HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-1119 Council Mtg MINMINUTES FOR THE ADJOURNED MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
November 19, 1997
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 12:38p.m.,Civic Center Council Chambers.
IN ATTENDANCE:
Councilors Laws, Reid, Hanck, Hagen, Wheeldon, and DeBoer were present.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Extended Public Hearing on Consideration of revised Hillside Development Standards opened at
12:38 pm.
Richard Ernst/975 Walker Ave./Clarified concerns he had with the proposed ordinance. Felt that staff had
done well and doesn't oppose ordinance per se. He is concerned with the ridgeline portions as it affects his
property.
Larry Medinger/115 Fork St./Opposed due to the problems he sees with the ordinance, but also in favor of
much of it. He prefers guideline ideas, rather than legislated requirements. Suggested a middle ground or a
three month trial period in order to look at implementation. Did not feel that the process was adequately
observed and that committee members were in and out, with no minutes or votes taken.
Aii Ross/734 Nob Hill/Submitted a statement in writing which was read by Mayor Golden. She is
concerned with creating an elitist environment of uniform, identical houses. Believes that citizens should be
compensated due to down-zoning and that this could be paid through open space funds.
Kathie Kennedy/779 Twin Pines/Spoke on behalf of two property owners and tax payers. Gave example on
how if one property owner subdivided their property, the second lot would be worthless because they would
be unable to build due to the slope restriction of 35 %. Another property owner she spoke of, would be
restricted due to the restrictions of building on ridgelines. Kennedy noted that the inability to build on these
properties affects the ability to fund an expected retirement for these owners. Felt that affected property
owners were not properly notified.
Ed Houghton/219 Logan Drive/Questioned how this W'ill affect approved lots. Felt that the city has been
divided since 1982 and that realtors and builders can't be blamed for the flood. Felt that the comments
made by city official were inflammatory. Commented that FOA "Friends of Ashland", really mean "Foes of
Ashland". Suggested that there be flood plain standards.
Councilors Laws/DeBoer m/s to allow time accumulated, from those who chose to pass, to the person it is
passed on to. DISCUSSION: Golden clarified how this has been handled in the past. It was noted that
normally when time was passed to another speaker, it had to do with the possibility of running out of time,
not the actual accumulation of additional time to a speaker. Councilor Hagen understood that when the
speakers were giving time away, it was to get through by the 9:30p.m. deadline. Councilor Reid stated that
she thought longer times had been allowed in the past. Councilor Wheeldon felt this was an exceptional
circumstance and council should allow an acceptable period of time for Wendie Kellington to speak.
Discussion of amount of time that should be allowed and consideration of the number of speakers that had
given time over. Voice vote: All Ayes, Motion passed.
Bob Strosser/2917 Bridgeport, Medford/Representing Coldwell Banker Real Estate, gave his time for
Wendie Kellington to speak.
City Council Meeting 11-19-97
Kyle Ahrberg/205 Florence Ave.,Medford/Noted nature of people who live in community, that a community
is not a wildlife sanctuary or nature trail but a people habitat. Stated that there shouldn't be a limit on
growth to appease a faction and you shouldn't be able to take away property rights. Feels there is a conflict
with constitution and state land use ordinance. Urged council to vote against proposed ordinance.
Larry Frank/Ill7 E. Jackson, Medford/Presented letter published in The Oregonian. Spoke on seeking a
balance. Felt that the ordinance unfairly imposes burdens and urges the council to reject the ordinance.
Frank questioned the variance wording of "minimum necessity" and felt that the aesthetics enforcement
would be a nightmare. Stated that enforcement of this ordinance would need to be implemented fairly
throughout the city. Urged council to notice, support and to stay in compliance with state laws.
Rick Harris/2675 Quail Run, Talent/A former member of the Ashland Historic Commission. Presented a
slide show to illustrate Ashland's diversity as reflected in the differences in various elements of the natural
environment, the homes and the families living here. Feels that the "diverse quilt" making up the community
of Ashland deserves better than having aesthetic features legislated for them. Also noted an OregonJan
section featuring an article on "Cooperative Colors", wherein townhouse owners painted eight connected units
different colors and were hailed nation wide for the unique quality of their community.
Richard Stephens/336 W. Sixth, Medford/Representing Rogue Valley Association of Realtors. Read ORS
2197, dealing with land use needs with regard to growth over recent years. Questions existing lot splits. Felt
that you couldn't build a modest home on this example lot under the proposed ordinance and that variances
are difficult.
Michael Kellington/381 S. Mountain/Presented map of slope demarcation which showed buildable lots
under their interpretation of the ordinance versus the city Comprehensive Plan. He calculated that 643 acres
would be lost. Using a GIS, map he showed that lots lost would be 1129 units and more than 500 acres,
Robert L. Gantenbein/1211 PacWest Ctr #1700, Portland/Senior Engineer with Talbott Associates Inc./
Stated he had lived and worked 13 years in Ashland. Questioned slope and erosion issue. Clarified that a
35% slope is a 19.29 degree angle. Felt that you could safely build on 100% slope/45 degree angle.
Commented that the uniform building code allows building and there is no requirement for engineering
safety or other safety aspects.
Don Rist/260 Joy Dr., Talent/Read a letter by Tracy McKan outlining the dangers of plain water and
suggesting a ban on its use to illustrate that anything can be made to seem more dangerous than it is on
paper. Felt that if people were aware of the existence of a current ordinance protecting the hillside they
wouldn't have signed the petition submitted to council. Did not believe that you can dictate to neighbors and
defended realtors.
Wendie Ke!!ington/1211 PacWest Ctr, Portland/Attorney from Schwabe Williamson representing the Rogue
Valley Association of Realtors/Kellington allowed Robert Gantenbein to complete his presentation.
Gantenbein reiterated that safety wasn't at issue. He spoke concerning erosion and explained that it can be
controlled, if done properly. Concluded by saying that with the current ordinances, Ashland has the tools it
needs to effectively deal with Hillside Development issues.
Kellington asked council to read the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) letter,
which she felt was in agreement with her prior memo to council. She identified legal problems she perceived
in the ordinance, including removal of residential land from the buildable land inventory, and regulation of
aesthetics. Felt that this did not meet the requirement for a "Goal 5 Process" in evaluating ecological,
environmental, social and economic effects of the ordinance. Felt that this failed to comply with the State
ordinance which would then require other municipalities to compensate.
City Council Meeting 11-19-97 2
Kellington also indicated that the standards set in the ordinance were not objective and that the planning
process should not become a "majority event". Urged council to deal with the culprits of flooding, identified
in OTAK's final report, which did not include hillsides. Requested that council remember their fiduciary
responsibilities, as mentioned earlier by Marie Donovan.
Stated again that this ordinance removes buildable land from inventory and questioned the initial process as
having limited input to emphasize an anti-growth sentimem. Discussed this process which began years ago as
being conducted by the "Friends of Ashland" and not city-sponsored. Said that differing views weren't
welcome, and that the process was designed to limit growth. Continued by stating that the ordinance is all
aesthetics and does not really deal with safety, erosion or forest health, but rather limits density and lowers
the buildable lands inventory within the urban growth boundary.
Kellington concluded by stating that the variance process allowed within the ordinance is inadequate to allow
building. That the requirements are impossible to meet, in particular to the potential ambiguity of "minimum
necessity" needed for a variance.
Commented on the myths concerning this ordinance and stated that the "45-day rule" does not apply and
there is no need to serve the hidden agenda of anti-growth elements. Emphasized that current rules are
adequate, and that Ashland needs more enforcement of current rules, not more rules.
Public hearing was closed at 1:52 pm.
John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development again noted the memo received from Department of
Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and commented on having met with Jim Hinman, Field
Representative to discuss suggestions noted in the memo. Stated that there was only one recommendation
by DLCD, which McLaughlin concurred with, and clarification of building envelopes was made. McLaughlin
clarified that the memo from DLCD did not say that everything in the ordinance was wrong and needed to
be thrown out. DLCD stated that other concerns mentioned in the memo will likely be addressed in the
City's findings.
City Attorney Paul Nolte, agreed that DLCD had not asked that the ordinance be thrown out, or said that
everything was wrong with it. Nolte gave example of using a Goal 5 process to justify aesthetics. Nolte
brought attention to the portion of the memo from DLCD which requested that the city needs to either (1)
relate standards cited above to a Goal 5 planning process under the "Goal 5 rule"; or (2) explain why the
standards are not a Goal 5 program. Nolte explained to council that the city has never said this was a Goal
5 issue, and that the city has explained in many ways why the standards are not a Goal 5 program. Clarified
that there is nothing that DLCD has indicated that would preclude the council from adopting any part or
every part of the proposed ordinance.
Nolte stated that the inventories are clearly supported through the memo from the Planning Director
regarding the number of houses affected. Advised council to comply with Comprehensive Plan. Explained
that clear and objective standards apply if needed housing is affected. Stated that there has been no
evidence presented that proves needed housing, as defined by statute, is housing on the hillside. Agrees that
some of the myths are just myths, and council does not need to address these. Clarified that no one, as yet,
has stated to council that the process the council initiated was not sufficient. Noted there has been ample
time allowed for public input to cure any defects that might have occurred prior to the council dealing with
this issue.
McLaughlin agreed with Councilor Hauck that the inventory is based on the Urban Growth Boundary and
population projection of twenty years and is "right on" according to our growth predictions. McLaughlin
explained that we are following our Comprehensive Plan adopted population element.
City Council Meeting 11-19-97 3
McLaughlin believes that the differences in the inventory have to do with the methodology used for
calculation. The opponents of the ordinance used a "gross methodology", by looking at large vacant parcels
and assigning 1.5 units per acre to that.
McLaughlin explained that when staff calculated our inventory, they looked at trying to get as accurate a
number as possible by trying to determine "what are the buildable number of units within the city limits". They
took into account street access and the ability to build new streets and develop to optimum density, under
current codes. Explained that in many cases, those constraints that are already in place make it impossible
to build to those ultimate densities. This is why the Planning Department estimates only 415 vacant units
available in hillside areas. Stated that this number takes into account driveway standards already in place,
and locations where public streets could not be built under current codes. These codes, which are already in
place, set limits on partitioning or development of additional lots, separate from the proposed hillside
ordinance.
McLaughlin clarified for council that he does not believe there is a middle ground in calculating the number
of units out of the inventory. Believes, as previously stated, that it is a matter of the methodology used.
Confirmed for council that he would be comfortable to go before LUBA on an appeal and City Attorney
Nolte concurred.
Hauck confirmed that in the large lot zoning, there is in excess of 30-years inventory within the city limits for
this type of housing supply. McLaughlin clarified that there are specific design standards in various zoning
areas of the city.
DeBoer noted a letter from Tom Ferrero where he states that "it is worth noting here that Larry Medinger,
Pete Seda and myself, three members of the original hillside standards committee, are uncomfortable with
the ordinance". McLaughlin feels that it is an issue of expectations. Explained that in this process a lot of
adjustments and changes were made from the information received. What the council has before them is a
joint effort of all involved and not any one. Stated that consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees, it means
there is not disagreement on every issue anymore. What the council is hearing now, regarding total
unacceptance of ordinance, are things that did not come out during the Planning Commission meetings when
reviewed and he does not believe it is grounds to send the ordinance back to the beginning.
McLaughlin clarified how safety issues are handled in the planning process. Explained that in regards to
slope and slope protection, there is a general understanding, and it is stated in our Comprehensive Plan, that
the steeper the slope the more difficult the construction and the more opportunity for problems or failure.
Stated that with the amount of knowledge we have regarding building on slopes, it is in our best interest to
build at a lesser slope. McLaughlin clarified for council that he does not believe it is an aesthetic issue, but a
safety issue. McLaughlin believes that it is safer for the community to build at a 35 % slope than it is at a
40 % slope.
McLaughlin clarified for council that section 18.140.040, regarding General Regulations, would not need to
be revised because this is a determination of density for the WR zone.
McLaughlin clarified for council that he had heard nothing during the recent testimony to change his mind
regarding the support of the proposed ordinance. McLaughlin did feel that the recommendation by Larry
Medinger, on height requirements, might merit an increase in the hillside building height from 30' to 35'.
Councilor Laws noted that there arc several places in the Comprehensive Plan which speak of slopes and
questioned whether the 35 % is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. McLaughlin clarified that the
proposed ordinance does not change the Comprehensive Plan and that the city has the right to have a
stricter standard than a Comprehensive Plan policy, but not a lesser standard.
City Council Meeting 11-19-97 4
City Attorney Nolte defined minimum necessity for council, or minimum necessary to comply with unique
and unusual circumstances. Explained that this is common language used in variance provisions and it
depends on what the difficulty is. Nolte clarified that "unique circumstances" apply to the property needs
only, not the individual needs of the property owner.
Councilor Reid, as liaison to Forest Commission, questioned keeping tree canopy when Forest Commission
wants to thin canopy. Questioned if this is moving toward less fire safety. McLaughlin explained that with
the proposed adjustment in the ordinance, it says that tree removal for the purposes of fuel reduction,
independent of development, does not require the current permit. Explained that in terms of what relates to
development, in the section for tree removal, it states "development will be designed to preserve the
maximum number of trees on a site when balanced with other provisions of this chapter and recognizing and
following the standards for fuel reduction, if the development is located in wildfire lands". McLaughlin
believes this creates a balance to stabilize slopes while reducing the fuel loading and fuel risk.
Councilor Reid requested that council look at separating aesthetics from the proposed ordinance.
Council reviewed proposed ordinance with discussion on a page-by-page basis.
Page One: Councilor DeBoer pointed out that the formula indicated in section 18.62.030(B) should have
the "A"directly under (L)(L); that the chapter 18.62.030 has duplicate (B) sections which staff should be
directed to correct.
Page Two: Noted changes made to chapter 18.62.030(D) regarding tree removal. It was suggested to add
definition to chapter regarding "Design Professional". McLaughlin explained that this relates back to the
confusion that started out in beginning of the ordinance when it included a statement that an architect is
required to design any home on the hillside. The revised ordinance now states that what is required is a
engineer architect to do the foundation work of the home. Felt that if council believed it would help
equalize this by having this definition put into the ordinance, they could do that.
Page Three: Noted changes made to chapter 18.62.030(L) regarding definition of Natural State. "Incidental
brush removal for lot maintenance and ecosystem health is permitted." was added.
Discussion regarding adding information to chapter 18.62.030(G) from the recent OTAK report and the
Flood Plan published by FEMA. Councilor Hauck stated that the FEMA study as indicated in this section is
the guide to be used and nothing is being changed in our floodplain ordinance. It was suggested to look at
updating our floodplain study, given the OTAK model, or the most recent study available.
Hauck clarified that until we change the ordinance that says we will use the new study and the new
information from that, this is what is operative, but should be updated.
Laws suggested that the definition of Floodway Channel should state "as defined by City Ordinance" as it is
elsewhere.
Pages Four and Five: Addition to chapter 18.62.030 regarding Tree Removal and chapter 18.62.040addition
to Approval and Permit Required for physical constraints review permit requirement.
Councilor DeBoer noted correction to formula on page 4, where "ARC" should be indicated over the word
"TANGENT" in calculating the degree of slope.
City Council Meeting 11-19-97 5
Question on whether the deletion of "No additional fee will be charged." to the end of chapter 18.62.040(E),
was an error. McLaughlin explained that it was not added in the revised ordinance as it was considered
redundant and not necessary.
Page Thirteen: Changes were made to chapter 18.062.080(A) under General Requirements. Council was
given options dealing with 35% slope, 20% to 40% slope, 35% with up to 40% with engineering and 40%
slope.
Council discussion regarding their position of slope requirement. Councilor DeBoer requested that council
support a 40% slope, Councilors Hauck and Hagen would not support anything more than 35%, and
Councilor Reid stated she had not heard anything that proved there is a physical need to move from 40% to
35 % slope. Reid is more concerned with the aesthetic portions of this ordinance. DeBoer stated that he did
not hear the engineer, who was part of the committee, recommend 35 % slope.
DeBoer suggested changing maximum buildable slope to 40% because we would only lose a few houses.
Believes there is still a process that talks about what you would have to do to go to 40%. Does not believe it
is worth the battle for a 2 1/2 degree change and the possibility of legal challenges to the ordinance.
Councilors Hauck/Hagen m/s to make maximum buildable slope to 35% Roll call vote: Wheeldon, Hauck,
Laws and Hagen, YES; DeBoer and Reid, NO. Motion passed, 4-2.
Page 15: Changes made to chapter 18.062.080(B)(3) which added "involving partitions and subdivisions, and
existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre."
Page 17: Changes made to 18.062.080(B)(7)(b) which changed a date to January 1, 1998.
Page 20, 22, 23 and 24: Changes made to 18.062.080(D)(2) which changed definition of professional
arborist to "landscape professional". Discussion regarding the necessity on requirement of "bonded"
individuals.
Page 25: Changes made to 18.062.080(E)(1)(c) regarding fuel reduction.
Page 26: Changes made to 18.062.080(E)(2)(a) regarding the wording for reducing hillside disturbance
through the use of slope responsive design techniques.
Wheeldon requested an addition to chapter 18.062.080(E)(1)(d) regarding Building envelope locations.
Suggested that if there is an existing ridgeline neighborhood, that the home be built within the standard of
that neighborhood, and that this be an exception and something that compliments the neighborhood.
Laws suggested eliminating paragraph (d), he believes this becomes an aesthetic question and too much of a
difference of opinion.
Councilors Reid/DeBoer m/s to delete section E, subsection 1, paragraph "d"from chapter 18.062.080.
DISCUSSION: DeBoer concurs with this suggestion, but would like to make reference to the committee,
that as things are deleted, a recommendation brochure be made available for hillside development that
talks about ridgelines. Roll Call vote: Laws, DeBoer, Reid, YES; Hauck, Hagen and Wheeldon, NO.
Mayor declares conflict of interest due to being a property owner on the-hil4side. Motion failed due to tie
Laws suggested that the word of "shall"be changed to "should" in this section.
City Council Meeting 11-19-97 6
Councilors DeBoer/Reid m/s to add, "It is recommended..." to beginning of section E, subsection 1,
paragraph "d"of chapter 18.062.080 and that "shall" be changed to "should". Roll Call vote: Hauck, Laws,
DeBoer, Hagen, Reid and Wheeidon, YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Reid declared that she owns property within the hillside and the effected area.
McLaughlin suggested that in section 18.62o080(E)(2)(a) that 30' be changed to 35' as proposed.
Councilors Hauck/Hagen m/s to change section E, subsection 2, paragraph (a) in chapter 18.062.080
under Hillside Building Height to 35'. DISCUSSION: McLaughlin clarified that the suggestion by Larry
Medinger is to do the midpoint between the peak and the eave. Councilor Hauck clarified that his motion
is only changing 30' to 35'. Laws withdrew his second to the motion.
McLaughlin explained that using the average height between the eave and the peak is the way height is
measured.
Councilors Reid/Laws m/s to change section E, subsection 2, paragraph (a) in chapter 18.062.080under
Hillside Building Height. The section would read "The height of all structures shall be measured vertically
from the midpoint of the roof edge and peak,...",and height would change to 35'. Roll Call vote: Laws,
DeBoer, Reid, YES. Hauck, Hagen and Wheeldon, NO; Mayor Golden, NO. Motion denied.
Councilors Wheeldon/Hauck m/s to change Maximum Hillside Building Height shall be "35 feet" in section
E, subsection 2, paragraph (a) of chapter 18.062.080. Roll Call vote: Laws, Hauck, Hagen, DeBoer, Reid
and Wheeldon, YES. Motion passed.
Page 27: Changes to section 18.062.080 which deleted section (F).
Wheeldon suggested in paragraphs (e),(f) and (g) that "shall" become "should" and is also covered in the
guidelines. Laws suggested that "It is recommended...", be added to beginning of each of these sections.
Councilors DeBoer/Wheeldon m/s to change chapter 18.062.080, section E, subsection 2, paragraphs (e),
(f), and (g), so that "shall" becomes "should", and that "It is recommended...", be added to the beginning
of each section. DISCUSSION: McLaughlin explained that the practical impact of this change would
make people aware during the process, but would not be enforceable. DeBoer clarified that the second
portion of paragraph (g) would be deleted if "shall" is changed to "should".
Councilors Laws/Reid m/s to amend motion striking paragraph (g) completely. Roll Call vote: DeBoer,
Laws and Reid, YES; Hauck, Wheeidon and Hagen, NO; Mayor Golden, NO. Motion denied.
Councilors Wheeldon/Laws m/s to change in chapter 18.062.080 section E, subsection 2, paragraphs (e),
(f), and (g) that "shall" become "should", that "It is recommended .... "be added to the beginning of each
section and that the portion beginning with second sentence of paragraph (g) be deleted. DISCUSSION:
McLaughlin clarified for council that it would be more troublesome to continue to include the portion of
paragraph (g) beginning with second sentence. Roll Call vote: DeBoer, Laws, Reid, Hanck, Wheeldon and
Hagen, YES. Motion passed.
Page 28: Change to 18.062.080(2)(G) to include "and Design Professionals shall not include working
drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer."; 18.062.080(2)(H)portion of first sentence "of
sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone." is deleted.
City Council Meeting 11-19-97 7
Councilors Hauck/Wheeldon m/s to approve first reading of proposed ordinance with the amendments as
proposed and place on agenda for second reading.
DISCUSSION: Deboer voiced his continued concern of the potential impact on property owners by the slope
change from 40 % to 35 %. Laws agrees that there will be impact on property owners, but not as badly as
some people fear.
City Attorney Paul Nolte, clarified for council that a variance can always be applied for. That the property
owner would need to show that their property is unique, has unusual circumstances and comply with the rest
of the variance criteria. Stated that variances are not easy, but not impossible and could be appealed to the
council.
DeBoer restated his position, that it is not worth the fight over 2 1/2 degrees.
Mayor Golden commented on how some people see conflict and division within a community as a bad thing.
Pointed out that some of the most important things that have happened in Ashland, happened under very
controversial situations. Felt that there will continue to be important issues in this community where there is
division, and that this division springs from the inherent importance of the issues themselves.
Golden restated that she owns property on the hillside and that she will be affected by this proposed
ordinance. She supports this ordinance even though it may cost her money and make it more difficult for
her to develop.
Laws noted the negative behavior during the process of this ordinance. He asked that "civility'be worked on
in future debates. Used the name calling that happened during this process as an example.
Roll Call vote: Hauck, Laws, Wheeldon, DeBoer, Hagen and Reid, YES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Councilor DeBoer requested and council agreed to extend the deadline period for application to the Budget
Committee to December 1st.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 3:20p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
City Council Meeting 11-19-97 8