said to her knowledge the assets are held under ACCESS. There can be some kind of document drawn up saying what that means. Her interest is to sustain affordable housing. The timing is good for the city and for ACCESS to have a CLT. There are developers out there, there are funding sources, there is interest from outside this area looking to see what happens here, so it seems it is time to move forward with a collaborative effort. She said with regard to the formation of a 501(c)131, that the Commission would be working at setting that up at the same time ACCESS is looking for funding and acquiring land. McKeever understands that the creation of the 501(c)(3) will not be enough; that we will not get any money for a technical plan of assistance if we are not a CHDO. Hauck wants to move forward with this and he thinks Staff should draw up an agreement so it could be submitted to the Council. Molnar said Staff will develop a general outline. The Commission can stipulate ACCESS running it for a year with the opportunity for an extension. Sea wondered if we can create an agreement with ACCESS without advertising. Harris said his understanding was that Legg was asking for other agencies at the last meeting. He did have an objection to that because as he recalled, the idea of a CLT was brought to the Commission as a way by which real affordable housing could be brought to Ashland, and the Housing Commission could be a conduit by which it could be brought to the city. Now was the time since there was some technical assistance available. ACCESS came to the Commission, the Commission did not send out an request for proposal. Harris thought since it was brought to the Commission in a different way, it is feasible that it is not necessary to go out to other agencies. However, Harris asked Legg, in order that we do not overlook anyone, if there are any other agencies might be interested? Legg understood contact was going to be made with RVCDC and we would look for other CHDO's in the area, if there were any, simply as a matter of process. Vaughn said she made a couple of calls but no one called her back. Legg wants any other agencies to be able to have an opportunity and the process to be as above board as possible. Dyer said that would be fine but there is no money attached to this. The Housing Commission is not offering to pay someone to do this. She is not certain if there needs to be a process. An agreement would protect what the city gave by way of donation that would benefit the land trust. Molnar is hearing the big issue is technical assistance because the complex issue is to create the trust. If we invite others to participate by way of a RFP, will there be an expectation that the city would be paying an agency to set this up? Legg moved that Staff draw up a preliminary agreement with ACCESS for the beginning steps to forming a community land trust. We would welcome technical assistance through ACCESS. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 2 MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1999 Hauck seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Hauck thinks ACCESS has enough background material available that they could apply for a CDBG grant this year. Molnar said applications will be mailed this week and will be due on February 25'h with presentations on March 11'. Dyer said they are in a position to move on this. Dyer wanted the Housing Commission to ask themselves what role they would like to play and how much involvement do they want. What are the Commission's goals-single family rental housing? Harris told the Commission these are the kinds of issues we need to be willing to roll up our sleeves and.deal with. Meeting once a month is not going to get it. . He hopes everyone realizes we are going to put in more than a modicum of time to make this work. He also hopes everyone is committed to not just making it happen but be involved in the nuts and bolts of making it happen. Everyone agreed. [Vaughn turned the chair to Seal Dyer thought it would be good to have more than her and Molnar writing up the agreement. Hauck moved to authorize ACCESS to work up an application for CDBG. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Harris abstained. Hill, Legg, Sea, and Vaughn are willing to be part of a committee to work on the request for CDBG funds and preparing an agreement with the city and ACCESS. HOME OWNERSHIP QUARTERLY REPORT - Bring questions next time. HOME REPAIR HOT LINE-After a year, McKeever is ready to turn this over to someone else. No one volunteered. ADJOURNMENT- The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 3 MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1999 Ashland Tree Commission Minutes, February 4, 1999 I. Call to order- The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Chair Rich Whitall. Other commissioners in attendance were: January Jennings, Bryan Nelson, John McClendon, Kerry Kencairn and Bob Kuenzel. Robbin Pearce was present as staff. II. Approval of Minutes - January minutes were approved as submitted. III. Welcome Guests - Guests in attendance were Laurie Bixby and Joann Johns both regarding Planning Action 99-008. IV. Old Business A. Recommended Street Tree List- Commissioners submitted changes to staff. Next month the revisions will be made, graphics will be added and final draft will be resubmitted to the frill commission. A list of individuals in the community who might review he completed list was generated. The list included: Eric Baron, Ted Loftus, John Galbraith, Dan Bish and Karen Brenten. B. Street Tree Matrix -Nelson continues to develop a"mini" handout which will be separate from the main list. C. Tree removal Mitigation Wording - Kuenzel reported that wording of existing ordinances is vague. He will be meeting with the Director of Community Development and staff to review and discuss the existing ordinances. Kuenzel is also reviewing City of Portland's mitigation procedures. He will not be in attendance at the March meeting,but will report in April. D. Site Design and Use Standards - Commissioners continue to review and draft changes. This item will be tabled until after Arbor Week. E. Arbor Week- ✓ The Commission approved $50 to have a poster drawing created and an additional $50 for Terry Skibby to create an historic tree photo display for the windows of City Hall. ✓ Kerry Kencaim will continue to work with the artist. January suggested having the poster be available as a cover in the Revel, the Sneak Preview&/or the Gazette. January reported the initial response from the Tidings on the cost of the insert was $90. She will have more details as the poster is r6fined. She also had the Loving Hands Gallery agree to display posters. ✓ Staff will check to be sure the banner is scheduled to be hung across main Street during Arbor Week. Ashland Tree Commission Minutes,February 4,1999 I ✓ Rich reported he would create a list of tree oriented activities including the availability of the flag for schools. ✓ January reported the high school teachers were unavailable for Arbor Week activities. ✓ Staff reported Safeway has been recognized. Discussion regarding recognizing Walker Schools Xeriscaped landscaping was postponed until the March meeting. F. Other Old Business 1) Staff submitted the wording for the budget increase proposal. Commissioners approved the wording. Staff will submit it to management. 2)Staff reported that Senior Planner Bill Molnar agreed to begin to request full sets of landscape plans from each applicant. 3) Staff updated the Commissioners on last months Planning Actions. V.New Business A. Site Reviews 1.PA99-008 (600 Siskiyou) - The applicant, Laurie Bixby, was asked to submit a revised landscape plan incorporating species and sizes of trees and shrubs as well as all other requirements included in the "Minimum Standards". Also to include in the resubmission, an irrigation plan and any changes proposed for the parking area. 2. PA99-011 (75 Helman and 132 North Main) - It was recommended that the zone change review consider a condition that the landscape requirements reflect the residential character of the neighborhood and coverage be maintained at the residential required percentage. Necessary details that were lacking in the plan included: designation of street trees on both Central and Helman; replacing Sargentii Cherry on N. Main with a larger street tree; trees in the parking lots should be size, quantity and placement according to city requirements; groundcover species needs to be specified and irrigation plan needs to be submitted. B. Formal Goal Setting - Staff requested the commissioners select a date (month) for annual goal setting. C. Other New Business- There was no additional new business. VII. Adjournment - Meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Ashland Tree Commission Minutes,February 4,1999 Council Communication Department of Community Development Planning Division House Move - 134 Church Street March 16, 1999 Submitted by: John McLaughlin Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: A motion to approve the move of a designated historic structure at 134 Church Street. Synopsis: The owners of the home at 134 Church Street have requested that they be allowed to move the structure from the front of their property to the rear, along Baum Street. The structure will remain on the same lot. The move will allow for the applicants to construct a new home fronting on Church Street. Recommendation: The Historic Commission and Staff recommend approval of the request. Background: The Ashland Historic Commission reviewed this request at their March 3, 1999 meeting and recommended approval of the move. As stated above, the applicants are wishing to construct a new home fronting on Church Street, essentially at the site of the current structure. The existing home will be moved to the rear of the property, where it will maintain its exterior appearance, but will be remodeled into studio space and a garage. The applicants have been working closely with the Historic Commission on the project, as well as the design of the new home to ensure compatibility with the Church Street streetscape. ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW IN ASHLAND ' S HISTORIC INTEREST AREA Applicant J�/� 'q,.',"'".^rl Date Address 1'jl c-'1�4LMVZ44 �ST Commercial Residential ✓ Proposed Act 'ion klVg6 014TV"c- W40✓w, A-� Construction Changes or additions to existing structure0�1� COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING AREA: Height and/or scale Setback Orientation Architectural Style , Period Other: COMMENTS: DESIGN ELEMENTS: Roof (angle , orientation , materials ) Windows , Doors Siding Railings , Posts Cornices , brackets , pediments or other functional and non-functional ornamental features Other: COMMENTS : Impact this change would make on the Historic Character of the immediate neighborhood ( +/- ) Historic Commission Recommendation : Approve_Disapprove S�P�o�f MoV� aF t�w15� to �-A� � R�sroar. fyot�+o� 7o GrAa.q�� /yr�Pio j}oV*, p ¢aoejr * PAor" T*A - 15 141"PC. 1 N r1AT✓Af Coa�Panri+k �UyL��� Hist110AI Commission Chair or Represent iv 'S Ejfr,16r !;0ffV4j)w1j t,C S/4PS; 7iar�. 0*4LYA-e2 - P"ML5 • PA# Address Person(s)Assigned 98-045 122 Church Street Vava Bailey 98-047 Between 548 &628 North Main Street Joyce Cowan 98-070 595 North Main Street Terry Skibby and Dale Shostrom 97-072 440 East Main Street Joyce Cowan 98-075 542 "A" Street Jim Lewis 98-091 559 Scenic Drive Vava Bailey 99-020 525"A" Street Jim Lewis NEW BUSINESS Moving Request for 134 Church Street Knox related this proposal is to move the existing house to another location on the same property in order to allow a larger single family residence to be built. Architect Fran Icenhower explained the proposal is to pick up the existing house and move it to the rear and side of the property, leaving the front elevation as it is. The front elevation will still be facing Church Street. The owners of the property would like to turn this house into a studio space on the second floor with garage space on the bottom floor. The side addition and rear sunroom addition will be removed. A garage door will be installed on the Baum Street side. The Commission discussed duplicating some of the windows on the right side more like the left side if it works for the owners on the inside of the building. Icenhower said the stairway and closet area are in the way on that side, but she will see if any more windows can be added. Chambers asked if it would feasible to have a single rather than a double car garage. Icenhower answered another single car garage will be built perpendicular to the street in the new house. Skibby said in reality, the house will be saved and turned into a carriage house. Lewis asked if the garage door could be changed from a roll up type to a two-section one. Icenhower responded there are garage doors available now that look like they are in two sections that open out, yet still roll up. She will do more checking. Chambers agreed with Skibby the same building will be on the same lot with the same elevation and the front facade restored. He stated this is a creative solution. Foil said he is concerned with what the new house will look like. He doesn't want it to block the existing historic house. Icenhower said the historic home will be totally visible and added the design for the new house has changed considerably since the beginning. Currently, it is designed to have a 1500 square foot footprint and will be a bungalow style. The basement area has been expanded with this design. She said she took input from Lewis, Shostrom and Cowan when she met them on the site and is trying to work the recommendations into the design. Shostrom said his concern is the bulk and scale of the new house. Church Street is comprised of older historic homes and this will be the first new home on the street. He does not want this to start a trend. Bailey asked how high the new house will be and Icenhower answered it will be 24 to 30 feet. Chambers asked if either shed, both of which are proposed to be demolished, is movable. Icenhower said they are both in bad shape but the smaller one may be able to withstand a move. She added the owners would be willing to give them away if anyone wants to move them. Foil said it is important the Review Board see the elevations of the new house and the streetscape of what the lot will look like. Foil then moved and Chambers seconded to recommend approval of this house move to the City Council upon Review Board examination of the proposed new house. Bailey added it will be necessary to ensure there is visual space between the two. The motion passed with all voting aye except Bailey. Icenhower stated she will be out of town, but Tom Taylor will bring in the elevations for the new home to the March 110 Review Board meeting so it can go to the City Council on March 16'". Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 3, 1999 4 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR IN THE ASHLAND HISTORIC DISTRICT 134 Church Street see• e` Y ..r iii . EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR MOVINGIDEMOLITION IN THE ASHLAND HISTORIC DISTRICT The following is a list of questions to be answered when applying of a permit to either move of demolish a structure in the Ashland historic district: 1) What is the address? 134 Church Street, Ashland, OR. 2) What is the age of the structure? 1884(est.) 3) If the stricture has been included on the Heritage Landmarks List,what is its ranking? Secondary 4) What is its overall Point rating? 66 points(100 possible) 5) What are the ratings in the Architectural? 25 points (35 possible) Environmental? 13 points (21 possible) Historic? 28 points (44 possible) 6) If this is a primary or secondary structure,what are the reasons behind the request for this moving/demolition permit? By moving the structure it will be restored to its original exterior form and allow space on the same property to build a larger separate home. By removing the side and rear additions the structure would restore its original footprint. If the structure is left in its current location it would be lost in an addition and it would not be kept in its pure form. 7) What istare the specific section(s)of the Ashland City Code which are being cited as reasons for the move/demolition? 15.04.210 8) What is the current zoning of the stricture? residential R-1-7.5 9) If it is to be moved,what is the zoning into which it will be moved? The zoning would remain the same. The move would be to a new location on the same properly with full view from Church Street, keeping the structure Intact. The following is a list of the criteria used to evaluate the merits of granting a moving/demolition permit in the Ashland Historic District: 1) Does the structure meet the minimum criteria adopted for inclusion on the final Heritage Landmarks List? Yes, secondary 2) Is the building structurally sound? Has it Been condemned? Can the structure be restored for costs comparable to constructing a new building of the same size and value? The building is structurally sound. Restoration will be more expensive than new construction of a reproduction of the same size and value. 3) Do the existing configuration of the house and the uses permitted in the zone make the retention of the structure unfeasible and an unreasonable hardship on the property owner? The size of the structure is not large enough for the owner to live in, moving the location of the structure on the property keeps the historic value with out demolition. 4) Why is it necessary to move or demolish the structure? By moving the structure It allows space to build a separate larger home. In its new proposed location on the same property(visible from Church Street)it allows for preservation of the of the structure to Its original exterior condition. 5) How will moving or demolishing this structure contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood? By moving the structure to a new location on its current property It will allow for restoration work on the structure within the budget of a new home. 6) What will replace the structure if it is moved or demolished? A new larger energy efficient home is proposed in the structures original location. While keeping the original structure intact and restored in a new visible location on the same property. 7) What impact will this new use of the property have on the historic character of the neighborhood? The impact will be restoration of a 1880's home, increasing the value of the property and surrounding properties. 8) If the structure is to be moved,what impact will the building have in its new locale? The new proposed location for the structure on the same property is within Ashland city setback requirements and is still visible from Church Street, the same street it Is currently facing. 9) If left in place, what use could the structure be put to in its current zone? By leaving the structure in place it would be lost in an addition...or it would be put back on the market and not get restored. 10) If the structure is to be moved, will it be restored? Briefly, how will the restoration be accomplished? The structure would be restored to Its original footprint It currently has an addition on the right side and rear that would be removed. The exterior siding would be restored, keeping the original door and windows with original details. The rear elevation would have a garage door added where the addition is removed. The first floor would be converted to garage space, and the upstairs would be restored to a residential studio space with no kitchen. 11) If the structure is to be demolished, will the materials be recycled? The siding on the side and rear addition is a match to the original structure and would be needed in restoring the original structures exterior. 12) What effect will the move have on the structure's chances of being included on the National Historic Register? The move is not off the property. It should not Influence it one way or another. 13) If this is a proposed move,what will become of the structure if the application is denied? The structure could be compromise by an addition. Or the property could go back on the market without any restoration work. 14) Based on the numerical ratings, are there compelling arguments with regards to Architecture, Environment, or History Mich would be grounds for denying a moving or demolition permit? The ratings are above average in the "Architectural" division in regards to the style, design, artistic quality, Integrity and rarity. The "Environment" division in regards to the setting is above average and continuity excellent By moving the house we preserve it as a stand alone structure that will be restored. The "History" of the structure is weak. There is poor Information available on this property and there where no substantial events that happened in the home. 4 f ' q f 'l J; l� r 1i „v. r. Tiv t. r q 1� ( 1 1 1a�'I � ri• A - 'gyp, , ��-\� ) J •/ �'4.: :.1 W Ohl .r i. EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR MOVING/DEMOLITION IN THE ASHLAND HISTORIC DISTRICT The following is a list of questions to be answered when applying of a permit to either move of demolish a stricture in the Ashland historic district: 1) What is the address? 134 Church Street, Ashland, OR. 2) What is the age of the stricture? unknown on sheds 3) If the stricture has been included on the Heritage Landmarks List,what is its ranking? The sheds are not listed. 4) What is its overall Point rating? 5) What are the ratings in the Architectural? Environmental? Historic? 6) If this is a primary or secondary structure,what are the reasons behind the request for this moving/demolition permit? By removing the shed structures the property is cleaned up. The structure that is being saved would be moved to the location of the shed structure. 7) What is/are the specific section(s)of the Ashland City Code which are being cited as reasons for the move/demolition? 16.04.210 8) What is the current zoning of the structures? These are sheds in a residential R-1-7.5. The following is a list of the criteria used to evaluate the merits of granting a demolition permit in the Ashland Historic District: 1) Does the stricture meet the minimum criteria adopted for inclusion on the final Heritage Landmarks List? No 2) Is the building structurally sound? Has it Been condemned? Can the structure be restored for costs comparable to constructing a new building of the same size and value? The buildings are storage sheds that are sitting on the ground and not structurally sound. They have not been maintained. They have been pieced together. 3) Do the existing configuration of the house and the uses permitted in the zone make the retention of the structure unfeasible and an unreasonable hardship on the property owner? These buildings are storage sheds that need to be removed to clean up the historic property. 4) Why is it necessary to move or demolish the structure? By removing the sheds it allows space to build a separate larger home. It allows for preservation of the of the historic structure on the property. 5) How will moving or demolishing this structure contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood? By removing the sheds it will allow for restoration work on the historic structure within the budget of a new home. 6) What will replace the structure if it is moved or demolished? The historic structure will be moved to the shed location. While keeping the original historic structure Intact and restored in a visible location on the same property. 7) What impact will this new use of the property have on the historic character of the neighborhood? The removal of the sheds will clean up a cluttered historic property, increasing the value of the property and surrounding properties. 8) If the stricture is to be moved, what impact will the building have in its new locale? 9) If left in place, what use could the structure be put to in its current zone? The only use is for storage. 10) If the structure is to be moved, will it be restored? Briefly, how will the restoration be accomplished? No 11) If the structure is to be demolished, will the materials be recycled? The wood would be saved for anyone that has a use for It 12) What effect will the move have on the structure's chances of being included on the National Historic Register? These sheds are not on the register. 13) If this is a proposed move,what will become of the structure if the application is denied? 14) Based on the numerical ratings, are there compelling arguments with regards to Architecture, Environment, or History which would be grounds for denying a moving or demolition permit? The ratings on this property are for the home not the sheds. By removing the sheds it allows for the historic structure to be restored in a new location on the same property. -- ---------- -----------------._.____._._................ _. . - I i i I i I i I i I i I i i I i I i I i I i I i I i GARDQI I I I I I I I I I I i Q I i b'wuwrt I i W/TRFE TORT I i I I X I I I I ! j GARAGE sum S I I I 1 I I I i b EvaxGREF1+s j O EV6eGREEN i � I I I I i I I I I I ! j AODQION I i p I i e i I I I I I i I I I MbrORICAL I srRUCnaE I I I I I I I F I I I I ! I I I I FLA la'OAK E X S I S T I N G S I T E § 134 CHURCH STREET Q e'nar E 1070' i a Y.• r.•"e'i• _4 •I Y Y�!' Yi'a[6'i' } i } t Q a : ra• r+• 3 30 E X S I S T I N C M A I N F L 0 0 R P L A N WO SQ. FL SCALE: 3116" = 1'-0" ]'f.'x 5'�' f h x 9 Yo' ❑ Yi• _ Q C4 x N � f X 1 Q 2' 'X 5'6' I�I ^II E X S I S T I N G 2 N D LOO R 414 80. Ff. SCALE: 1/4" 1 -0" —F--•-- — — — —— — — — — — — --- — — — — — ---— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —--- ——— — —— — — — j 14 Ir--------------------- A 0 ANEW LOCATION FOR I [a" WALNUT i SOLD HOUSE I W1 TREE FORT ---------- I E,44ED rHEr> (REMOVE) i (REMOVE) (B) 120 EVERGREENS ---------- --------------------- 0 0 1W 0 EVERGREEN ----------- ------------------ (REMOVE) EXISTING HOUSE NEW LOCATION EXISTING HOUSE PROPERTY LINE (MOVE) - ------------ ----------- 0 IS- EVERGREEN -----------------d: i is uua¢ REV I S E D SITE PLAN 134 CHURCH SKEET ._o ----------------- - ----- - --------- --------- ........ ......... -1- — - ----- - 1oY-0l I cs� GARAGE O 7a' 2,6'x G A R A G E F L 0 0 R P L A N SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 181 ^II _1 O _1 — 4 — x i N C::D _1 Q f z: 1 It mo x f fz 1 ro'x s'�• S T U D 1 0 F L 0 0 R P LiA N i i � I� i;i � I III II I�I'lll ODD I IN s c I � I � I � II1 � 1 � 1 � 1 � 1 e ~ III II II II II III II m O II + II II II II II � I � I m I m III IIII iII I1II II lI � Ill l � ll ill11111111 ' 29'.0" ll � l � ll � � � � � � l � # � I ! # 11 , � 11IN I11 � lII � � mm 41111111 I � l �} I # I � I � I ICI # � 1 l 1 I{j„ Ii� ii� 1 m iil � ll � ll r 111IIlll � � � � l � I � � � I � II � I D 1114111 , z City Council Communication City Recorder's Office March 16, 1999 Submitted by: Barbara Christensen y�� Approved by: Mike Freeman I�r Title: Liquor License Application from Don Mercer dba/Omar's Inc. Synopsis: Approval of Oregon Liquor License as provided by OLCC for additional privileges. Recommendation: The City Recorder recommends approval of request for liquor license and has determined that the applicant has complied with the city's land use requirements, has obtained a business license and registered as a restaurant, if applicable. Background Information: Application for additional privileges (catering). City Council Communication City Recorder's Office March 16, 1999 Submitted by: Barbara Christensen Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: Liquor License Application from Salvador De La Cruz dba/Si Casa Flores. Synopsis: Approval of Oregon Liquor License as provided by OLCC. Recommendation: The City Recorder recommends approval of request for liquor license and has determined that the applicant has complied with the city's land use requirements, has obtained a business license and registered as a restaurant, if applicable. Background Information: Change in ownership. Council Communication Administration Library Bond Consideration March 16, 1999 Submitted by: Greg g cole Approved by: Mike Freem n Title: Consideration of"A Resolution of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, Calling a Special Election to Submit to the Voters the Question of Contracting a General Obligation Bonded Indebtedness in the Amount of$7,600,000 to Finance Expansion and Renovation of the City's Historic Public Library Facilities." Synopsis: On November 17, 1998, the city council approved a request by the Friends of the Ashland Public Library to pursue expansion of the existing library facility. A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for architectural services was issued, and ultimately SERA Architects was selected to provide consulting services to the city. A Public Library Improvement Committee was established and project meetings began in mid-January and have continued through March 8" . These meetings included a series of committee workshops, public workshops and open houses. The committee considered a variety of alternatives for expansion of the library and has selected a preferred alternative which was used for development of the cost estimate for the bond preparation. Recommendation: It is recommended that the council adopt the attached resolution which would call for a special election for voters to consider the question of contracting a general obligation bond for the expansion and renovation the city's historic Carnegie Library. Background Information: The present building is a Camegie Library, which was built in 1912. An addition to the original structure was competed in 1954 and then a parking lot was added in 1972. The city owns the building and site, however, the library is operated as a part of the Jackson County library system, which has a network of 15 public facilities and is a department of Jackson County government. There have been a number of programming studies recommending expansion of the library from its current 7,000 square feet to a more useful size (21,000 s.f. in 1990 and 24,000 s.f. in 1998). The later of these two studies was based on an expansion of the library to meet the needs of the city in the year 2025 and anticipated a service area population of 32,000. These programing ' r Council Communication- March 16, 1999 Library Bond Consideration Page 2 needs have now been reconfirmed by the consulting team as part of this project and have been incorporated in the preferred alternative. The project team for the project consists of SERA Architects, Raymond Kistler(local architect), George Kramer (local historic preservation consultant), and Kathryn Page (library programmer from San Francisco). The project team has significant experience with library design and construction, programming, historic renovation and renovation of Carnegie Library facilities. The team was assisted by an ad hoc Public Library Improvement Committee which had the following members: Catherine Shaw,Mayor; Marjorie O'Harra, Historian; John Fields,Friends of Ashland/Planning Commission Member; Jim Lewis,Historic Commission Member; Bob Wilson, County Librarian; Pat Blair, County Librarian; Amy Blossom, County Librarian; Sheila Burns, State Library Board of Trustees; Barbara Ryberg,Friends of the Ashland Library; Ed Hungerford, County Library Advisory Committee; Lesley Klecan, County Library Advisory Committee; Marilyn Briggs,Planning Commission Member; Phyllis Reynolds,Retired School Counselor and neighbor to the project; Mark Knox, Planning Liaison; and Greg Scoles,Project Coordinator. While this is a project which was accomplished in a short time frame, given the desire to have this issue considered by the council at the March 16'h meeting, there was a significant public participation component. The committee met on three separate occasions to review project goals, design and cost estimates. There were two half-day workshops where the public could influence the design process, and the architectural team held public open houses on five different days to allow the public to meet with the team on a one-on-one basis during the day. After completion of the public involvement process, the committee recommended a preferred alternative to the design team. This alternative is approximately 28,000 s.f. (including the existing 7,000 s.f. structure), requires the acquisition of the adjacent commercial parcel and provides approximately 31 off-street parking spaces. The estimated cost for this alternative is $7,600,000, including construction, land acquisition, consultant services, furniture and equipment, and financing. A $7.6 million bond issue would result in an assessment of approximately$.5852/$1,000 of assessed valuation. ► A house with an assessed value of$100,000 would have an assessment of about $58.52. The project team will be at the council meeting to present the project and to discuss the design concept and cost estimate. It is important to note that for this bond issue to be on the May 18th Ballot, the council must have its decision forwarded to the county by March 18`". RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON, CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION TO SUBMIT TO THE VOTERS THE QUESTION OF CONTRACTING A GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDED INDEBTEDNESS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,600,000 TO FINANCE EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF THE CITY'S HISTORIC PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES. RECITALS: A. The City Council of City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon (the "City"), has determined that there is a need to finance the cost of capital construction and improvements related to land acquisition, construction, furniture, and equipment, associated with the expansion, remodeling and repair of the City's public library (the "Library Project"); and B. The costs are estimated to be $7,600,000, all of which are costs of capital construction or improvements or costs of issuing bonds; now, therefore, THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A special election is called for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of the City the question of contracting a general obligation bonded indebtedness in the name of the City in a sum not to exceed $7,600,000. Bond proceeds will be used to finance the "Library Project". The bonds shall mature over a period of not more than 20 years. SECTION 2. The special election called shall be held in the City on May 18, 1999, in accordance with Oregon Law. SECTION 3. The City Recorder shall cause to be delivered to the Elections Officer of Jackson County, Oregon, the attached Notice of Bond Election, not later than 61 days prior to the election. The Election Officer is requested to give the electorate of the City notice that the election shall be conducted by mail pursuant to Oregon law; and SECTION 4. That the City Recorder shall give notice of the election by as provided in the laws of the State of Oregon and the charter and ordinances of the City of Ashland. SECTION 5. The City Attorney is authorized to alter the text of the ballot to comply with any rules, procedures or practices of the Elections Officer of Jackson County to implement the requirements of Oregon Law. Page 1 - Resolution F:\USER\TINA\GSCOLES\Public Library\resolution3.16.99.wpd r 1 The foregoing resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the day of , 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ' 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney 1 Page 2 - Resolution FAUSER\TINA\GSCOLES\Public Libraryuesolution3-16.99.wpo NOTICE OF BOND ELECTION City of Ashland Jackson County, Oregon NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on May 18, 1999, an election will be held in City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. The following question will be submitted to the qualified voters thereof: CITY OF ASHLAND CAPTION: GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC LIBRARY EXPANSION AND RENOVATION. QUESTION: Shall the City be authorized to issue general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $7,600,000? If the bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property or property ownership that are not subject to limits of Article XI, Section 11 b of the Oregon Constitution. SUMMARY: This measure authorizes up to $7,600,000 of general obligation bonds. Bond proceeds will be used to finance the cost of capital construction and improvements related to land acquisition, construction, furniture, and equipment, associated with the expansion, remodeling and repair of the City's public library. The bonds would mature within 20 years. c Ashland Public Library (REVISED) MEETING SCHEDULE 1. Committee Meeting Monday, February t, 1999 4:00pm -6:00 pm City Council Chambers- 1175 E. Main Street 2. Community Vision Workshop I Saturday, February 6, 1999 9:00 am - 1:00 pm Hillah Temple-51 Winburn Way 3. Architects Open House (M-F) February 8 - 12, 1999 12:00 noon - 1:30 pm &4:30 pm -6:00 pm Hillah Temple- 51 Winburn Way 4. Community Vision W Saturday, February 13, 1999 9:00 am - 1:00 pm Hillah Temple-51 Winburn Way Saturday, February 13, 1999 Immediately following Workshop Hillah Temple- 51 Winburn Way 6. Committee Meeting KI Monday, March 8, 1999 4:00pm - 6:00 pm City Council Chambers- 1175 E. Main Street 7. City Council Meeting Tuesday, March 16;1.999 7:00 pm City Council Chambers- /175 E. Main Street MAR-11-99 01 :05PM FROG-SERA 15032285913 T-585 P.p1/03 F-722 t ASHLAND PUBLIC LIBRARY foil - r PROJECT DEVELOPMENT BUDGET SCHEME A 1. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS D I a. New Aaaition $3,371,000 �P 1 b. Existing Renovation $832,000 0 1c. Site Works $565000 / td.Allowance for Hazardous Material Abatement $20,00D ✓ C�Tj- 1e. Building PermiVSDC $45,000 0� $4,833,000 2. LAND AQUISITION COSTS 2a. Purchase Price of Adjacent Land 5415,000 21b. Sales Commissions (as airectea) $0 2c. Legal Fees $5,000 $420.000 3 CONSULTANT SERVICES 3a. Pre-Design/Programming/Site Analysis(as directed) $0 3b. Environmental Analysis (as directed) $0 3c. A/E Basis Design Services $404,000 3d. A/E Extra Services $20,000 3e. Cost Management Consultant $15,000 3f. Civil Engineering $10,000 3g.Acoustical Consultant $8,000 311 Lighting Consultant $10,000 3, Signage Consultant $10,000 31. FF8 E Consultant $55,000 3k. Library Consultant $20,000 31. Landscape Consultant $15,000 3m.Hazardous Materials Consultant $8,000 ) n RQ 3n. Geotechnical Investigation $8,000 3o Site Survey $5,000 3p. Document ReproductionfReimbursables $10,000 , 3q. Pre-Bond Services $65.000 N(( $663,000 cf $5,916,000 UU„ W20171.1 c.xls 1 3/11/99 MAR-]1-88 01 :05Ptt FROIt-SERA 15032286813 T-586 P.03/03 F-722 ASHLAND PUBLIC LIBRARY ®ee® r. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT BUDGET(Cgntd.) D SCHEME A of $5,916,D00 4. FURNITURE, EQUIPMENT AND ARTWORK �S 4a. Furniture to New Addition 5440,000 4b. Equipment to New Addition $50,000 4c. Furniture to Existing Library $140,000 4d. Equipment to Existing Library $10,000 4e.Artwork to New Addition $35,000 4f. Artwork w Existing Library $10,000 $685,000 S. FINANCING COSTS Sa. Bonds/Financing Costs (as directed) $110.000 $110,000 6. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 6a. Owner Administration Costs (as directed) $0 $0 7. COST ESCALATION & CONTINGEN 7a.Cast Escalation Allowance @ 3% $201,000 7b. Project Contingency @ 10% 1,000 $892,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $7,603,000 Assumptions: No relocation costs No temporary library facilities No off-site utility upgrades 2 Phase Construction All existing FFBE removed by Owner No work to exterior facade of existing library $20,000 Allowance for Hazmat Abatement One year cost escalation W20171.1 c.xls 2 3/11/99 t ASHLAND PUBLIC LIBRARY CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS We have assembled a team with ideal credentials for the renovation of the Ashland Public Library. We have taken into consideration the necessary levels of experience, the ability to address your issues creatively and the right personalities to interact with the Assistant City Administrator. The proposed individuals have experience working on tight time lines and accomplishing creative results within a limited budget. They are available to begin working immediately and are committed to serving the City of Ashland. KATHRYN PAGE ASSOCIATES A librarian and library planner with 26 years experience in public libraries, Kathryn Page man- aged San Francisco Public Library's capital construction projects from 1989 through 1996. This included oversight of the new Main Library project as well as the renovations and expan- sions of the Chinatown, Mission, Park, Presidio and Sunset Branch Libraries —all Carnegie buildings. For the renovation of the Carnegie Chinatown Branch Library in particular, Kathryn assisted in doubling the building's public space, going from 9,000 to 18,500 sq. ft. with an extension to the rear of the historic structure. She oversaw the preparation of the building program and coordinated between the Library and the City's Department of Public Works through design and construction phases. Current projects include preparation of building programs for a branch facilities master plan for the San Jose Public Library's 17-branch system, building programs for the City of Santa Clara, California Library(for both the Central Library and a proposed branch north of the Bayshore Freeway), a building program for the Morgan Hill Community Library(a branch of the Santa Clara County Library system) and a building program to expand the San Francisco Public Library's Ocean View Branch Library. Other recent experience includes consultations with the Mountain View Public Library, Mountain View, CA, to analyze and improves shelving operations,the Memphis Shelby County Public Library, Memphis,TN,to advise the library on effective move-in coordination and planning and the Milwaukee Public Library in Milwaukee, Wl,to advise on integration of technology into public services spaces in a renovation project. Kathryn received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Stanford University in 1971 and a Masters in Library Science form the University of California at Berkeley in 1972. She is an active mem- ber of both the American Library Association and California Library Association and has spo- ken on various topics related to architecture and design at meetings of both organizations. SERA ARCHITECTS, P.C. ASHLAND PUBLIC LIBRARY c ' RAYMOND KISTLER, AIA Based in Ashland, Ray has been working on architectural projects since 1985. His firm is experienced in architecture and land-use planning, and has a portfolio of various building types including historic renovations, office and retail developments. Ray places special em- phasis toward environmental analysis and the sensitive integration of the built environment. Working for the Southern Oregon Historic Society, Ray has performed an adaptive re-use design for the Hanley Farms. He also conducted the master plan for a Waldorf School at the old Chataqua Ranchand is currently working on the Community Health Center in Ashland. Ray's knowledge of Ashland, his proximity to the downtown library and his experience in historic renovations will benefit our team and your project. KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS KPFF has provided structural engineering design services for the structural inspection, seis- mic analysis and structural upgrade of more than 300 buildings. From a structural engineering perspective, services for this project type include investigating existing structures and rec- ommending design solutions utilizing the latest design,analytical tools,and building technol- ogy and cost estimates for restoration/renovation/remodel,partial demolition, reconstruction and long-term maintenance. KPFF's civil engineering areas of practice range from preliminary planning and coordination of permits to full design services for both on-and off-site infrastructure involving roads,parking lots, large and small scale water systems, sewer systems and storm drainage systems. Specialty areas of practice include design for innovative storm water treatment systems, water rights applications,right-of-way acquisition,permit applications,coordination with funding agencies, public involvement and water, sewer and storm drain system modeling. KPFF's design experience includes dozens of libraries, museums and interpretive centers,as well as many other specialized public buildings. From a structural engineering perspective, these buildings are unique.They often require heavy loading requirements in order to accom- modate large exhibits and/or high density or library shelving, and they may feature public spaces, lounges,group study areas,theatre and auditorium space, meeting and conference rooms,state-of-the-art audio-visual communication capabilities, and extensive exhibit space. KPFF's representative project experience includes: Multnomah County Historic(1913) Cen- tral Library Renovation, Portland, Oregon; Multnomah County Midland Library, Portland, Or- egon; Oregon State University Valley Library Addition, Corvallis, Oregon; Lewis&Clark Col- lege Watzek Library Seismic Strengthening and Addition, Portland, OR;Willamette University Law Library Addition/Remodel, Salem, OR; Reed College Hauser Library Addition and Reno- vation, Portland, OR; Whittier College, Wardman Library Expansion, Whittier, CA; City of Beaverton New City Library, Beaverton, OR;Gresham Regional Library, Gresham, OR; Bothell Library, Bothell, WA; Kirkland Library, Kirkland, WA; and Bellevue Library, Bellevue,WA. SERA ARCHITECTS, P.C. ASHLAND PUBLIC LIBRARY Jerry L. Abdie, P.E., Principal/Structural Engineering Manager—As a Principal-in-Charge of Structural Engineering at KPFF,Jerry Abdie acts as the design structural engineer with other members of the design team to select structural systems and oversee comparative analyses between systems. His project experience includes: Oregon State University– Valley (for- merly, Kerr) Library Expansion and Renovation, Corvallis,OR; Lewis&Clark College–Watzek Library Seismic Analysis, Portland, OR; Portland Community College – Cascade Campus Student Services Building, Portland, OR;Washington State University–Kimbrough Hall Addi- tion/Remodel and Seismic Upgrade, Pullman, WA; Willamette University Science Building, Salem, OR;and West Linn/Wilsonville School District–Wilsonville High School,Wilsonville, OR. Blake D. Patsy, P.E., S.E.,Associate/Manager Structural Engineering—Blake is a Structural Project Manager at KPFF and is responsible for structural analysis, design,detailing,produc- tion and construction services for all types of buildings constructed of wood, concrete, ma- sonry and steel. His historic "seismic analysis,structural strengthening and renovation/retro- fit" project experience includes: historic (1913) Pearl Building, Portland. OR; Historic (circa 1920) 13th&Flanders, Portland, OR;historic(1910)Weiden&Kennedy Corporate Headquar- ters, Portland, OR; historic (1909) Governor Hotel, Portland, OR; historic (1923) Princeton Building/Elks Lodge, Portland, OR;and Powell's Bookstores Seismic Analyses/Renovations, Portland, OR. Robert J. Grummel, P.E., Principal/Manager, Civil Engineering—As Principal-in-Charge for civil engineering, Bob Grummel is responsible for coordinating civil engineering requirements with the architect and other members of the design team. Bob joined KPFF's Portland office in 1985 and has 13 years of professional engineering design experience. Renovation projects of particular relevance include: Lewis&Clark College Watzek Library Renovation Site Devel- opment, Portland, OR; Powell's Bookstores Seismic Analysis/Renovation, Portland, OR; Chown/Pella historic(1911) Seismic Strengthening and Renovation, Portland, OR; Fifth Av- enue Suites Hotel (Historic Kimpton Hotel/Frederick & Nelson Building), Portland, OR; and Audubon Headquarters Renovation, Portland, OR. PAE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. RAE Consulting Engineers, Inc. is a mechanical, electrical, energy management and lighting design firm founded in 1967.At RAE,each principal is responsible for the design and manage- ment of the individual project and remains closely involved throughout completion. Their engineers and designers are constantly kept abreast of new technology, applications and requirements to meet their client's expectations. Principal involvement from the concept phase through construction brings experience to each project whether the project is conven- tional design build or fast track. An innovative and creative firm, RAE takes pride in the ability to find the most appropriate design solution for each project. PAE's expertise is designing systems for large, technically complex projects that are completed on schedule and within budget. PAE's main areas of experience are concentrated in correctional and government facilities and past projects in- clude new and renovated office buildings,correctional institutions and historic structures. Select project experience includes three historic branches for Multnomah County Libraries, Western Oregon University Library, Saint Martin's College Library, Chemeketa Community SERA ARCHITECTS, P.C. ASHLAND PUBLIC LIBRARY College Learning Resource Center(Library). Oregon State University Kerr Library Expansion, Sunriver District Library,Central Oregon Community College Library, Multnomah County Cen- tral Library Renovation and the Ft.Vancouver Interpretive Center Paul Schwer, PE, Mechanical Engineer, Project Manager—Paul has experience with histori- cal renovation projects along with designing numerous library facilities throughout the North- west. He most recently completed a library for Central Oregon Community College Library where it won an award for Outstanding Concept and Design for a Public Building, in addition to working on Western Oregon University Library and Chemeketa Community College Learn- ing Resource Center. His historic renovation project experience includes the Medford and U.S. Custom House Historical Preservation Studies,the Eugene Federal Office Building Reno- vation and Gus Solomon Courthouse Study&Remodel. Dennis Bohn, Electrical Designer— With 20 years of experience at PAE, Dennis has de- signed numerous library and historical renovation projects. Most recently, he completed the remodel of the historic Multnomah County Central Library where it received a 1997 "Project of the Year" award from the American Public Works Association. Currently Dennis is work- ing on the remodel and addition to Oregon State University's Kerr Library and a new Art Museum and Music Center at Willamette University. He also assisted in renovating the his- torical Gus Solomon Courthouse in downtown Portland. MAYER/REED Mayer/Reed provides landscape architecture and urban design services that encompasses site planning, visual impact assessments, circulation analysis, recreational and interpretive facilities planning and ecological impact appraisals. The firm offers site-specific design and implementation services for the exterior built environment,such as grading, site reclamation, walls, paving, site accessories, signage, water features, lighting, planting and irrigation, cir- culation and parking. Mayer/Reed's multidisciplinary approach and commitment to design excellence has resulted in a reputation for creative problem solving. Collaboration among partners and staff enables the firm to respond imaginatively to a client's program from broad concepts through detailed design. Mayer/Reed is an Equal Opportunity Employer and is certified as a Woman Business Enterprise(WBE) in both Oregon and Washington. They are currently working with Multnomah County Libraries to update library sites, which include three historical Carnegie libraries at the North Portland, Belmont and St.Johns branches. Work scopes for these projects includes site evaluations for ADA upgrades, code compli- ance, new planting and irrigation designs.These projects call for incorporating building addi- tions onto the sites without compromising the original historical buildings.Additional histori- cal work includes the renovation of the 1928 Paramount Theater into the Portland Center for the Performing Arts, Portland Art Museum, Oaks Park, Dundee Winder/Victorian Farm House and New Market Theater. Carol Mayer-Reed, FASLA, Landscape Architect, Principal-in-Charge — Carol completed a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree at Ohio State University in 1973,with a specialization in interior design and a Masters degree in Landscape Architecture&Environmental Planning from Utah State University in 1977. She moved to Portland in 1977 where she was a landscape architect for two professional firms through 1983. SERA ARCHITECTS, P.C. ASHLAND PUBLIC LIBRARY In 1983, Carol established her own practice,and in 1987 formalized a partnership with Michael Reed to expand their multidiscipline design practice. Since then Carol, Michael and staff have collaborated on numerous projects that combine landscape architecture, urban design, envi- ronmental graphics and wayfinding.Carol's relevant project experience includes Multnomah County library renovations, which include three historic Carnegie libraries. Carol also pro- vided landscape architectural services for Portland's historic Oaks Park,the Portland Eastside Community Center, Mt. Scott Park and Community Center renovation, the Portland Art Mu- seum renovation, and the Dundee Winery/Victorian Farm House renovation. Irene Bowers, Landscape Designer, Project Manager—Irene received a Bachelor of Science degree in Landscape Architecture from California Polytechnic State University in 1984. During the next seven years she worked for several landscape architecture firms in California as a project manager. From 1991-1993 she was a consultant for the Rancho Alamitos Historical Garden in Long Beach while teaching at Santa Monica College, In 1993 she moved to Portland to accept a position at Murase Associates,where she was an associate and senior project manager. Project experience at Murase includes Portland Com- munity College Training Center, PCC Cascade Campus, OSU's Food Innovation Center, and the Reed College Cross Canyon dorms. Irene is presently a senior project manager at Mayer/Reed. Her project responsibilities in- clude Multnomah County public library renovations and new construction.Three of the older sites are historic Carnegie libraries. Irene is also the project manager for the Portland Eastbank Riverfront Park, Mt. Scott Park and Community Center renovation, and Washington State University Vancouver campus. Irene is actively involved in the design community, currently serving as the chair of the City of Milwaukie's Historic Resource Commission. RIDER HUNT ACKROYD Rider Hunt Ackroyd is a firm of professional consultants to the construction industry. They provide independent and unbiased expert advice on all aspects of the feasibility, cost and time of major construction projects,from site acquisition to final completion.Their principals and staff are trained as quantity surveyors and are construction cost management specialist. They have a detailed knowledge and understanding of the many factors affecting construc- tion costs and are able to apply this knowledge in providing the owner or architect with an independent means of evaluating and controlling costs.The experience of the company en- compasses both new and renovation work on a wide range of project. Rider Hunt Ackroyd's cost control experience is extensive. The company has been providing services in the Pacific Northwest since 1982 and has established a reputation that is second to none. Rider Hunt Ackroyd has the necessary staff and resources available to allow the above personnel to be assigned to the proposed project. Their portfolio of historic renovation experience includes several projects with SERA including Pioneer Courthouse, Portland City Hall, Portland, Or- egon,James A. Redden Courthouse, OSU Weatherford Residential College, Liberty Theater and the Portland Art Museum Renovation. Other experience includes The Dalles City Hall, Tacoma Art Museum and Washington State Historical Society Research Center Renovation. David Nash, BSc. (OS), A.R.I.C.S., Principal — David is a qualified Quantity Surveyor and ARICS. He has more 30 years experience in the UK, Canada and the United States. He will Principal-in-Charge of cost estimating for this project. SERA ARCHITECTS, P.C. ASHLAND PUBLIC LIBRARY QUALIFICATIONS AND SIMILAR EXPERIENCE During the past 30 years, SERA has sought to provide specific design solutions to various project challenges.With a portfolio of projects that varies in size and complexity, our design versatility reflects our clients'input.We approach the design direction by carefully listening to our clients'goals.Through meetings and design workshops,we establish relationships with our clients that help us form images of their visions. Our objective is for all projects to fulfill those visions by meeting the necessary functional requirements and providing compelling design within the projects'budgets. Intrinsic to this approach is the early identification of issues and opportunities to develop strategies for solutions. At SERA, we practice principled negotiation in approaching and re- solving complex planning and urban design issues.We strongly believe a successful long-term solution is one in which all viewpoints are considered. As part of our approach, we recom- mend issues be decided upon merit, rather than specific positions, with the ultimate goal of achieving win-win resolutions. Our experience has proven this philosophy reduces the need for lengthy approval processes, resulting in savings to clients. Having designed more than 75 building renovations in the past two decades,with 40 of these projects on the National Register of Historic Places,the technical staff at SERA is trained and experienced in the critical elements of building system renovations,fire and life safety, handi- cap accessibility, structural upgrading, mechanical/electrical retrofitting, energy conservation and full interior rehabilitations. Nationally recognized for our work with building renovations and adaptive re-use, SERA has been cited for 18 awards for Design Excellence by the Portland Chapter of the American Institute of Architects,and has received a number of community awards for design.The firm also has earned seven Historic Landmark awards for our historic restoration projects. George "Bing" Sheldon, AIA, Principal-in-Charge — Bing has an extensive background in both planning and architecture spanning 30 years. He has served on multiple public planning committees and advisory boards and helped to shape the urban design of the metropolitan area. Bing was Chairman of the Portland City Planning Commission from 1975-1977 and helped to create the downtown plan that serves as a guide for revitalizing Portland's urban center. He has been Principal-in-Charge on highly visible projects such as Portland City Hall, Montgomery Park and the New Market Theater.As Principal-in-Charge for your project, Bing will be responsible for overall quality control. Bing places the client's needs first, always making himself available to the Project Owner and consultants for questions or comments. He believes in active participation on the team and his insight and involvement will greatly benefit the City of Ashland. SERA ARCHITECTS, P.C. ASHLAND PUBLIC LIBRARY Peter R. Meijer, AIA, Historic Architect, Project Manager—Peter is extremely interested in this Carnegie library, as he has focused his career on historic renovation and preservation. Peter is a nationally recognized specialist in the field of historic renovation and brings specific knowledge in preserving characteristic elements of a building while upgrading the facility to current standards. Peter's recent experience in Oregon and Washington includes the renova- tion and evaluation of buildings on the National Register including the national landmark, Pioneer Courthouse.As Project Manager for the Dexter Horton Building in Seattle, Peter helped with design development documents for the seismic upgrade of the 14-story terra cotta and granite building. A City of Seattle landmark structure, the Dexter Horton Building was com- pleted in 1924.As Project Manager for the Washington State Parks projects, Peter completed a context report and condition survey of Depression-era structures in 23 Washington State parks. This entailed evaluating the historical significance, context landscape and physical conditions,as well as proposing standard treatments for identified problems. Peter is a true advocate for maintaining every historic element possible and will lead our team in creating innovative solutions for the Ashland Public Library. For Liberty Theater, Peter prepared a pre- liminary condition analysis and feasibility study of this 1925 historic Vaudeville theater. As Project Manager, Peter will ensure the design process remains focused and on schedule. He will manage the consultant team, coordinating their efforts and organizing the project overall. Peter will work to meet your budget and deliver accurate, comprehensive design and construction documents. He will be your day-to-day contact and will facilitate communica- tion between you and all team members. Natasha Koiv, IIDA, Director of Interiors,Associate, Project Interior Designer—Natasha has more than 20 years of experience in interior design and space planning. Natasha was the Project Interior Design for Multnomah County's Gresham Regional Library,as well as for the Gilkey Print Center library and study area for the Portland Art Museum. She is currently SERA's Project Interior Designer for the new library design, in association with Michael Graves Architect,at Saint Martin's College.With information shared by your staff, she will direct the SERA design team in exploring alternatives for the most efficient and functional space to serve the Ashland Public Library and its patrons. Her experience in designing public spaces will ensure that common areas are enjoyable and conducive to a library environment. Her specific strengths are developing a collaborative partnership with clients and team members, maintaining the schedule and completing projects on budget. John Echlin,AIA, Design Director—John brings genuine talent,design sensitivity and a fresh perspective to our firm. As Design Director at SERA, John oversees the design innovation and aesthetic qualities of our projects.John joined our firm after eight years in Europe working and teaching the attributes of public design.With an interest in civic projects and open space design, John has taken lead design responsibility for projects in Italy, Germany and Switzer- land including the Lucerne City Hall.John spent several years as a close associate of Charles Moore in Los Angeles where he designed several highly successful public projects. For the Pleasant Hill City Hall in California, John worked with citizens in a series of participatory design workshops. In addition to the city offices, the project incorporated public courtyards, gardens and fountains.The Oceanside Civic Center project won an urban design competition. This 117,000 sq. ft.center included a public library,city offices, a public plaza,a fountain and gardens. As Design Director at SERA,John performs the key leadership role in coordinating the design process at SERA. He actively directs project teams in a collaborative effort to ensure overall design quality. Consultant qualifications are included in the next session. SERA ARCHITECTS, P.C. IJIII', i Ih''' PUBLIC "PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE ASHLAND PROCESS questionnaire Results From I Public Workshop Saturday, February 13, •9• a t Y . AM0NUP=D0MY PUBLIC PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS Total Surveys = 3O Please note: Under"Additional Comments"for each question, comments receiving more than one similar response are noted bya number inparentheses. DESIGN� Than are three conceptual designs for the A,B,and Q that are a direct result of the first pubile workshop. Do yen have a Preference of one over the other?If so,why? —1 TA05 Combination of Two or More Schemes 10 � Wadd you change anything on yew preferred deaW What would that change be? Yes, I have suggestions 6r change =28 Additional Comments: (4)Would like to see a car book drop-off, possibly a circular drive where you do not have to park to return books. (2)Would like 10 see a combination of the features of all three schemes. (2)Create more natural light--remove/replant trees and put windows on the lower level. (2) Excavate a portion of the park area and create a"Pioneer Park"(Portland)type of access from Siskiyou,separate from the Carnegie,yet distinct. (2) Such a large project should not be limited or driven by the surrounding trees,sacrifice them if necessary. (2)For security reasons,the Children's Department should not ho off(o itself asin Scheme B. (2)The Ginko Tree is removed; Scheme A could be enhanced with a covered walkway from parking lot to front entrance. Why not change the Meeting Room toan Adult Reading Room. |s there a need for a Meeting Room,and who will use it? Concerned about the exterior of the building. For the cost of$4'5 Million the Library should have a distinguished original design, not a rectangular box. Perhaps some bay windows or unusual design features. Concerned about traffic problems if there io only one entrance/exit to parking lot—could ho alleviated i[i1 was wide enough. A"Service Entrance"in to the foyer on the upper level (from the alley)would create a drop-off for people and freight. l AS®Am IAI MIMMY PUBLIC PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS Meeting room should be separate or closed-off from the rest of the library. Children's Area should have lots of natural sunlight/windows. Would like to have parking in the alley. Bring the Library closer to the street—remove trees if necessary, more can be planted. Adult and Children's Sections should be on the same floor for staffing reasons. Need a separate staff restroom. Bring East Bay closer to street in order to create more of an enclosed/sheltered plaza terrace facing the street. It is important to keep the full integrity of the existing Carnegie structure. Bring in more light via and atrium and/or Light wells. Easier access is needed for disabled. On any design,use the upstairs for Adult browsing/Reading with periodicals and reference materials that cannot leave the building—would be nice to have computers here too. It is odd that new books are there when adults typically do not sit in the library to read books they can check out. Open the slope between new building and Siskiyou to make sure natural drainage dynamics allow water to keep draining. Don't build barriers instead,design for continuous flow between north building face and Courtyard in front of it. ➢ What Part of the proposed M racy designs would you Re to see further explanation?Is there some meat you do not understand? . No - 6 No answer= 19 Yes, there are aspects/would like to see explained further=13 Additional Comment (3) Parking. –The City may need to educate the public about what parking is available,and how far it is from the library. Need to have lots of room for future computer age equipment—A lot of the current library materials are becoming obsolete. Why aren't we looking at the Natural History Museum as a possible location? The"Squeezing"of the building between alley and trees is unfortunate if it limits design possibilities and functionality. Use of bay and roof proportions to match existing Carnegie. Elevation drawings—what will it look like? Why can't additional staffing be considered? Landscaping---to simplify upkeep and improve view toward mountains. Entrances and exits need to be dealt with. The odor in the existing Camegie—will restoration eliminate this? 2 ASMM FM IIDAASY PUBLIC PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS Roof design and windows. Will there be room for stairs,or will it be elevator only? ➢ Is proposed parking adequate? ©onY�Know 1 �" No = 8 Yes, it is adequate, or More than Adequate = 20 Other= 5 Additional Comment (5) It is improved,and this is probably the best we can do. There can not be enough parking so that everyone only has to walk a few feet to the entrance---we do need some room for the library! (3)There is never enough. - (3)Location and access are still a major problem to solve! (2)Scheme 6 provides for the most adequate parking. Need to look at one-way access. Even if present spaces were doubled,that would not be enough. When library is opened, use will immediately double. If there were 40-50 spaces instead of the presumed 30 spaces,that would be better. The idea of a boxed lot with one entrance/exit off Siskiyou is a problem. If no parking is available, customers would have to navigate a 3-point turn,exit onto siskiyou,change lanes,turn left,go up to Gresham,cross 2-3 lanes of traffic to get back to the parking lot... and repeat the process over and over until a space is free. Adequate for now?Or Future? There should be an emphasis on pedestrian access. Continue to think about a circular drop-off area. Many trips to the library are 10-15 minute stops;a circular drop-off could alleviate some of the parking problems. Parking is not adequate, but adequate parking at this location is impossible. Too much importance has been given to this issue. We need to consider our long-tens transportation goals provide for less emphasis on auto transportation, and more on alternative modes. A review of City traffic studies might help determine if parking is adequate. 3 ASAM,111M LMMY PUBLIC PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS ➢ Which concept has the ideal entry location? None ofthe concepts = 1 A 4 r C=5 No Answer= 6 B =9 Other= 13 Adddlonal Comments: (2) Liked the drawing presenting a Joint between the old and new buildings that allows entry and exit to Siskiyou and the Alley. (2) Would like a full entrance in front as well as an entrance in the back alley. Have some problems with each entry because of handicapped accessibility from parking. Could live with any of the presented options. Easy entry and entry off Siskiyou is paramount. Entrance/Exit should be more central to both of the structures. An entrance or exit into busy Siskiyou Boulevard should be though through very carefully as it could be hazardous. Would really like to see an entry into the Children's Foyer. ➢ Now Important is the Make tree land the other major trees on site]to you? Should it he saved at any cost? No answer= 6 Saveahem at anyTcost Not at any cost, but very close�'4'4 Not important to save the Ginko and/or other trees on the site at any cost= 25 Additional Comments: (6)They should not hold up the best placement of major buildings. If absolutely necessary, maybe some should be moved. (5)A$3,000,000.00+project should not be constrained, limited,or driven by existing artificially developed landscape. (4)Other new,well-planned landscaping will be much better. Some of the trees don't have a very long life-span left as it is. (3)These trees can go as long as other landscaping is done carefully. Flowers, shrubs, bushes,fountains, benches etc. (2)Although having trees around the library is important,these trees are not imperative(not at ANY cost). (2) Not at any cost, but close. Yes,the City has already removed trees from Hwy 66 and will not replace them. It is important to keep our streetscape beautiful. Don't want the trees to mask attractive architecture. 4 RS�AImPUBIICIIDARAY PUBLIC PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS HISTORY/CONTEXT: ➢ Do the proposed concepts retain the Integrity of the original holding? ti so,why? If not why not? °"` M - —No�Answer'= 6___ - No = 11 Yes = 21 Additional Comets: (3)The architects seem to have a good grasp on the height issues of the new building,and need to choose materials carefully. Keep front entry/exit intact. Use integrative design and good materials. I do not find the Carnegie to be a particularly attractive building to begin with. To this point,they do. Yes, I support connections to the original building to keep its vitality. Yes, I prefer more contemporary progressive buildings. A lot will depend on how the concept uses the original stairway of the Carnegie Bldg. Yes,as long as we can afford the staffing necessary to use 2 floors. ➢ When the c.1850 addition is removed how hnportant to you is the restoration of the original fagade? Notimportant 3 _ No answer =16- Very important=21 Other= 8 Additional Comments: (3) Would like to see it restored in harmony with the old fagade, but it wouldn't have to be to the last detail. (2) If it's going to be done, it should be done right. The Carnegie is the property anchor and should have project placement as such. An alter entry/exit to the patio would be fine, but the original facade is very important. Very important,we need to keep old buildings and original facades to reflect Ashland's past. Use for access to enclosed courtyard. The elevation could be significantly modified to increase the junction as well as aesthetic concerns. More concerned with the overall attractiveness of the building than I am with historical accuracy. 5 ASMMfIIBIIS IIDAAAY PUBLIC PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS Do you have any concerns that the proposed concepts would dimomish the historic value of the original building? — Yes; l have co11cerns No concerns at this time =21 Additional Comments: (2) Concerned that the new additions blend with the old harmoniously. Take care with the access connection. Any glazing should incorporate the existing glazing design. Concerns only with Scheme C. I see this as the major obstacle with modifying this site. I'll need to see elevations. Of course, but we are also adding history,so the process continues. The huge increase in building mass must be handled with care to make sure that the Carnegie is not dwarfed--keep it as low in height as possible. We need to keep the entrance/exit function of the front of the Carnegie intact. I feel that perhaps the community is over-valuing the Carnegie building. Is it really a distinguished building in its own right,or are we just being sentimental about it? LIBRARY FUNCTION Should one of the conapts he UK would YOU HBO the library mare? Would you use it In a different manner? _ ENO, f would not use more or in a dtfferentmanner= 1P2 Yes;1`would use the"library°moors or•differehtly= 2'1 = '`�-` No Answer= 3 Other= 2 Additional Comments: (6) Already use the library frequently. A new design would not change my usage of the facility. (3) Adequate parking must be provided. Sometimes lack of parking has discouraged me from using the present facility. (2) computers/electronic media would prompt me to use the library more I love the existing intimacy and hope that the additional building is designed inside with that same intimacy in mind. If it were more sterile like SOU's Library(newer structures tend to be that way)the less time I would spend there. I like that kids, pets, etc. are all welcome in the library. If reading area were improved/less noisy, I would spend more time there. 6 AS®M,1110bffi UWIARY PUBLIC PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS I would spend more time there and stay longer if there were more space in the library. Increased volumes of text available would increase usage. The only way I would use it more is if it were open until 8 or 9pm and on Sundays. ➢ Following today's workshop,do yen have a clearer nmderstamUng of how a modern library facility should funeft? Is there anything that needs further explanation? Yes = 15 No answer= 11 Other= 8 Additional Comment Not entirely. This is where you really need to talk to the people who use the library—Moms,dads, kids,seniors,etc.This is also why we have a library consultant working on the project. Yes, I have a better understanding of the project. Made aware of how a building needs open space to relate to. ee Yee M the eeed tW EY eddlhAel a or MCilul WIM the&M M wo Bet pte W 1W et llr8 UM FIN IM F No answer=10 Other= 23 AINIMONAL COMMEM: (4) Would like to emphasize a plaza area for group meetings, book fairs,children's games,etc. (Built in scored concrete walkways with hop-scotch patterns,grids on benches for checkers and chess,tick-tac-toe grids,etc.) Must have a water feature similar to Portland's"Pioneer Park"with ramps, steps, and exciting change of planes. (3) A secure meeting place that can be accessed after hours if needed. (2) A 30-station computer lab/learning center is also logical, but not possible at this site. The biggest drawback to this location is that we can never expand. I think that is shortsighted. We need a meeting room that seats 150 people—not possible at current site. Staff entrance is too far from circulation desk. The need for outside drive-up book drop is imperative. Possibly a cafe--other libraries in Oregon have done this. Are 30 parking spaces enough? Does this include staff parking? An audio-visual room with soundproof listening booths. 7 A&IQAlmf1®I1LIID8ARY PUBLIC PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS Youth room needs its own restroom,with changing station as well as their own story room If expansion is needed in the future,we need to build an extension building further out of town. Young adults need workstation or spaces to read,study, etc. Reading nooks---cozy spots. THE PROCESS ➢ What have you thought about the public workshops? Have they been successful? Were you Wven enough notice? Weeld you change them,and if at how? Other comments = 31 Additional Comments: (5) 1 thought they were great,thank you. (4) Only attended one workshop, but heard enthusiastic comments about the other workshop. (3) Very useful! They help create friendly contact and to show that all citizen comments are welcome. (3) Good. And there was plenty of notice. (2) SERA was very professional. (2) Thought the workshops were useful, but was disappointed by the lack of attendance. Great—except for confusion in Tidings notices. Very helpful to have models and plans. Fantastic! Thank you architects and committee for including the public. Good organization, leadership,and time for sharing—room for all ideas! The time was not convenient for most. Some arrived early,while most arrived late. I would have benefited from a clear explanation of those issues under"soft debate"(parking,trees,etc.)and also the range of thinking on these issues. Make sure everyone is clear on the constraints of the projects and what decisions have already been made. I appreciated the weekend hours for those of us who work during the week it was convenient. I think the Architects spent too much effort developing new plans based on input from too few members of the public. Would suggest committee should have met after 1"workshop and given architects specific direction. 8 . ASMUN8P0UZK1100Y ` . PUBLIC PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS );i Were the Were the workshops facilitated well? Were you able to proida Input? Additional Co=ft (20) Yes,Yes,Yes! (2) NAe have a great group. Bravo for hiring SERA Architects! The times worked for everyone very well. Very informative and we||'fad|itaiod. The format of the second workshop made i1u bit difficult to speak vp for those who are shy. Workshops were informative and architects and planners accepted input. I was able to do a number of "What-If's"and was not considered ignorant ordumb. )li� Uf there is another workshop,what would you do differently? an Nothing=29 Other=8 Additional Commints: Where are the children and young adult participants in the planning process? Maybe the schedule and focus could bo spelled out a bit better. Get a microphone,a(times i1 was difficult\ohear. Better notice on the meetings. Letters to the Editor,press releases,etc. Invite Civic Leaders, Merchants,Chamber,etc. The press should have been at the workshops. Preliminary meetings should have been held to establish the location of the library. The second workshop should begin with a summary/update of what was covered in the first workshop. Allow more time for open discussion on each design. 9 MMAtmRBIS llffiAAY PUBLIC PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS ➢ Were the drop-in hours during the week convenient? "Yes, drop-tn hh uS lvere convenient=24 No answer= 11 Other= 3 Additional Comments 9:00 Saturday meetings are too early. It was nice to have one-tonne time with the Architects. ➢ Comments Please use this opportunity to provide us with additional comments which might he useful in this prod. (2) Why haven't we seriously considered using the vacant Northwest Nature Museum as the new library? The original building is simple,elegant and traditional in design—can we please design the new building to reflect these qualities. Odor problem in original Carnegie. Is this the only site? Ginko Tree can go. Good job in handling difficult questions. Sensitive to public opinion. I was impressed by local architect,Vince Oredson's thoughtful presentation of his plan for entirely separate buildings with open space(Park and lounging/eating area)between the two buildings. This concept has great appeal if the requirements of staffing two separate buildings could be worked out. Eventually---say in 20 years, the new building will be seen as the functional, modern building, and the Carnegie building could be relegated to an art museum and cultural center. Very good process. I believe that our priority should be to build a library that supports the stature of education in our community. Ashland holds education in high esteem. We have excellent elementary,middle, high schools,a University, and all the fine and performing arts you can imagine in a town this size. We need to support all of this with a state of the art,well-designed library. The library should be a statement of what our community values. The major concern is to keep the new fagade as low as possible while answering the needs of the library staff and users. This seems like a formidable task, but we seem to be inching towards it. As a member of the Historic Commission,one of my primary goals is to keep the Carnegie Library intact and working. (No Museum, please). The public,when asked to support the bond measure,must fully understand the philosophy of the location and the configuration. They will not tolerate a concept unless they understand and have ownership of it. Plan for greatly improved and expanded bathrooms. Keep in mind the tendency of some parents to just drop their children in the children's section and expect the librarian to baby-sit. Lots of windows. Thanks,this is a difficult job you are doing! 10 A STUDY OF i ASHLAND AND PINEHURST REGISTERED VOTERS' ATTITUDES REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE ASHLAND PUBLIC LIBRARY Prepared for Ronnie Budge, Director Jackson County Library System In fulfillment of requirements for BA 428 Professor John B. Laughlin Southern Oregon State College Winter Term, 1994 Prepared by Margaret Baylis Jennifer Harman ' Diann Ferguson Sarah Mills i I CHAPTER FOUR- FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 307 calls were attempted for this study. Of those calls, 164 respondents were reached, 25 were non-respondents, and the remaining 118 were not reached. The findings of this study are based on the 164 responses. f SUMMARY QUESTIONNAIRE f 1. In the past year, how frequently did you or your family go to the Ashland Public Library? ' 137 unt Percentage Monthly 9 29 . 9% Never 22 . 6% Weekly 5 21. 3% Yearly 20 12 . 2% Every six months 19 11. 6% ' Daily 3 1 . 8% Non-response 1 0 . 6% ' TOTAL 164 100 . 0% ' FREQUENCY OF USE OF THE ASHLAND PUBLIC LIBRARY iNon-Response Daily ' Every Six Months Yearly 71 ! Weekly t � I 1 Never Monthly 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 ' Number of Responses 9 2 . Which of the following choices best describes the area in which you live? Count Percentage S. Ashland w/in city limits 52 31.7% Downtown Ashland 48 29.3% N. Ashland w/in city limits 29 17.7% South Ashland 19 11.6% North Ashland 14 8.5% Pinehurst School District 2 1.2% TOTAL 164 100.0% 10 3 . where would you most prefer the Ashland Public Library to be located? Please give your top two choices. FIRST CHOICE Count Percentage Present location, remodeled 77 47 . 0% and expanded Present location unchanged 42 25 . 6% No Preference 22 13 . 4% N. Ashland, near Helman 13 7 . 9% Elementary S. Ashland, near parks and 8 4 . 9% schools Other* 2 1 . 2� TOTAL 164 100. 0% * "other" responses included: LOCATION PREFERENCE FIRST CHOICE Other S. Ashland N. Ashland No Preference Unchanged Remodeled and Expanded 0 10 20 30 40 50 L-- 70 80 Number of Responses 11 question 3 continued. . . SECOND CHOICE Count Percentage Present location, remodeled 38 23 . 3% and expanded Present location unchanged 34 20.7% No preference 25 15. 2% S. Ashland near parks and 22 13 .4% schools N. Ashland near Helman 11 6 . 7% Elementary Other* 1 0. 6% Non-response 33 - 20. 1% TOTAL 164 100. 0$ * "Other" response: LOCATION PREFERENCE SECOND CHOICE Other N. Ashland S. Ashland No Preference Unchanged Remodeled and Expanded 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Number of Responses 12 4. How important are the following factors to you when considering the location of the library. CLOSE TO SHOPPING Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 j71 M10O# 63 20 26 12 23 11$ 38.9 12 . 3 16. 0 7.4 14 . 2 6.8 4 Mean: 2 .833 Non-response: 2 CLOSE TO SHOPPING 70 60 50 a� N C O CL u) 40 2 w 30 E z 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant Important 13 question 4 continued. . . NEAR A PARR Unimportant Important i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL 33 17 23 1 21 32 25 11 162 $ 20.4 1 10.5 14 . 2 1 13 . 0 19 .7 15.4 6.8 100 Mean: 3 .747 Non-response: 2 NEAR A PARK 1 35 I i 30 y 25 c CL � 20 Q o 15 E z' 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant Important 14 question 4 continued. . . ON A MAIN TRAFFIC STREET Unimportant Important 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 7 1 TOTAL 32 j 11 19 18 33 33 16 162 $ 19.7 6.8 11.7 11. 1 20.4 20.4 9.9 100 Mean: 4 . 062 Non-response: 2 i i ON A MAIN TRAFFIC STREET 35 " 30 N 25 c O id 20 cc w `a) 15 a E z 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant Important 15 question 4 continued. . . NEAR BUS STOPS o Unimportant Important B 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 TOTAL 1 9 7 12 13 1 26 38 57 162 1 $ 5.5 4.3 7.4 1.0 16. 1 23.5 35.2 100 f Mean: 5. 358 Non-response: 2 1 NEAR BUS STOPS 60 I 50 v aa) U) 40 FL ¢ 30 o E 20 3 I z 10 I0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant Important 16 question 4 continued. . . NEAR BICYCLE PATHS Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL 12 12 19 11 25 37 46 1 162 $ 7.4 7.4 11.7 6.8 15.4 22 .9 28.4 1 100 Mean: 4.975 Non-response: 2 NEAR BICYCLE PATHS 50 45 40 N h 35 c 0 N 30 cc a� 0 25 a 20 z 15 10 . 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant Important 17 question 4 continued. . . OFF-STREET PARKING Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 1 5 1 6 7 1 TOTAL # $ 2 2 8 5 18 33 94 16j2 1.2 1.2 5.0 3 . 1 11.1 20.4 58.0 100 Mean: 6. 148 Non-response: 2 OFF STREET PARKING 100 90 80 N N 70 c 0 N 60 m ¢ 50 0 0 40 5 30 z 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant Important 18 question 4 continued. . . NEAR HOME Unimportant Important 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 ]71 TOTAL 32 25 16 23 30 17 161 19.9 15. 5 9 .9 14 .3 18. 6 10. 6 1$ 100 Mean: 3.727 Non-response: 3 NEAR HOME 35 N 25 C - 20 0 - n E - z 10 — - 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant Important 19 question 4 continued. . . NEAR SCHOOL Unimportant Important 1 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL 19 18 26 21 31 22 24 161 $ 11.8 11.2 16.1 13 . 0 19. 3 13.7 14.9 100 Mean: 4. 174 Non-response: 3 NEAR SCHOOL r 35 30 N 25 c 0. - �. @ 20 cr - E E z 10 -- 5 _ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant Important 20 q question 4 continued. . . NEAR WORK Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL 53 26 28 21 18 9 5 160 33 . 1 16.3 17.5 13 . 1 11.3 5.6 3 .1 100 $ 0 Mean: 2.825 Non-response: 4 NEAR WORK 60 50 m d c 40 0 a c 30 `o m` E 20 D z 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant Important 21 question 4 continued. . . FACTOR MEAN off street parking 6. 148 Near bus stops 5 . 358 Near bicycle path 4 . 975 Near school 4 . 174 On a main traffic street 4 . 062 Near a park 3 . 747 Near home 3 . 727 Close to shopping 2 . 833 Near work 2 . 825 THE AVERAGED IMPORTANCE OF LIBRARY LOCATION FACTORS Work School Home Parking willilmillill) Bicycle Paths Bus stops Main Street Park Shopping 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Average Responses 22 S. Which mode of transportation do you or your family use most frequently to get to the library? Count Percentage Family vehicle 123 75.0% Walking 36 22. 0% Bicycle 2 1.2% Bus 1 0.6% Carpool 1 0. 6% Non-response 1 0. 6% TOTAL 164 100. 0% 23 CHAPTER FIVE - CONCLUSIONS We the research team conclude: 1) Ashland and Pinehurst voters prefer to keep the library in its present location but remodel and expand the current facility. (See page 11) 2) Off-street parking is considered an overwhelmingly important factor. Close proximity to bus stops and bicycle paths are also notably important library location factors. (See page 22) 3) There is a strong attachment to the current Carnegie Library because of its centralized location and its historical value to the community. (See Appendix C) Recommendation: At the time of the survey it was apparent to the research team members that the majority of the respondents were unaware of the library location issue, and had therefore not had adequate time to formulate a strong opinion. We recommend that iafter this issue has been publicly introduced to the community that further research be conducted to update the conclusions of this study. 30 Ashland Library Questionnaire APPENDIX s i 1. In the past year, how frequently did you or your family go to the Ashland Public Library? Daily Weekly Monthly Every Six months Yearly Never 2 . Which of the following choices best describes the area in which you live? The north part of Ashland (if yes) Do you live within the city limits? f In downtown Ashland The south part of Ashland (if yes) Do you live within the city limits? In the Pinehurst School District 3 . where would you most prefer the Ashland Public Library to be located? Please give your top two choices. North end of Ashland, near Helman Elementary _ Present location, remodeled and expanded Present location unchanged South end of Ashland, near parks and schools ' Other (where?) No preference f 4 . How important are the following factors to you when considering the location of a library? (Circle one number from the scale for each factor. ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant Important Close to shopping 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Near a park 1 2 3- 4 5 6 7 On a main traffic street 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Near bus stops 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Near bicycle paths 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ' Off-street parking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Near home 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ' Near school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ' Near work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other (Please describe) 32 y 5. which mode of transportation do you or your family use most frequently to get to the library? Family vehicle Bus Bicycle Walking. Carpool Motorcycle 6. which of the following groups describes your age? 18 - 25 26 - 35 36 - 45 46 - 55 56 - 65 66 & over 7. Do you have children, 18 and under, living in your house? Yes No (if yes) How many children: under the age of 6 grades 1st - 5th grades 6th - 8th grades 9th - 12th Comments: i ® 33 e SURVEY COMMENTS APPENDIX These comment were offered by respondents either during the survey or at the end, when the researcher asked for comments. I dove libraries, but I have so many books of my own to read; but libraries are important. They should be where kids are. Selection of books is pathetic. Very historic building. Public library is . valuable resource would be great to expand current facility. Something needs to be done, the community has outgrown the existing facility. The library is essential to Ashland and is used a lot by residents. Glad to see the consideration of a new library. Love the old building, it' s so beautiful but too small. Present location is great and very accessible to everyone, just the parking is a problem. Present location is perfect, more parking and expanded services. Keep it the way it is. Expansion would be great, but not if it changes the relaxed attitude. Love the carnegie building. Very fond of Ashland Library. Bob is doing a great job, keep it up. Don't like the computer system because it breaks down, wants card file back. The library is a little small but is serves its purpose. I don't live far from the library and use to go to it weekly, now my daughter is in High School and uses the SOSC Library. Seven years ago my answers would have been different. I am a strong supporter of the historic preservation, I am totally against the library moving out of that building. May consider a smaller branch just for reading or one for research. Wish library had quite areas and make it easier for senior citizens to find books the shelves are to high. Also not everyone knows how to use a computer to find books. And 34 s sometimes you have to wait weeks to get a book because they are all in Medford. Spend the money you can get on parking. Needs parking. This survey is a good idea. The library does need to change. The library is a good system, and growth of any kind would be great, but you must preserve the historic value of the library. I dike the atmosphere, must keep the library close to the center of town. I would like to see the library stay where it is. I love the atmosphere, but the condition of books needs attention and improved. It is a very friendly place. The library doesn't have adequate funding to buy enough books. The library should not be a free public library. People are not willing to pay taxes, so charge them for the services. The building is great. The library has a good central location now. Love the quaint old carnegie building. Don't change the character of the building. Need to update the books. Parking is the main problem that needs to be addressed. Ashland needs a bigger library, Medford has got all the books. The library needs. to be expanded, the system is great. What about opening the SOSC library to the public and adding some pleasure reading books to their collection? It would be a shame to lose the "homey" atmosphere of the current library, but agree that something needs to -be done. Current library is very cozy. This study is very worthy and it is good that students are involved. 35 Very good library and like it the way it is, but expand it if t necessary. My son goes to the SOSC library now but used to participate in the summer reading programs. These comments were in response to the "other" choices of survey questions three and four. 3. Where would you most prefer the Ashland Public Library to be located? OTHER: Pinehurst. Center of downtown. 4. How important are the following factors to you when considering the location of a library? OTHER: Near other businesses. More lights for evening hours and winter. 1 Parking critical Overnight drop-off. Near downtown. Bus-line, low income, near population, accessible in general. rParking. Wheel-chair accessibility. Hours open. Accessibility to lots of other resources (inner-library loans) . Ease of getting there. rOur town is so small, it's easy to drive to where ever it is. ' 36 • User Survey �' The Jackson County Library is conducting a survey to _ Q determine if its services meet people's needs. This questionnaire will take only one or two minutes to complete. Please fill it out during your visit the Library and drop it in the box near the check-out desk on your way out. Your responses are confidential and anonymous. 1. How did you use the Library today? Check all that apply A. To check out books or materials s 3t; E. To study or read 9G B. To get information for personal use 178 F. To attend a meeting/program -2-- C. To get information for school use G. To use the Internet 19 D. To get information for job use 174 H. To use the photocopiers Z-�L 2. Did you find the books/materials you wanted today? Yes SSF, No '31 3. Did you find the information you wanted today? Yes 2 No Lj 4. Is library parking adequate at this branch? Yes 89 No " 5. To access the Library catalog do you use the Library computer? Yes '29 No _ZL use a home or office computer? Yes No 18�6 6. To access the Internet do you use the Library computer? Yes No 11;3 3 use a home or office computer? Yes 8 No 7—�r 1 7. If space for this library is improved or expanded,what is most important to you? Check only one. A. More books and other materials D. More meeting room space B. More reading and study space E. Other C. More computer resources 45 MO « 5'EA KLE F-f5 -1- -tEwIOLL-Z 8. If you use other libraries,which do you use? `(f-et4�A,Ca- 1 6ealdrtw .02 . School library Other public library�iCQG,4.�c 1 i31ov busy - i Southern Oregon University Library 121p Other public lib names u.w-Co t_%b - 1 Rogue Community College Library tA4ACw, , - 69 SoS_ Ctv- V-ko..o� t- %Fial\ 1 PH - 4 PQ - 1 9. How did you come to the Libra today? Cac,02 - 1 (S,14- i y Library Y• nouw£� ,co • s By car 51.7- Walked a7= By bike 1 By bus 262_ Other-1 0-9-.1 �$C- �- "w1-'.b- 2 TA -11- 10. How often do you use the public library? - 2 2Q- Z Once a week -I(oL Once a year RU- 1 Once a month 0j+ Only occasionally X0 - Every few months - L441 9 5 1 - 5 97 5so -2 11. Your home zip code? 91 5;' -349 5�� -1 5-':15 -:�L oS144 - 1 �o4 - G 54'P- 13 57 ��5 - 1 548- 1 9359rG• 1 12. Your sex: Male 1-01 Female sj 544- 1 _ 13. Your age: Under 12 10 17-24 11 45-64 161+ 12-16 19 25-44 10 Over 65 41 14. Did you come alone? Yes_AS.5 No i 5 Y If with someone else,who did not fill out this form,wh age? 3 Please write any comments you have on the back. Thank you for your help! }z• 1 5 -1-'-� 9- 5 15 -y 1f • 1 Llq�- 1 5Z -5 GN 1- i 6 S -� q8 1 _ 11- ;t9- 1 45 -1 ( 8 as- 1 �1-> 30 -1 5L - 3 (. 1 Sb• 1 4 ' 4 &' lv - 4 22 - 1 34- 1 yy- 3 08- L Comments on Question 7E, Other (by branch) Ashland More parking space More CDs from 80s music (Richard Marx) That the character of this library is cozy, friendly for people, kids and . dogs be continued and that the old Carnegie library building be still highlighted and intact - Bigger new building - I notice often several people needing to use the Internet - More Parking space - Magazines - Sunday hours a.m. - More business reference materials - Parking - Don't touch this place - More Parking - Classic films on video - Parking - Parking - Parking/videos - Children's books (picture primarily) - Keep the good feeling - Keep it as is - Quiet room as in the pre-60s - Utilize existing space in basement - More reference materials - Fine - More parking space - Parking - A quiet place to read - Parking ,Survey Comments (by branch) Ashland - This is a great intimate library with excellent service. And thank you. - Parking is usually a problem, but we don't mind walking a few blocks. I wish there was a solution for older/handicapped people to park closer when they need to. - We love our library! It is a homey place with helpful, friendly people and lots of information for our use. The parking issue is the only occasional aggravation, which for us is solved by coming at slow times or walking. If remodeling is done, it would be nice to keep as much of the existing library as possible. - Helpful staff, good that dogs are allowed, good magazine selection - More space for books, more space for reading - Be open Sundays - I absolutely love it. Most all of it. Your staff is always friendly and helpful. I love the biscuits for dogs. - More recorded books please. - I love libraries. This one too. - There is far too much noise tolerated in the Ashland library for the small space available. If it's possible to expand, a quiet space for study would be a wonderful addition. - I think you need to put YA beside the fiction department so that people know that it is the Young Adult fiction. I walked around everywhere trying to find it and finally I had to ask. This library is cool. It has lots of tables to sit at. I really think that you should get some more updated CDs. Some examples are: Richard Marks, MaDonna, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, Ever Clear, Savage Garden, Backstreet Boys, Brandy, and others like that. Also„ it would be nice to get some Christian CDs in here too. More examples are: Rebecca St. James, Crystal Lewis, Jars of Clay, Carmen, Bride, and lots more. - Please keep the dog policy; he loves coming here. - Get more Star Wars books. - More Margarete Henry books. - I like this library - Generally pleased with library service. After computers become more plentiful I'd prefer to again fortify the books and materials in the library. - You need more music, more diet books about losing the weight and keeping it off. Music, rap and R and B, Lord Tariq and Peter Gonz, Master P'Crew, Snoopo Dogg, Goodie Mob, Mya, Enya, Camroon, Lil' Kim, Foxy Brown - Please, a.m. Sunday hours, very helpful - Great selection of children's books and videos for a small city. Very helpful staff. - Need more books and materials as well, and more staff,they are too busy. - Ashland staff is always friendly and helpful. Thank you. - Parking is an issue. Being realistic, people go to the library on the way home from work,while doing errands, with small children. It is not realistic to convert all library patrons into bicyclists. Staff is wonderful, friendly, cheerful, helpful. - I love the homey feel of this building. It has always reminded me of childhood. Everyone is helpful and kind, and always has been. Staff are knowledgeable,well trained. When my boys were little,we were in here a lot and always enjoyed the summer programs. I would love to see this building retained,not razed, no matter what happens with the library itself. I feel more space and more parking are needed. Thank you for taking so much time to provide services and to survey the users in order to make an intelligent decision. - Staff is great, cheerful and helpful. Expansion, modernization would be much appreciated and utilized. Also would like to see more help in checking out kids' books, signs, categorizing aids (putting Reading Rainbow books together, etc.) There are too many to go through efficiently, especially with children along. - I love the library for books. - I would hate to see this branch change too much. I love it the way it is. 1 - , I wish you wouldn't allow dogs in the library. - . I think our county library system is wonderful compared to many I hear about elsewhere. - I am with you 100 percent in your desire and plans to renovate the library - I love the library. Thank you. - When I don't find what I want, I reserve it and get it from another branch. - The staff is very nice, very pleasant and helpful. - Please separate fantasy from other adult fiction. Please provide more guides on the ends of the stacks as to what subject is found where in the non-fiction. Please provide more comfy chair space. - I wish you were open on Sundays, that is my only complaint about not only the library,but the town of Ashland, no public library on Sundays. - This is an excellent small library. Staff is very good. Assistance is available for the computer. Not enough copies in the Jackson County system on well read books. There are an unusual number of book reading groups in Ashland/Medford area. I belong to three. - I think it is very special that you allow patrons to bring their pets with them to library. - We would love to be able to check out educational computer programs for kids (Macintosh). Entertainment videos would be nice. Overall, I'm very impressed with the book selection. - I love that I can bring my dog to the library and because I can I often walk here with him. - We need a larger library and extended hours and more accessibility and parking. Why not put teen center here and put library in East Main facility? - I would like to see a better selection of videos, namely new releases or entertainment. All you have here is educational and information which I don't watch. I read for those kinds of things. Thank you. Mary Nonziato - Your books on tape is a great resource, please continue and expand. - Please don't change the neat funky front or inside of the library. It is homey and inviting. Downstairs could be "modernized" if you want. I especially like to sit in an armchair and read near the fire. - You do a great job. I support library tax levies and bonds. - I usually don't find parking a problem as I usually walk,but it can be a problem for less mobile folks; i.e., moms with kids, elderly, anyone unable to walk any distance. We love the library and use it often. Thanks. - Why don't you send confirmations of books reserved by Internet by e-mail instead of mail and save the postage. - I love this library, but wish they had more space - I appreciate the library immensely. Wonderful public use of funds. - A few more books on home recording would be nice. It's very big in this area. - Great library. I love the old-fashioned feel of it and the friendly service. - This library is user friendly and comfortable for myself and 14 year old son. Everyone who works here is always friendly and helpful. Thank you. - I love the library. The only thing that I find occasionally distressing is that I (fairly frequently) see books on the computer that are not on the shelves. I know that might be unavoidable, but it does seem to happen to me fairly often. Thanks for your great service. - So far, I have not had the time in the public libraries to make use of online and Internet services. I think I may do so in the future and that I would profit from a few brief classes on efficient uses of Internet search vehicles for information. (At the moment these seem to waste my time, that is attempts at Internet search for info.) - Why not use the Natural History Museum on East main for the new library? It has not been a successful venture, and probably never will be, It would provide plenty of space for numerable projects and also has plenty of parking space. - Great reference help. All staff very helpful. - You need a lot more books about less important subjects. You only have the basics. Also, you need to get junior books that are for 15-25. The ones you have now are for 10-15 year olds. They suck. They're all from the 70s and 80s and I've read them all. - A wonderful resource staffed by outstanding personnel 2 Could not the library use the Oregon Museum of Natural History building on East Main Street as it's sitting there vacant? There is so much room to be used. I couldn't use the computer. I like the mystery section. - Wonderful library, wonderful service, wonderful personnel. Thank you for the last 28 years. H.R. - I love coming to the library; it is one of my favorite things to do. The staff is very helpful. - We live nearby but we can't send our daughter here on her own. We feel very uncomfortable about the squatters who eat/make out/make comments, smoke and litter, who are making a home away from home on the library lawn because it's a free county, ain't it?I know of another mother who no longer allows her children to come here, who feels the general front lawn ambiance no place for her children to linger. So....wi11 anyone be doing anything about this??? - Would like to see more books on architecture, gardening, philosophy,horsemanship, art, painting, farming, community, house building, travel, furniture making - Any expansion should maintain the feeling of a small library and allow access by patrons to all stacks. Something needs to be done to ensure adequate parking. - I will gladly and willingly support with taxes) a proposal to increase library space and Internet access. Don't believe that we, Ashland, should let the packing limitation be the guiding factor in upgrading the Ashland library. I support No. 1 above whether or not Jackson County is involved in a larger project. - Library would be improved if it served beer and all female librarians wore little bunny costumes. - Before saddling taxpayers with additional bonds, there is a limit that 18,000 people can support/afford. - Very good service from reference desk (Glenna) - I think your library staff is top notch. They deserve a wage raise (immediately) - I use the library on average once a week. Sometimes not often at all and then once or twice a week. We need more space and more parking desperately. - Great library, great helpful staff, great kids' section, help from staff,videos. - I think it's wonderful you allow dogs. Library staff always cordial, helpful, I love libraries. - The reference people here are just wonderful. - Please get more videos. - Ashland library has always been a warm, wonderful place to visit. - Jackson County Library System is excellent. - I love this library. People are helpful and friendly, as is the climate. - This library is my life line. I come with friends. We use the bus (only occasionally, carrying books home a hassle!)The info desk help is fantastic at all times, also never anything but courteous and helpful. Margery Spencer. - Library staff is very helpful and provides a high level of service. - My daughter(3 %z) and I love the library just the way it is. - Orientation classes for kids and adults to familiarize us with all the services a library can provide and how. - I have no complaints about the library. Everything about it suits me just fine except the parking, but as long as the library stays in its present location we all will have to put up with it, which I suppose isn't so bad. - I really appreciate the helpful, friendly staff at both the Medford and Ashland libraries. It's a pleasure to go to the library. - This is a great library. Andrew Carnegie would have been proud. - We use the library weekly, as a class. It's fantastic! - I think you guys should get more CDs of more sorts. Danyelle Kinslow - Parking discourages me from visiting - I love our library - I love libraries - People in the library are so helpful. We do need room for more books of good quality. - Parking. The lack of parking spaces is a problem! - I love the library! 3 Need space where you can read and study in a quiet place. Y,our.�eference librarians are very good. - Please pay some attention to the categories NOT covered in your general survey. - This is a fine little library but too darn noisy sometimes. Wish there was a quiet place for quiet readers. - We need a larger building and parking lot - I'd like more Internet computers. Also more fires in the fireplace when it's cold. There must be someone who has free wood, e.g., construction sites. I like this building and am sad to see it given up if it will be. It's homey. All the staff are very good. - Fine library with superior personnel. - Great service at this library, need to enlarge but keep the warm, helpful, comfortable atmosphere. More parking. - More Internet computers please - More religious materials if possible, especially philosophical both Christian and other - Libraries are the best. - More materials and more space is desirable. - I'm happy that so many of the books I'm looking for are available or can be sent from other libraries in a short time. I'm especially interested in new works of fiction (or biography) at this time, i.e., Booker prize winners. - I appreciate having the library. Thank you to everyone who helps make it available! - The world is facing a great crisis, the resolution of which will determine how comfortably the vast majority of people live from now on. Our huge population is consuming so much of the earth's production that we are seriously reducing its capacity to produce. Numerous scientists and scientific groups have become so concerned about these, they have taken the unprecedented step of issuing warnings. Among them have been the presidents of the Royal Society of London and the US National Academy of Sciences in Feb. 1992; 1600 of the world's leading natural scientists in November 1992; 58 regional and national academies of science in October 1993, and the Pontifical Academy of Science in June 1994. In light of this, all library personnel in a decision-making capacity should inform themselves on this subject and make special effort to provide materials that will inform the public on the matter. I'd be glad to discuss this with anyone who would like to. Also, in this country w3 have a current crisis of democracy in that large numbers of people think voting is not important to them. Material from Project Vote Smart shows this is not so, but people are not aware of it. I hope the library will cooperate with the Project, which is beginning to try to reach out to libraries, and other sources that demonstrate the difference voting can make, not sources that just talk in platitudes. I'd be glad to discuss this also. Frank M. Mirst. Though for Question 7 I checked A, more books and materials, Option B, more reading space is equally important. Though I most often access the card catalog from home, once I am in the library I usually like to browse as well. My average visit lasts over an hour, and it usually involves sitting in front of the fire, petting someone's dog, and glancing through magazines and/or books When the Multnomah County Library System remodeled the downtown Portland Branch they made a conscious decision to make lounge areas cold, uncomfortable, and unwelcoming, all in a misplaced effort to keep homeless people out. I think Ashland Library's open and welcoming atmosphere is one of its finest traits. I hope an expanded library will retain this. 4 MEMO Resming Our Itislnry &► MA D 19.1', Thl noun TO: Ashland Library Expansion Committee Ashland Library Design Team PROJECT: Ashland Public Library Expansion SUBJECT: 1"Public Workshop Design Concepts FROM: John Echlin DATE: Feb.9.99 • The Sat. Feb. 6h workshop had approx. 30 participants. We divided into 6 groups of 5 persons each. Each group developed one of three different design concepts. • The design concepts were: 1. One-story scheme 2. Two-story,scheme 3. Detached scheme • Presentations followed describing the pros and cons of each scheme using words and sketches to show how each group developed their assigned concept. • Overall discussion focused on several key issues: 1. Parking location and pedestrian access 2. Entry location in both the new and old building 3. Library operations and number of staff 4. How to best utilize the existing Carnegie 5. The scale and relationship of any addition to the Carnegie • General consensus was reached on the following points: 1. The main entry to the Carnegie should be maintained even if only for secondary use. Closing it off would only further exacerbate the loitering problem by the fountain. 2. The main reading hall of the Carnegie should be utilized for adults rather than children. The fireplace makes it especially appropriate as a reading room and its historic character would be more appreciated by adults. SERA ARCHITECTS PC 123 NW SECOND AVENUE PORTLAND,OREGON 97209 PHONE:503-228-6444 FAX:503-2286913 MEMO Praen'Og Our H�s1nry S►�R1� Teslgnl q The Mir" • Cont. 3. The existing trees, in particular the Ginkyo located in the park, should be preserved. 4. Parking options should be studied with access on Siskiyou Blvd as well as the alleyway. A connecting road between Siskiyou and the alley along the eastern edge of the site would be desirable. 5. Detaching the new library from the existing Carnegie would be problematic for several reasons. Among them: The library staff would need additional personnel to operate two separate facilities. The historic Camegie Library would potentially take on other uses which could devalue its landmark status as a library. • Following the presentations a straw vote was held with each participant receiving four colored dots and voting for their preferred scheme or schemes. • Following the workshop the design team met to review the concepts and agreed to further develop the two most favored schemes during the week long design camp: 1. Scheme A: Two-level scheme with the majority of parking along the alleyway. The primary entry would be through the existing Carnegie, a rear drop-off and entry would be provided at the alleyway. The levels of the addition would match the existing Carnegie. 2. Scheme B: Two-level scheme with the majority of parking accessed from Siskiyou Blvd. A new main entry would be provided from the park. The Camegie entry would be secondary. • All members of the committee are encouraged to visit to the Hillah temple during the drop-in hours 12:00-1:30 and 4:30-6:00 M-F CC: Greg Scoles Sheila Burns Bing Sheldon Mark Knox Barbara Ryberg Peter Meijer Catherine Shaw Ed Hungerford Ray Kistler Marjorie O'Harra Lesley Klecan George Kramer John Fields Marilyn Briggs Kathryn Page Jim Lewis Pat Blair Bob Wilson Amy Blossom Phyllis Reynolds SERA ARCHITECTS PC 123 NW SECOND AVENUE PORTLAND,OREGON 97209 PHONE:503-2286444 FAX:503-2286913 ' Ashland Public Library Restoration an • Expansion "Visioning Workshops" Public Invited Your Ideas are Needed The City of Ashland invites you to attend a series of "Visioning Workshops" with SERA, the City's library architects, to aid in the planning and design phase of the library expansion. Visioning Workshop I Citizens and architects will explore the expansion • needs of the library as well as issues related to the existing historic Carnegie building and site. Participants will help generate concept options which best represent the community's "Vision" of r the library. Community Open House Throughout the week residents are welcome to drop in and meet one-to-one with the consultants. 12:00-1:30pm & This will allow you to discuss the various alterna- 0' tives and to review the progress. The architectural team will have samples of library design, concepts and will be available to answer specific questions and receive additional community input. Visioning Workshop II During this workshop, participants will explore . more detailed aspects of the library layout, „ function, material choices and overall image. They will also help to further refine the concept options generated during the public process. One of the goals of this workshop is to help the architectural team to identify the preferred option(s) for consideration by the City Council. j; e+ r LOCATION: l/ All the above activities will be held at -- a the Hillah Temple, 51 Winburn Way. U ---- PLEASE JOIN US! .. O r'...... o\ r IoN - 415K1'(bN OI.YD. El.EV+t(fad barn w w ww� lyp° .ge..,re� ovPrr �• ' ° �r' 1 i I t9 rv) �r1D ryt �opS + 1-- I enhY � P I Mu e i LvrouNg p. / ti�r` a rJ.Na crl p+•ar1�KIM'!•�'1,"" r.l. �.., y` � �cwic T I F ~ °MPa __ Per •' F'i II °Q Cc AV qy 1 .e '� M N 4e.wr,u true. rocrvb •L�r4 I I l °rr i _ me-wr Fiur MAW � I r r r , 1 , ` - GIWRT Ay. K.b.1lnj� 1 MryYn YM 1 •'auW & I aw. 1 I -M, 1 IM( Y�C.a --------------------------------------- A I -r � I I /� (.OWCP+FLN{�i + Z5KA ASHLAND f'U6LIG LIBRARY - ASHLAND, oi�C�ON N.-� DAVID FINE 50 Third Street City Councilor — Area Code 541 — P.O. Box 66 Telephone(evenings,please):482-7735 Ashland, Oregon 97520 City of Ashland Fax:488-1923 Office:488-1458 E-Mail:DavidF @ashland.or.us or oregonlaw @bigfoot.com http://www.ashlandweb.com/oregonlaw&www.ashland.onus REASONS FOR VOTE ON LIBRARY BONDS Tuesday Evening, 16 March 1999: For Immediate Release For the following reasons I am voting to postpone asking the voters to incur$8 million in debt to quadruple the size of the Ashland Branch of the Jackson County Public Library: 1. The people of Ashland rightfully expect their City Council to determine priorities for capital construction projects, before asking the people to pay for all of these new buildings. For several years in a row City Council said that Ashland's top priority is the replacement of our inadequate, sub-standard fire stations. Ashland cannot now recruit anyone to come here as Deputy Fire Chief. I am told that one senior candidate pronounced our main fire station, "the worst fire house he'd ever seen." Ashland can't hire women as firefighter/paramedics because today, in 1999, our fire stations still have male sleeping quarters only. Once we have voter approval of bonds for fire station construction I shall then support a new public library as a major capital construction priority for Ashland. 2. Awritten Staff estimate,acted upon by Ashland City Council exactly six weeks ago tonight, said that we could meet our library requirements by issuing $4 million in bonds. This proposal is for nearly $8 million. It is too grandiose. It includes too much pleasant but unessential space. Does the new library need all of the following costly features: a conference room; a community room; a large, two-story-tall meeting hall; and a roof-top reading terrace? A city-owned outdoor restaurant also is proposed, yet there are several restaurants within a block of the library. The price per square foot may be too great, compared to other new public buildings in Ashland; the size of the building may be far. greater than the size of libraries constructed in other cities of our size; and the hurried planning process did not allow sufficient time to evaluate economies which might be gained due to the presence of a university library just up the Boulevard. 3. The $8 million proposal does not meet one of the most frequently-stated of library users' needs. Proponents of the project rely on surveys which show that users overwhelming demand adequate library parking. Yet this proposal quadruples the size of the library while adding very few parking spaces. Furthermore, off-street parking already is in very short supply near the library. 4. Some suggest that library space needs will shrink with further developments in computer technology. I am not satisfied that future trends were adequately explored in this hurried planning process,which was compressed into a total of just 44 days from an initial meeting to tonight's City Council vote. A prior City Council was remiss last year in starting a process which used $67,014 of Ashland taxpayers' money to plan an ideal library. Current Council Members must now accept our responsibility to allocate scarce tax dollars among all necessary capital construction projects—including an adequate, affordable Ashland Branch of the Jackson County Library System. -2- cmX 0coT D Z1 aa m N m J p°t 0 C m rJ . S O C•� AO C•• C ;, c ;p :E, O oi O 9 n 9 C 3 v9. m ;o ' a O o n m^ n m a T m m m m c c m m m c m c C N Z N 0 0 0 m m Q m� N N N m@ 0 0 O O m O x c 0 m (1 3 dj m m p S cn N m co 5R h » y N N m N o l m Cl)o m a o o o N J = m J TJ (D � m m O z? o m O J 3 O 0 m 2 0 v O _ m N a 0 m ' m m °o m r C 5 o m e D v S y p a ,0. D m v -: 3 m(mn (D y , y J N a c N O m O G O N 0 m 3 m o J o m J J m ama m m f 0 a m m m 3 o c 0 X y N° a J N a m T m m T J FO m 3 3 , m a m m 2 m» j O 6 3 n m a 5 » o Q 3 al Z2 CD o ° pJ z d 0 3 3 o '. D 0 0 F m m 3 m E y — 3 3 �% 0 3 m w to m o m 3 » ID o CD d m s o J cn N w to co m n o = m m ttn m 3 W O O A^ � p fn fn C Q. N Q� 70 c cn o W M Z m O A m m m m w m m on m N Co � oN O z w c 3 A �D N CL n n N A cn W n � m = 7 N cnj Cn Cn a N O 2 - - - - • - 2 - � - - - - - - - - - - - - > 2 oox :ccn oE2w = m ■ > � co o � � mc ) � � oml@ T\ ) � � } \ / kk � � � � k � � � � \ § : } / � ~ > � k \ km (\ o � k , mo ( , ( /± /} ƒ C n \ ( &\ ( / §J \ a) ; � \ / § § CD(D , R - � Jv � 2 \ 0 a) - / \ : / & 22 \ � m22 � 3 0 > e a � , , & 2 - 0 } ( � J \ QEn 250 1 ƒ 2 E9k ± ( 2 § ) 'a0 - 0 tea) 73 9 # / a(0CD e7 ae� - E %- & m / J - � - \ cT06' ] g � § % 2 R �eo $ « CD1 :00 % i :3(D £ $ / ( CD CD p ® ( * 2 % \ § E , � 2 \ » o § oo # ® ( /am ! �22Ef ƒ s flCo � CD \ ! &-0 §@ CD a) w CD ° \ j \ } \ 0 -'k \ = ia� t\ }_ �� \ 2 . 7gaes = =$ GG m / \ ƒ /# Q S - ® - 3 0 i f ƒ\ § \\ \ � � cn 2 \ CD= ( § \ \ § \ ] % E § \ \\ \ § _ ® m3 a _ o } k a �a\ / f 3 \ - r � + E « / ° 2 co 2 � /� � § / \ n 0 CD _ me , w o 0 CD � § - § CL cr CD \ _ - 2 n 0 � \� *CD ) ° CD \0/ . ` 2 � . r / . o 0 { f � 2 �0. CD OL ; CD CL \ Council Communication Public Works Department Request for Sewer Service - Beebe March 16, 1999 Submitted by: Paula Brown�C' Approved by: Mike Freeman`. Title: Request for Sewer Service outside the City limits, but within the City's Urban Growth Boundary - Bill and Shannon Beebe, agents of owner Mary Barr, 3103 E. Main Street(39 lE 12 tax lot 336) Synopsis: Bill and Shannon Beebe have requested the opportunity to address the City Council regarding the connection to the sanitary sewer system at 3103 E. Main Street(tax lot no. 391E12-336). The Beebes' are potential purchasers of the property and are acting as the agents of owner Mary Barr (see attached letter). Recommendation: This request does not meet the full requirements for connection to the sewer system. However, due to the potential negative environmental impacts along Neil Creek, staff recommends approval of the sewer connection. It is therefore recommended that the Council approve the sewer connection for Bill and Shannon Beebe, acting as the agents of owner Mary Barr, for property at 3103 E. Main Street, and direct staff to obtain all necessary agreements prior to final connection. Background Information: The Mary Barr property, represented by Bill and Shannon Beebe, is a vacant parcel of land situated between property owned by Scott Hollingsworth (single family residence) and Eli Schless (vacant land) located off the north side of E. Main Street. The property is outside the City limits but within the urban growth boundary. A sanitary sewer main is located on the south side of E. Main Street along the frontage of the Barr property within the 300 foot requirement (see attached map). The Hollingsworth property to the north received permission for City sewer system connection two years ago as they were constructing their home. The parcel to the south is vacant and has no sewer or septic approval. The Beebe's are requesting City sewer connection based upon the following reasons: I) The apparent high water table at the site, evaluated by the Jackson County Environmental Health Division, would make it difficult to site a septic drain field in the area which would not impact nearby water supply wells. 2) Resulting inadequate septic drain fields and possible septic failures would have a potential for containment flow into Neil Creek along the north boundary of the property. c The applicants meet the code requirements (see below) with the exception that there is no occupied dwelling or building presently on the site. The Beebes have agreed to the conditions specified in the ordinance if authorized the connection. Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.08.030. Connection- Outside City, Inside Urban Growth Boundary (Amended ORD 2767. October 3 1995)An occupied dwelling or building located outside the City of Ashland and inside the urban growth boundary may be connected to the sewer system when such connection is determined by the Ashland City Council to be in the best interest of the City of Ashland and to not be detrimental to the City's sewage facilities. Such connection shall be made only upon the following conditions: A) The applicant for sewer service pays the sewer connection fee and the systems development charges established by City Council. B) In the event a dwelling or building connected to the sewer system is substantially replaced for any reason, then the replacement dwelling or building may continue to be connected to the sewer system of the City as long as the use of the sewer system will not be increased as determined by the Director of Public Works. C) There is an existing Ashland sewer main or line within 300 feet of the existing dwelling or building to be connected. The applicant shall be responsible for the full costs of extending the City of Ashland sewer main or line to the property for which sewer service is being requested. D) The applicant shall secure, in writing, statements from Jackson County that the existing sewage system has failed and that the provision of sewer by the City of Ashland does not conflict with the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, support documents, rules or regulations. E) The applicant furnish to the City a consent to annexation of the land, signed by the owners of record and notarized so that it may be recorded by the City and binding on future owners of the land. F) The applicant shall provide for the payment to the City by the owners, at the time of annexation, an amount equal to the current assessment for liabilities and indebtedness previously contracted by a public service district such as Jackson County Fire District No. 5, multiplied by the number of years remaining on such indebtedness, so that the land may be withdrawn from such public service districts in accord with ORS 222.520 and at no present or future expense to the City. G) The owner shall execute a deed restriction preventing the partitioning or subdivision of the land prior to annexation to the City. H) That the land is within the Urban Growth Boundary. GAPAULMCOUNCIUCC Beebe Sewer.wpd r Bill and Shannon Beebe 8767 West Evans Creek Road Rogue River, OR 97537 March 4, 1999 Mr. James H. Olson Engineering Service Manager City of Ashland 90 N. Mountain Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Request for Hookup to City of Ashland Sewer System Situs Address: 3103 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mr. Olson: As observed by an on-site evaluation on 2-24-99, by Bill and Shannon Beebe, agents for Mary Barr: The subject property is located at 3103 Main Street, Ashland, Oregon T39 R1E Section 12 TL 336. All of the septic test pits were full of water and surface springs were very common throughout the property. Rushes and cattails were evident throughout indicating wet lands. At a site evaluation conducted on 11/7/96 by Dick Florey;Jackson County Environmental Health Official it was noted that the ground water level in pits 1 and 2 was at 17" below the surface and in pit 3 ground water level was 8" below the surface. It is our belief that the installation of an on-site sub-surface septic system would be detrimental to the environment. Specifically, water quality in Neil Creek. The rationale is that effluent would be discharged into the surface water table and would percolate into Neil Creek. This must be avoided at all costs and it is a clear violation of DEQ mandate. Due to the location of the approved septic area(next to the road) the dwelling would need to be located adjacent to the flood plain and in close proximity to the riparian area of Neil Creek. The impact on the riparian area would lead to bank erosion and the disruption and removal of wetlands vegetation. For the above reasons, we hereby request permission to connect to the City of Ashland, sewer system. Sin^�c� Bill and Shannon Beebe Agents for Mary Barr UKUNSWt & WHITE REALTORS 002 TO: JAMES H. OLSON ENGINEERING SERVICES S MANAGER CITY OF ASHLAND FROM:MARY BARR.OWNER 3103 EAST MAIN STREET ASBLAND, OREGON (T39, R1E, SEC. 12, TAX LOT 336) AE: APPLICATION FOR CITY SEWER SERVICE I, Mary Ban,the owner of record of the property commonly(mown as 3103 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon do hereby appoint Bill and/or Shannon Beebe to act as my agent in the matter of securing city sewer services for said property. All costs to be paid by the Beebes. Mary Barr O ' � I N I lD I n I W 1:t9 i: ] 1d 1 : 8 t 2 rari00ri:: ] r [: tir • _ .. •:lax:: 3xP c • - yrnliPj <:r� l :Ct a /:_ i ' S f T . ! i3 i : fa:- , s(' y is i = vtgqd:-c85 + '�r ' ' 311 P{ !, Y! TISCi s'�f:i � �e :7 �� { • gaayy Tcild , x4 ! . !! ` lli: ( pp ri : aa9ese�ee 1S. 4 ! it !- [[ rr ii ; ± � ira3ilRfll4l877 il : f ; ; i4r.3 iFriititltll 9li4 E6�EC_c°ic filiil T323 , it:l i:n: ::l S34S� ' . • - 1 [r:, , t ::,] : : :[::: :::::]r xa [ [:sr: :, :is 5 •�,/ �! ��� . A / d51: °,,ta : ap . iiill 1 't @d lil nsi� 43ra `� _ - f � 4l � ; l �F� � l��� 4lil �S3�id�446 � itaaatai I /• ' r 1 .. . .. : [::t C� � n n' f i 8 i . 4 6 a° c I r� .^ .b. -f'•,� t..�.-_i4! ^ w. s _ o fi;iyi ,;: a;i4t49r�9P 's i! __! < _�+ � • — 5_ 4 ��-,� I. i = ti T -� • ,p-.., F• I i 4 1 • — !; — liii. i84fl� 4i € _ q !• _� w � 1 - _c � i \ •_' , � !� Lr � •'•' � ii6d!) � t � td19 ! ! 4 .. da - o 3 .hi 1 • .. ,/ � _ n! � €}'e�ri91�f3afl� l3 — y i ! • ^, .I— '. /• •.� r ! � _,r .�• 1 is races:r:A:r: i: r 'SI r J r •�' 1 . / J �t ' •i^ �� �,�ly ii •`�1•` 1 , � •1 r te: a.; tesi :i:_: l : - 4 • gTSi• ldf93 .3 ¢ � / i .1 ` :c - n .:: 6 • :aa : 6: : ti 6 : [:: x: t: b . : a } [ : A:I15: 1 - _./ �•� c 1 ici' 1r `�:;! 1 Sxi7 5441 ! > : 8ii lj ;, l4ix ! ! l ��� 14i§ T . � 1i3a.al ,a 1 ii •- I N I M I 'a I Ln I to n I 00 I � I `'��\ 1\``\ale\��\\ � _ ` \ •mwe �\ \\ t \\ \ \\ p \ \ l T •�e� .in..r .\ J 117�7 \ � e TENNIS WNTS 'I-/ •�...,., 1 /BBB� ��._� �/O 1 r •/ _ _ �—/\ /97 .'•1\ \ 1, PROPOSED SEWER CONNECTION ONE. MAIN CITY OF ASHLAND, ENGINEERING DIV. JJ MARCH 5, 1999 } Council Communication Ashland Fire & Rescue Priority Dispatch / EMS Ordinance March 16, 1999 Submitted by: Keith E.Woodleyl ire Chief Approved by: Mike Freeman/ Paul Noltevj Title: Modification Of EMS Ordinance To Accommodate Medical Priority Dispatch Implementation Synopsis: This is a proposal for modification of our Emergency Medical Services Ordinance No. 2771, to facilitate the implementation of Medical Priority Dispatch for ambulance service within the City of Ashland. Recommendation: Modify the Emergency Medical Services Ordinance as proposed by staff to facilitate the implementation of Medical Priority Dispatch. Background Information: Our current Emergency Medical Services Ordinance No. 2771 establishes minimum response times and levels of care for the provision of emergency medical services within the City of Ashland. Response time standards are based on two primary levels of emergency medical care, Advanced Life Support(ALS) and Basic Life Support(BLS). The ordinance requires a four minute response to all ALS patients, and an eight minute response to all BLS patients, at least 95% of the time. The department is currently meeting the intent of this ordinance, but an analysis of local and national trends within the ambulance services industry suggest that not all ALS patients require a four minute response. Nationwide we are seeing a consolidated effort to "slow down" responses to patients with non-emergent medical conditions. This trend is designed to reduce the risks associated with emergency driving to both the general public, and the emergency responders themselves. To facilitate this end, new computer software has been developed and implemented throughout the U.S. to provide dispatchers with criteria for properly screening calls for assistance and assigning each call a medical priority that can be communicated to emergency responders. As the Ashland 9-1-1 center is moving in this direction, along with the rest of Jackson County, it has become necessary to modify our EMS ordinance to establish a distinction between response time standards for ALS patients with emergent medical conditions, and those ALS patients with non-emergent medical conditions. A prompt response to patients with emergent medical conditions will continue to be a standard policy for ambulance services within the City of Ashland. However, the present response format frequently requires an emergency response to ALS patients with non-life threatening medical conditions, which poses unnecessary risks to our responders and to members of the general public. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING MINIMUM RESPONSE TIMES BY AMBULANCE OPERATORS FOR LIFE THREATENING EMERGENCIES. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are ft meagh and additions are 'shaded. SECTION 1. Section 6.40.060.A of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 6.40.060 Minimum Response Times and Minimum Levels of Care. A. The ambulance operator shall have an ambulance response time within four minutes or less 95% of the time for life threatening emergencies determined to require advanced or'basic life support care and eight minutes or less 95% of the time for erriergeneies, deterrn'ned to require basie life afl other-non-emergent responses,. The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the day of 1999, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 11999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to f rm: Paul Nolte, City Attorney Page 1 — ORDINANCE (FAUSERTAWORMemergency response ano.wpd) Council Communication Public Works Department Richey Assessment Reduction March 16, 1999 Submitted by: Paula Brown�V Reviewed by: Paul Nolte Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: A Resolution Reducing the Special Benefit Assessment Imposed on Parcel No.2, Partition Plat No. P-33-1991 (Richey Property) in the Ann and Clinton Streets Local Improvement District No.71. Synopsis: During the February 16, 1999, Council meeting, Council chose to reconsider a portion of their February 2, 1999, resolution imposing assessments to the Ann and Clinton Local Improvement District No. 71. Council decided to reduce the Richey assessment by $1,062.34, and reassessed a revised interpretation of benefitted front footage of 166.22 feet. The attached resolution formalizes the Council's decision. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution to reduce the special benefit assessment imposed on Parcel No.2, Partition Plat No. P-33-1991 (Richey Property) in the Ann and Clinton Streets Local Improvement District No.71. Background Information: The Council took action on February 2, 1999, to assess Bill J. and Gloria P. Richey, 675 Carol Street, based on their total front footage of 186.34 feet as recommended by staff. That assessment was the same total front footage figure proposed in the formation of the LID on January 17, 1995. After the Council decision, Mr. Richey further discussed his concerns regarding benefit and the front footage assessment with Council members and staff. The Richey's continue to disagree with assessment and wrote a second letter to the City Council dated February 8, 1999, in which they are disputing 20.12 feet as not being street or benefitted front footage. Staff provided all of the background to the City Council in the form of a memorandum dated February 10, 1999. During the February 16, 1999, Council meeting, Council chose to reconsider their February 2, 1999, decision. It was determined that the Richey assessment would be reduced by $1,062.34, at City's expense, and reassessed a revised interpretation of benefitted front footage of 166.22 feet. As a result of that determination, formal Council action is required to modify previous actions through the attached resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION REDUCING THE SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT IMPOSED ON PARCEL NO. 2, PARTITION PLAT NO. P-33-1991 (RICHEY PROPERTY) IN THE ANN AND CLINTON STREETS LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 71. RECITALS: A. The City of Ashland constructed curbs, gutters, and paving in the Ann and Clinton Streets Local Improvement District (LID)No. 71 during 1997-98. A resolution levying assessments for this LID was adopted by the council on February 2, 1999. The owners of the lot described in the title to this resolution, Bill J. and Gloria P. Richey, 675 Carol Street, requested a reduction in the assessment imposed on their lot based on an alternative method to calculate the lot front footage. The alternative method reduces the front footage by 20.12 feet which translates into a reduction in the assessment of $1,062.34. The council concurs with the alternative method of calculating the Richey front footage and desires to reduce the assessment on the Richey property to $8,776.41. B. The corrected assessment for this lot is a reasonable assessment and is imposed according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to it from the improvements. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The amount of the assessment to be charged against Parcel No. 2, Partition Plat No. P- 33-1991 (Map 391E4CA, Tax Lot 1400) within the Ann and Clinton Streets Local Improvement District No. 71 according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to this lot for the improvements made is the amount of$8,776.41. The assessment made to this property in the resolution adopted February 2, 1999, is so corrected. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 11999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor viewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 1 - RESOLUTION REDUCING ASSESSMENT F:w sett\PAUUFORMS\Lio4Ann-cinton Richey redectionres.wpd Council Communication Public Works Department Vacation of New Street March 16, 1999 Submitted by: Paula Brown Reviewed by: Paul Nolte�� Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: A Resolution Setting a Public Hearing to Hear a Petition For, and Any Objections To, the Vacation of New Street from its Intersection with Oak Street to its Terminus All of Which Is Located Between `A' Street and the Railroad Tracks. Synopsis: With the approval of a recent land partition, John Fields created a new street right of way at Clear Creek Drive. Clear Creek Drive is approximately 100 feet north of New Street as it is presently recorded, and is intended to connect to A Street at 41h Street. This right of way renders New Street unnecessary. The attached petition calling for the vacation of New Street off Oak Street has been received and verified. A notice of the proposed vacation was sent to all City departments and utility companies on February 8, 1999. No objections to the vacation have been received. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution establishing a public hearing on April 6, 1999, for the purposed of hearing objections to the vacation of New Street. It is further recommended that the Council direct the City Recorder to publish the public hearing at least once each week for two consecutive weeks prior to the hearing date, and within 5 days after the first day of publication of the notice, post a similar notice in a conspicuous place at each end of the street to be vacated. The posting and the first day of publication of the notice shall be not less than 14 days before the hearing. Background Information: New Street was established in its present position in March of 1911 under Ordinance No. 462. The street was only 148.55 feet long and connected to Oak Street approximately 300 feet south of Hersey Street. New Street was actually created prior to Hersey Street(previously known as Stanley Street or Stock Drive) and was intended to connect to what is now Hersey Street. Hersey Street, however was deeded to intersect Oak Street further to the north (at its present location) and New Street was never deeded any further than the original 148 feet off Oak Street. New Street was never opened or improved as a public street.' With the approval of a recent land partition, John Fields created a new street right of way approximately 100 feet north of New Street. This street, named Clear Creek Drive, is intended to connect to A Street at 4' Street and perhaps ultimately to Mountain Avenue. This right of way parallels New Street for its entire length and renders New Street unnecessary. GAPAULAWOUNCIUCC Vac New Street.wpd RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR A PETITION FOR, AND ANY OBJECTIONS TO, THE VACATION OF NEW STREET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH OAK STREET TO ITS TERMINUS ALL OF WHICH IS LOCATED BETWEEN 'A' STREET AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 4.16 and ORS 271.080 to 271.150, the City Council of the City of Ashland will conduct a public hearing on April 6, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon, to hear the petition for, and any objections to, the vacation of New Street from its intersection with Oak Street to its terminus. SECTION 2. The city recorder is directed to give notice of the petition and hearing by publishing a notice in the Daily Tidings, once each week for two consecutive weeks prior to the hearing and such other notice as may be required by ORS 271.110. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: - ptw Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 1-RESOLUTION (p:ordWacadonnmms) CITY OF ASHLAND pF AS/�� Department of Public Works Engineering Division 1 MEMORANDUM REGO DATE: February 25, 1999 TO: Paula Brown, Public Works Director FROM: James H. Olson, Engineering Services Manager RE: Vacation of New Street PURPOSE: The attached petition calling for the vacation of New Street off Oak Street has been received and verified. A notice of the proposed vacation was sent to all City departments and utility companies on February 8, 1999. No objections to the vacation have been received. BACKGROUND: New Street was established in its present position on March of 1911 under Ordinance No. 462. The street was only 148.55 feet long and connected to Oak Street approximately 300 feet south of Hersey Street. New Street was actually created prior to Hersey Street (previously known as Stanley Street or Stock Drive) and was intended to connect to what is now Hersey Street. Hersey Street, however was deeded to intersect Oak Street further to the north (at its present location) and New street was never deeded any further than the original 148 feet off Oak Street. New Street was never opened or improved as a public street. With the approval of a recent land partition, John Fields created a new street right of way approximately 100 feet north of New Street. This street, named Clear Creek Drive is intended to connect to A Street at Wh Street and perhaps ultimately to Mountain Avenue. This right of way parallels New Street for its entire length and renders New Street unnecessary. REQUEST: Would you please schedule this matter on the City Council agenda to set a public hearing at the earliest opportunity. G:Dawn\Street\New Street Vacation Memo 2.wpd The following is a brief summary of actions, as I understand them, that constitute the vacation process: 1. Set a public hearing date (resolution required) if the council wishes to proceed with the vacation. 2. Public notice of the hearing shall be made by publishing a notice in the Tidings once each week for two consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. 3. At least one of the petitioners will be notified of the public hearing date. 4. Within five days after the first day of publication of the notice, a similar notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place at each end of the street to be vacated. The posting and first day of publication of the notice shall be not less than fourteen days before the hearing. Paul and Barbara should verify this process to make sure we have covered all aspects of the vacation. CC: Paul Nolte Barbara Christensen G:Dawn\Street\Nm Street vacation Memo 2.wpd I ; Nip z S°S. \O 1,1. (1° D ba � RYYq]Saes ra / ? TN m //I °u r x z �Bi `\ . 111 � •(�//// i / -------� N — - — i I 316.22.16'w / — qq,°0 f�+,i/ / / =nN s 231�2, n +N / \ / n ^10= tMA TsIAI 'o vo j _ 1 // ona° / AwaC //'� `\ <O;?/'✓F IiA/s?1�J / / � o° I/ / N 0 Z / /aj y po INna mr°� � / w amp rz ^I yA s Ob �_ ^ ors / 6 � '�.`. �•!�. _ �.� � pv I a 1j •m /` l Vv, \ \ —r tip N a y'5.5j )24 •� __ io _ — / 8 F pz N00,02,18-E .9 3 Iii Ala r m / I A I CAI°.1� I a I 0 I / I I L4 N N� O C NA 0?0 Zp1 I I r m An DD 3 i I C y y m no I �aa Do T ti / s o s? m I � o Z -4;0 � j y O1m ° i o °< CITY OF ASHLAND J pF ASy Department of Public Works Engineering Division 1' MEMORANDUM pREGON,,: DATE: February 8, 1999 TO: Paula Brown, John McLaughlin, Keith Woodley, Scott Fleuter, Pete Lovrovich, Scott Johnson, Mike Morrison, Everett Swain FROM: James H. Olson, Engineering Services Manager RE: Vacation of New Street John Fields has submitted a request and petition for the vacation of New Street off Oak Street, as shown on the attached plan. A partition plat creating Clear Creek Drive just to the north of New Street has recently been signed. Please let me know if you have any objection to the vacation of New Street as shown. Please feel free to call me at 488-5347. CC: Dave Hoxie, US West Dennis Ott, Avista Bill Davis, Falcon Cable G:Dawn\Street\New Street Vacation Memo.wpd Date filed: / /4/qeq PETITION We the undersigned property owners residing on or near NEW STREET do hereby petition the City Council to initiate proceedings to vacate the above mentioned public right-of-way, being further described as follows: ALL THAT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY REFERRED TO AS NEW STREET EXTENDING SOUTHEASTERLY OFF OAK STREET;THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH INTERSECTS OAK ST. 299.35 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF HERSEY STREET. We do further warrant that the signatures below represent 1000 of the properties abutting the proposed vacation, and at least 66 2/38 of the affected area which lies within 200 feet on either side and 400 feet from the ends of the public right-of-way .proposed for vacation. NAME ADDRESS TAX LOT NO. �'4zrzle7rr�p/5 g Iq `-CA- . kDO I7M County of Jackson) , ) State of Oregon ) I. J n ,being one of the principal pro- ponents of the proposed vacation do hereby subscribe and swear that the above signatures were taken in my presence and are the signatures of the persons owning property abutting or within the teaaftce d th e ropo on. i�at JAMEO 8 M OLSON NOta Public NOTBRY PUBLIC•OREGON COMMISSION NO.718766 n camwp ivms a L 71N My mmission expires Oe-e. zLZE. Date filed: PETITION We the undersigned property owners residing on or near NEW STREET do hereby petition the City Council to initiate proceedings to vacate the above mentioned public right-of-way, being further described as follows: ALL THAT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY REFERRED TO AS NEW STREET EXTENDING SOUTHEASTERLY OFF OAK STREET;THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH INTERSECTS OAK ST.299.35 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF HERSEY STREET. We do further warrant that the signatures below represent 100% of the properties abutting the proposed vacation, and at least 66 2/3% of the affected area which lies within 200 feet on either side and 400 feet from th en s of the public right-of-way proposed for vacation. A! ' / ADDRESS TAX LOT NO. s� 4j, S7 i Fo sZ6 D MOO County of Jackson) 1 State of Oregon ) being one of the principal pro- ponents of the proposed vacation do hereby subscribe and swear that the above signatures were taken in my presence and are the signatur, rsons owning property abutting or within the frea:afftee y the pr ed v cation. S n JAMEEMN NON NOl'ary bllC CNOMMISS 36 My ComVssion expires