HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-0620 Study Session PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Monday, June 20, 2016
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
5: 30 p.m. Study Session
1. Public Input (15 minutes maximum)
2. Look Ahead review
3. Continued discussion of planning for City Hall replacement
4. Proposed changes related to public art in Chapter 18
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON (-HANNEL 9. STARTING APRIL 15, 2014,
CHARTER CABLE WILL BROADCAST MEETINGS ON CHANNEL 180 OR 181.
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
City of Ashland Council Meeting Look Ahead
*****THIS IS A DRAFT AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****
Departments Responsible
/4 Stud s'ian can Bled - 4th 0# Jul Holida 7/4
7/5 Council Goal Settin 7/5
1 Council Goal Setting GOAL
7/18 Council Goal Setting 7118
Council Goal Setting GOAL
7119 Regular Council Meeting 7/19
3 Update on Climate and Energy Action Plan progress, goals and targets Admin PRES
Adam
4 Approval of trail easement on Nutley Way Michael B. Parks CONS
5 Public hearing re: fair housing ordinance (Bill) CD PH ORD-2
ORD-1
6 2017 Legislative Priorities Dave Admin NEW
7 Ordinance amending the Verde Village Subdivision Development CD ORD-2
a reement Bill
8 Resolution re ardin "ERA" (request of Mayor Stromber Admin RES
8/1 Stud Session in Siski ou Room u'1
9 Discussion of upcoming "housekeeping" ordinances "Dave L' Legal 10 Update on the Downtown Parking and Traffic Circulation ad hoc PW ss
committee Mike
8/2 Regular Council Meeting 8/2
11 Fair housin ordinance (Bilk CD
8115' Stud _ S ssion in iski du Room 8118
12 Electric cost of service stud Mark Electric Ss
13 AFN ad hoc Committee Update Dave K.l Mark Admin AFN ss
8116 Regular Council Meeting 8/16
14 Award of bid for Garfield Park project Michael Parks CONS
15 Public hearing re: CPAC revisions ordinance (Bill) CD PH ORD-2
ORD 1
8/28 Volunteer Appreciation - Oak Knoll Golf Course 3 m 8/28
9/5 Stud Session canceled - Labor Da Holiday
9/6 Re ular Council Meeting 9/6
16 CPAC revisions ordinance Bill CD oPD 2
9/19 Stud Session in Siski ou Room 9119
Discussion of the future of the Electric Utility (request of Mayor Admin Electric ss
17 Stromber
eno Regular Council Meeting 9/20
Page 1 of 2 6/16/2016
City of Ashland Council Meeting Look Ahead
*****THIS IS A DRAFT AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****
Departments Responsible
Commission Presentation Dates 2016
February 16 - Transportation Commission
March 15 - Tree Commission
April 19 - Historic Commission
May 17 - Wildfire Mitigation Commission
June 7 - Band Board
Jul 19 - Forest Lands Commission
August 16 - Conservation Commission
September 20 - Airport Commission
October 18 - Public Arts Commission
November 15 - Housing and Human Services Commission
December 6 - Planning Commission
Discussion of Class & Compensation stud (request of Councilor Voisin
Discussion of raising the temperature threshold for declaration of extreme weather
emer enc shelter (request of Councilor Voisin
Discussion of potential solutions to deer problems (request of Councilor Seffin er
Review of ad hoc AFN Governance Committee work (request of Councilor Marsh
Discussion regarding the seismic code
Page 2 of 2 611612016
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
June 20, 2016, Study Session
Continued discussion of planning for City Hall replacement
FROM:
Kaylea Kathol, Public Works Project Manager, ka. lea.k_athoIL&ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This update is being provided to inform Council on the status of the ongoing examination of options
for replacing City Hall. The City has commissioned Ogden Roemer Wilkerson Architecture (ORW) to
study the feasibility of replacing City Hall, following a 2015 seismic evaluation that indicated the cost
of a necessary seismic upgrade to City Hall would exceed the cost of replacing the structure. ORW's
commission includes provisions for a space and programmatic needs analysis and an evaluation of
three possible siting alternatives for a new building, including (a) substantially remodeling and
expanding City Hall in situ; (b) expanding the Community Development building; and (c) constructing
a centralized municipal building on the City-owned parcel at the corner of Lithia Way and North
Pioneer Street. Findings will be presented to City Council in September.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
History
At the Council's February 1, 2016, study session staff provided the findings of a seismic evaluation of
City Hall, directed by Council as part of a greater effort to conduct a comprehensive examination of
options for replacing City Hall. The report identified seismic deficiencies in the structure, and
described the upgrades necessary to bring City Hall into compliance with applicable seismic provisions
in the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. The presentation was supplemented by cost estimates of the
seismic upgrades, as well as preliminary cost estimates for two new construction alternatives, either of
which would be more economical than performing an upgrade on the existing structure. Additional
details are provided in the attached Council communications from the February 1, 2016, study session.
The cost estimates that emerged from the seismic evaluation marshaled the next logical phase in the
City Hall replacement effort, the evaluation of replacement options.
Status
A Request for Proposals (RFP) was crafted for personal services with of fixed budget of $75,000 to
evaluate space needs and study the feasibility of replacing City Hall. The RFP was released to nine
local architectural or design firms in late March of 2016; four proposals were returned. Through a
graded selection process, ORW was identified as the most suitable bidder and was awarded the
commission. The City and ORW developed a refined project scope through a collaborative process.
The scope (attached) includes the following components:
Space needs evaluation
Page 1 of 3
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ORW will explore each department's current and projected space needs pertaining to individual work
stations and offices, conference rooms, document storage, communal areas, areas for public
interaction, etc. The assessment will also address important departmental adjacencies and future
growth over a 15-year planning horizon. Leadership from all departments located in City Hall
(Administration, Administrative Services, and Legal) and the Community Development building
(Community Development and Public Works) will be surveyed. Information gathered from the space
needs evaluation will inform the second component, the siting analysis.
Siting alternatives analysis
The consultant will examine the feasibility of the three silting alternatives summarized in the table
below. The alternatives are described in greater detail in the attached Scoping Document that was
issued as Attachment A to the RFP.
Alternative Description
Expansion/new City Hall would be substantially demolished, although exterior facades may be
construction at existing maintained for historical preservation at the community's direction. A new
City Hall site larger structure would be built on the existing City Hall site.
Expansion of Community A second floor would be added to the Community Development building to
Development consolidate offices of City Hall and Community Development buildings. The
City would divest itself of the existing City Hall structure.
New construction at A new municipal building would consolidate City Hall and Community
Lithia Way and North Development offices. The City would divest itself of the two existing
Pioneer structures and use any profits to offset construction costs.
Public involvement
At least one public open house meeting will be scheduled to provide the community with an early
opportunity to learn about the City's larger goal of replacing City Hall. The intent of the meeting is to
ensure the public is informed at a very early phase of the larger replacement project in order to develop
an environment of public inclusion throughout the project. In addition, written communications will
be delivered to the Historic Commission, Planning Commission, and Conservation Commission. Input
from these commissions will be important during the design phase of the project, and the City feels
that it is important to keep them updated and informed early on.
Deliverables
The final production, a comprehensive feasibility study report, will address construction costs and
implementation schedules for each alternative. The siting alternatives analysis will address planning,
parking, circulation, and solar potential at each location. Temporary relocation logistics and structural
feasibility issues will also be explored for the existing City Hall and Community Development site
options. In addition, the report will include a space needs program, site plans and floor plans for the
three alternatives, and 3D massing views for each alternative (excluding architectural or stylistic
detail).
Schedule
Page 2 of 3
M41
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The study began in early June and is on track to be completed in early to mid-September. The final
report in tentatively planned for presentation to City Council at the September 20"' business meeting.
The presentation will signify the end of this phase of the project, and will lead into the next phase:
selection and design of Council's approved alternative.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
4. Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals.
4.3 Examine city hall preplacement and other facility needs.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The current budget includes $100,000 to fund a study for City Hall replacement. To date staff has
expended $12,000 for the seismic upgrade analysis and an additional $1,000 for a building contractor
to provide preliminary cost estimates for two of the siting alternatives. The expected cost of this
feasibility study is $47,250.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
This item is for information only.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
• Council Communication from February 1, 2016 Study Session RE City Hall replacement
• ORW's proposed Scope of Work (Exhibit C of Contract)
• Scoping Document (Attachment A of RFP)
Page 3 of 3
~r
CITY OF
-ASH LAN D
Council Communication
February 1, 2016, Study Session
Continued discussion of planning for City Hall replacement
FROM:
Michael R. Faught, Director of Public Works, Public Wc,)rks, Mike.Faught a)ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The Council at its June 15, 2015, study session requested that the City conduct a seismic evaluation of
City Hall to determine the cost of bringing the building T '►p to current seismic codes. Necessary seismic
upgrades would involve removing the roof, the floor on the second floor and all of the drywall on the
interior of the north and west walls, then building a system of ties and braces to secure the building.
The estimated cost (including contingency but excluding soft costs and temporary staff relocation) is
$176/sq. ft., or $1,363,757. The seismic upgrades will require the relocation of city staff for
approximately nine months at a cost of just under $157,000. Soft costs would be roughly $322,000. If
the City did necessary and long-overdue HVAC and plumbing replacement as well as fire suppression
and ADA improvements, the total cost of the project exceeds the cost of simply demolishing and
rebuilding City Hall or building a new City Hall at a different location on City-owned property.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
At the Council's June 15, 2015, Study Session, City Administrator Dave Kanner proposed a
comprehensive examination of options for replacing City Hall using the $100,000 appropriated in the
current budget for a long-term facilities master plan. To that end, Mr. Kanner provided background
information on past plans to replace City Hall which included a detailed history of City Hall remodels,
additions, spacing needs, and needed seismic mitigation based on a 1994 seismic evaluation (see
attached June 15, 2015, council communication).
Based on the age of the existing seismic report, Council directed staff to complete a new seismic study
on City Hall and the Parks and Recreation building. The City Hall seismic evaluation has been
completed by Miller Consulting Engineers, Inc. (see attached report). The consultant's report outlines
a plan with estimated costs to upgrade City Hall to allow occupants to safely exit the building after a
major earthquake which, as he indicates in his executive summary, "may not be the case in its current
state." The estimated cost to upgrade the existing facility to meet seismic requirements only
(excluding soft and relocation costs) is estimated to be $176 per square foot or a total cost of
$1,363,757. If the City Council were to choose this option, al I employees in the existing building
would have to be relocated for about nine months at an estimated cost of $17,426 per month or just
under $157.000.
Given that a seismic renovation of the existing facility requires a major rebuild to the building,
Michael Morrison, Public Works Superintendent, recommended evaluating costs associated with
modernizing all of the existing (aging) plumbing, HVAC systems and electrical systems. To assist
with development of additional planning level cost estimates, staff hired Matt Small, Kistler Small i
_
Page 1 OF-31
I L
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
White Architects, and John Kennedy, chief estimator with Vitus Construction, to provide economy of
scale cost estimates for the following four options (see attached estimate):
1. Include soft cost and Temporary relocations costs to the to the seismic estimate
2. Estimated square foot costs for mechanical, electrical and plumbing, egress, ADA, fire
suppression and tenant improvements
3. Estimated square foot costs to rebuild on the current City Hall site, replacing everything
except the existing north and west historic facades.
4. Total estimated square foot costs to construct a new building elsewhere on City-Owned
property, including parking and other issues arising out Of its location.
These costs are shown in table 1.
Table 1:
Seismic Upgrades Additional cost for Total Remodel Rebuild on the New building on
plus soft costs mechanical, Costs current City hall City Owned
and relocation electrical and site replacing Property
costs plumbing, egress, everything except
ADA, Fire the existing north
Suppression and and west wall
Tenant
Improvements
$236 $338 $576 $405 $450
*All costs are per-square foot
COUNCIL GOALS:
Organization
4 Evaluate real property and City assets to strategically support city mission and goals
4.3 Examine city hall replacement and other facility needs.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The current budget includes $100,000 to fund a study for City Hall replacement. 1`o date staff has expended
$ 12,000 for the seismic upgrade analysis and an additional $1,000 for a building contractor to estimate cost
for additional remodeling costs, rebuild in place costs and to build a new building in a different location on
city owned property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Given the seismic report and the need for additional capital improvements at City Hall, staff
recommends that the City move forward with a comprehensive examination of options for replacing or
rebuilding City Hall. Staff seeks approval to issue an RFP to select a consultant team to examine
options for replacing or rebuilding City Hall.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A
Page 2 o
I LAC I
Exhibit C: Scope of Work
May 25, 2016
Kaylea Kathol, Project Manager, Public Works Department
City of Ashland
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520,
ARCHITECTURE
WV/W.OR W ARCM IT E C T UR E. C oM
2950 EAST PIRNETT ROAD
Re: Ashland City Hall Feasibility Study - Scope Description M E U F o R D OR 9 7 5 0
F 4 I 7 7 9 5 2 3 7
F 5 4 7 7 2 8 7 2
Dear Kaylea,
We look forward to serving the City of Ashland on the City Hall Feasibility Study. Our expected scope of
work and deliverables are:
Meetings:
• 2 meetings with City Manager
• 2 rounds of Space Needs meetings with Department Leadership (approximately 10 total)
• 1 meeting with Historic, Planning, and Conservation commissions
• 2 public involvement meetings (Open Houses or similar)
• 1 Special Study Session meeting with City Council to present Space Needs results
• 1 presentation to City Council at regular Council meeting near project completion
• Telephone and in-person meetings with Public Works as needed
Tasks:
• Perform space needs assessment for potential departments to be housed in future City Hall: City
Administrator, City Attorney, Electric, Finance, Publ''ic Works, and Planning/Building. Assessment to
address area needs, departmental adjacencies, public interactions, and future growth.
• Study structural feasibility of maintaining historic facades at existing City Hall, and feasibility of a
vertical addition to the existing Community Development building.
• Perform site analysis for three sites addressing planning, solar, parking, and circulation
requirements.
• Using the City's preferred space needs planning horizon (e.g. 2031), explore concept designs that
consolidate departments on three sites: a new building and/or a drastic renovation to the existing
City Hall, an addition to the Community Development building, and a new building at N. Pioneer
and Lithia Way.
• Explore temporary office accommodations for options that displace City staff and public.
• Develop schedules for each option including construction and moves.
• Develop project cost models for option/s at three sites.
Deliverables:
• Space needs program identifying preferred adjacencies and area needs for 2016, 2021, and 2031.
• Site plans for three sites.
• Floor plan diagrams for three sites.
• 3D block massing views for three sites (excludes architectural or stylistic detail).
• Temporary office strategy for options at City Hall site and Community Development site.
• Implementation schedule for each option.
Kaylea Kathol - Ashland City Hall Feasibility Study
May 23, 2016
Page 2 of 2
• Project cost models (construction and soft costs) for each option.
• Cost increase for project designed as an Essential Facility.
• Consolidated Feasibility Study Report.
The timeline for the scope above is:
Late May: Refine scope and sign contract.
Late May/early June: Initial meetings with City Administrator to discuss public and Council process, and
department leaders to discuss space needs. Meetings with Historic, Planning, and Conservation
Commissions.
Throughout June: Develop space needs program and host follow-up meetings with City Administrator and
department leaders to share space needs results. Perform site analyses. Perform structural feasibility studies.
Late June: Select preferred planning horizon for concept work. Initial public involvement meeting (Open
House or similar) to identify public aspirations and concerns.
Throughout July: Develop concept options. Share with City project team (Project Manager and Public Works
leadership) and refine.
Early August: Develop temporary office options, project schedules, and cost models.
Mid-August: Second Community Open House to share progress.
Late August: Prepare Feasibility Study Report.
September: Present findings to City Council.
If additional scope or meetings are desired we will gladly add them as additional services at our 2016 hourly
rates. Please contact me if you have questions on the above scope of work.
Sincerely,
za~a'
Kenneth J. Ogden, AIA
Principal
J:A1619_Ashland City Hall Feasibility\Documents\Design\02_Agreenients\1619 ACH Scope Exhibit
20160523.docx
Attachment A:
Scoping Document
Feasibility Study for
City Hall Replacement
City of Ashland
March 2016
1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION
The City of Ashland (City) is accepting statements of work to conduct feasibility evaluation of replacing
the City Hall facility. The existing structure, originally built in 1891, does not comply with the seismic
design criteria provided in the 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC). Due to the age and
antiquated design of the building, the cost of a seismic retrofit on the existing structure would
considerably surpass the expense of constructing a new facility.' The City has determined that the
structure must be replaced, and has identified three replacement scenarios for evaluation, including (a)
substantially remodeling and expanding City Hall at its existing location; (b) expanding the Community
Development building; and (c) constructing a municipal building on a vacant lot owned by the City.
The final product, an evaluation report, will address each alternative individually, and will identify all
major building, structural and spatial needs; anticipated growth needs; expected physical and regulatory
constraints; estimates of timelines; and estimates of expenses. The evaluation report should provide
findings in sufficient detail to inform a decision for developing a City Hall facility that complies with the
2014 OSCC and best satisfies the needs of the City and the public.
2 HIGH-LEVEL REQUIREMENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
The feasibility study must address the following requirements for each alternative:
• Complies with applicable provisions of the 2014 OSCC
• Building programming is informed by a staffing and spatial needs analysis
• Design provides for growth (defined in section 3.1)
• Complies with all applicable zoning ordinances and parking requirements
This document includes very preliminary comparisons of the advantages and disadvantages of each
alternative. These comparisons were based on certain assumptions, including:
• Divestment of City Hall will result in minimal profit, and may present an unquantified degree of
risk
• Divestment of Community Development building will be profitable
• Ground-floor commercial leases will provide return on investment
• Staff displacement will be limited to the minimum period required by construction activities
(that is, relocation will occur no sooner than necessary)
'The City commissioned an evaluation in 2015 to explore the feasibility of a seismic retrofit to bring the structure into compliance with 055C. Estimates of the total
expense, including structural, non-structural, and accumulated displacement costs, were compared to estimates informed by the expense of similar, recently
constructed government buildings in the Rogue Valley.
1
3 SCOPE OF SERVICES
3.1 SPATIAL NEEDS ANALYSIS
It is essential that the City Hall replacement performs well as a structure, both for the benefit of the
public and the occupants. The City is particularly interested in consolidating the offices of the City Hall
and Community Development buildings to provide the public with a centralized municipal building.
Accordingly, an analysis of the programmatic needs of Cite Hall and Community Development will be
necessary to inform an evaluation of each of the replacement alternatives.
The City expects an analysis that includes, at a minimum, a description of current facility condition and
space use, identification of staffing levels and vacancies; current and projected space needs of the
occupants and the public, long-term document storage requirements, and long-term employee and
visitor parking and traffic flow requirements.
3.2 SITING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The City wishes to evaluate the feasibility and expense of the three siting alternatives described below.
The analysis of each siting alternative should include at a minimum:
• review of applicable zoning and jurisdictional requirements;
• identification of major siting constraints;
• a conceptual design;
• a projected timeline; and
• estimated project cost.
Provided below are detailed descriptions of the alternatives, certain foreseeable issues and concerns
that should be addressed in the feasibility study, as well as several options, or "nice-to-haves".
SCENARIO 1: ON-SITE REPLACEMENT OF CITY HALL
Description
This siting alternative would raze most of the existing City Hall structure. The north and west exterior
walls would be retained in order to preserve the historic value of the structure. A new facility would be
constructed in the footprint of the demolition.
The City envisions a new structure with four floors. The ground, second, and third floors would be
utilized by the City as civic offices, storage areas, and meeting spaces. The fourth floor may be utilized
for a variety of needs identified by the space needs analysis, possibly including document storage and
meeting areas, growth accommodation, and providing flexibility as space needs change over time.
Options
The City has identified two potential options for using space within the proposed City Hall building. Both
of the following options will require additional evaluation for expense and feasibility:
• Incorporate a basement under the new building
• Completely raze all walls and rebuild the structure (including basement, if practicable)
2
Additional Considerations
• The occupants of City Hall would need to be relocated during the construction phases. An
evaluation of Scenario 1 must consider logistical matters related to displacement. Modular
office structures (modulars) have been identified as a prospective solution to temporary
displacement of employees. The evaluation must address the number of modulars needed,
possible locations for modulars, and how City Hall personnel will be divided amongst modulars.
Additional considerations include parking and public access, and coordinating connections to
sewer, power, internet, and telephone.
Summary: Advantages and Drawbacks*
Advantages _ Drawbacks
Retains current, desirable location and historic Small footprint limits flexibility in design,
facade programming, growth
Eliminates complications and liabilities Requires significant demolition phase
associated with vacating and divestment of Multi-phase project may impact tourism
property Will not provide public with a centralized
municipal facility
May disrupt downtown business flow
Demolition and construction phases may
present a public safety risk
Does not alleviate existing public parking
shortage
*See Assumptions
SCENARIO 2: EXPAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUILDING
Description
Scenario 2 proposes to annex City Hall to the existing Community Development building as a second
floor. The City would vacate the existing City Hall structure.
The expansion would include a comprehensive programming component to ensure the two story facility
meets the required work space, storage, meeting, and work-flow needs of the various departments that
share the building.
Additional Considerations:
• The evaluation of Scenario 2 must explore the structural feasibility of constructing a second
floor on Community Development building. At this early stage, it is unknown whether
Community Development is able to safely support a second floor.
• Community Development personnel tend to park on Winburn Way and Granite Street. Parking
spaces on these two streets are typically limited due to proximity to Lithia Park. Expansion of
Community Development may further reduce parking availability. An evaluation of Scenario 2
must explore the need for additional parking. Possible solutions include purchasing or leasing
parking space in the vacant lot on the south side of the Community Development property, or
leasing church parking areas.
3
• Occupants of Community Development may need to be temporarily relocated if any
construction phases require an empty building. An evaluation of Scenario 2 should address the
necessity of relocation and accumulated expenses.
• A second floor may obstruct the eastern views from several neighboring homes on Granite
Street. An assessment potential for view obstruction will help the City prepare for discussions
with property owners.
Summary: Advantages and Drawbacks*
Advantages Drawbacks
Consolidates municipal offices City may need to divest itself of City Hall (will
Improves programming for multiple City be indemnified of risk?)
departments Intensified parking shortage
Significant infrastructure and services are May incur temporary displacement costs
present May obstruct neighbors' views
Avails a large construction footprint
Relatively minor demolition required
*See Assumptions
SCENARIO 3: RELOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING
Description
Scenario 3 proposes to consolidate City Hall and Community Development staff in a new municipal
building. The structure would be located on a City-owned parcel that currently provides public parking
at the southeast corner of Lithia Way and North Pioneer Street City. The City envisions a multi-story
facility with retail space on the ground floor and civic offices on the upper floor(s). The facility would
necessarily include underground parking to compensate for the loss of a surface parking lot. Under this
scenario, the City would divest itself of the City Hall and Community Development buildings and apply
the profits to the expense of
Additional Considerations:
The evaluation of Scenario 3 must include the expense of parking lot demolition and provision of
mandatory services on an otherwise undeveloped lot.
Summary: Advantages and Drawbacks*
Advantages Drawbacks
Consolidates municipal offices City may need to divest itself of City Hall
Requires no purchase of property (risk?)
Includes a parking solution which will not May incur greater development expenses
increase congestion than other scenarios
Increases public parking availability at the Mandatory utilities and services must be
Plaza, Lithia Park, and Granite Street. established
Affords a large construction footprint Potentially reduces public parking
Involves relatively minor demolition Public may be reluctant to change the location
Earns revenue from commercial leases of a long-standing institution
Divestment of Community Development helps
offset construction costs
4
Advantages Drawbacks
Incurs no temporary displacement costs
*See Assumptions
5
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
June 20, 2016, Study Session
Proposed Changes Related to Public Art in Chapter 18
FROM:
Ann Seltzer, management analyst, seltzera a,ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This is a discussion of a proposal to remove public art from the Site Design Review requirement of
AMC 18.5.2.020 and to add review by city commissions to AMC 2.29, the public art chapter of the
municipal code. This change would remove public art from the land use process while allowing for
review, as necessary, by the appropriate City commissions.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
At the City Council study session on April 18, staff suggested removing public art from the Site
Design Review process in Chapter 18 and to add new section to AMC 2.29 to include review of public
art proposed concepts by all City commissions. The Council requested staff return with proposed
changes.
Rationale
The change removes public art from the legal proscriptions to which development is subject, including
the appeal process.
In addition, public art as part of a site design review requires a planning application using AMC
18.5.1.050 requirements written for development projects, and public art, as included in the Site
Design Review process, is subject to the established planning fees.
The proposed change does not remove any codified or implicit power from any commission to review
and provide input on proposed public art and expands the review to include all commissions. The
proposed change continues to provide the Historic Commission with oversight of public art proposed
for structures listed on the National Register and on contributing properties in a historic district.
Proposed Chan1jes
AMC 18.5.2.020 Applicability
Site Design Review is required for the following types of project proposals.
A. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed Uses
4. Any exterior change, ineluding installation of Publie , with the exception of public art,
to a structure which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing
property within a Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a
building permit.
Addition to 2.29.199
Page 1 of 3
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The Public Art Commission will provide artist concept(s) to all City Commissions for review. City
Commissions may review the artist concept(s) using their existing powers and criteria, and in their
advisory role, provide written input for consideration by the City Council. City Commission may not
participate in the creative design process. The Historic Commission shall review public art proposed
on structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places and on contributing properties within a
Historic District.
Background
As noted in the April 18 study session, public art is a square peg trying to fit into the round hole of the
land use code Site Design Development Review. AMC 18.5.2.020 (see above) is written for
development of commercial, industrial, non-residential and mixed use projects.
Public Art was added to the Site Design Development Review several years ago and the recent Calle
mural is was subject to that review. While the review process went well, thanks in a large part to
Planning staff, it also provided the opportunity to identify bumps in the process as it pertains to public
art.
What is gained with the change?
The change takes public art out of the legal parameters intended for development, removes the
requirement for PAC to be a land use applicant and reduces staff time by removing the notice
requirements and preparation of written findings.
The addition to AMC 2.29 ensures all City commissions have the opportunity to review public art and
ensures the Historic Commission continues to review public art proposed on listed structures and on
contributing properties.
Future Issues to be addressed:
1) Councilor Marsh has requested a Council review of the Mural Guidelines developed by the
Public Art Commission. At that review, staff will suggest incorporating language in the Mural
Guidelines or into AMC 2.29 that addresses murals such as:
a. Murals should not be placed on building facades with a public entrance.
b. Murals should not be located on an unpainted facade surface (natural brick, stone) of a
contributing historic structure.
c. Murals should be limited to one per block: to avoid visual clutter.
This is a partial list suggested by Community Development Director Bill Molnar.
2) If the Council chooses not to remove the reference to public art in the Site Design Review
Process, it is suggested that planning application requirements be written specifically for public
art rather than using the current requirements written for commercial, industrial, non-residential
and mixed use development and to identify a means to waive planning fees associated with
public art. The planning fees increase the budget for public art and the current application
process is challenging for the PAC to navigate.
3) Regardless of the direction provided by Council, the Historic Commission may wish to develop
review criteria for public art that isn't attached to a building.
Page 2 of 3
9LA11
CITY OF
ASHLAND
4) The proposed change will likely require a review of other sections of Chapter 18 which
references public art.
Adding language to AMC 2.29 requiring the PAC to provide proposed public art concepts to all city
commission for review ensures the Historic Commission and all commissions have an opportunity to
provide input using the criteria they currently use to review projects, planning applications, proposals
etc.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
14. Encourage and/or develop public spaces that build community and promote interaction.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends the changes above for future Council review at a regular City Council meeting.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to direct staff to draft the proposed changes to AMC 18.5.2.020 and AMC 2.29.199 for Council
review.
ATTACHMENTS:
Letter from the Historic Commission dated June 20, 2016
Page 3 of 3
~r
CITY OF
ASHLANU
June 20, 2016
Honorable Members of the City Council and Mayor
City of Ashland
20 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
The Historic Conunission understands that the City Council will be discussing the existing review
process for public art, and specifically as it relates to Ashland's Historic Districts. The review
process under discussion was implemented in 2009 when the City of Ashland amended the land
use ordinance to exempt murals and other public art from being considered signs. These changes
were supported by both the Public Arts Commission and the Historic Commission as they newly
allowed for murals, sculptures, and other art installations that would have been prohibited if
defined as signs. As part of this change installation of public art, upon contributing historic
resource properties, was made subject to a land use application for Site Review. Attached are
letters submitted by the Historic and Public Arts Commission that were supportive of this
amendment in 2009.
fi
The Site Review process allows the Historic Commission to fulfill their responsibility to consider
the proposed artwork's impact upon historic buildings and to make recommendations to protect
and preserve architectural resources within Ashland's historic districts. The Historic
Commission's applies specific criteria related to external changes to historic structures and
properties. These criteria do not allow the Historic Commission to review the content of the
artwork, but rather focus explicitly upon the proposed artwork's relationship to the historic
resource including location; scale, and potential alterations to architectural features.
In the last seven years only two public art projects have been subject to this Site Review process,
including the mural on the alley at 27 S. Second Street and the recent Calle Guanajuato mural. On
May 4, 2016 the Historic Commission reviewed the proposed Calle Guanajuato mural and was
unanimous in its strong support of the art installation, doting that the "location il)as appropr°iale
given it 1-i~as a subordinate fagade that lacked any character defining architectural features. "
Having this expeditious review opportunity enabled the Historic Commission to find that the
}
public art not detract from any significant historic features.
The City's current public art selection guidelines state "the arht)ork should consider the historical
and cultural features of the site, as well as the relationship to the existing architeclur°e and
landscaping of the site (2.29.130.A3) Such recognition of the importance of carefully
considering historic resources in siting public art is a value shared by both the Public Art and
Historic Commissions. We believe the Historic Commission is particularly well suited to evaluate
the historic context and architectural significance of a building and the City Council in making its
final selection. Through recommendations from the Historic Commission provided during the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-A88-5305
51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland Oregon 97520 TTY; 800-735-2900
mm.ashland.or.us
site review process we can mitigate the risk of negatively impacting architectural features and
help ensure damage to the physical structure of the building is avoided.
The Historic Commission believes the current code language requiring site review provides the
opportunity to critically evaluate the impacts of placement of public art in relation to designated
historic properties. This is an important responsibility of the Commission that should be not be
diminished. The Oregon State Historic Preservation Office has designated Ashland as a Certified
Local Government (CLG) given the preservation duties undertaken by the City and the
qualifications of the Historic Commission. We believe commission review of public art installed
on contributing historic resources is consistent with the CLG requirements to ensure historic
preservation issues are fully considered in actions undertaken by the City.
At this time, the Commission would recommend retaining the language requiring site review for
the installation of public art upon contributing historic. structures and those properties listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. If future changes are considered, the Commission would
welcome the opportunity to work closely with the Public Arts Commission and the City Council
to establish specific review criteria that ensure that the, integrity of Ashland's Historic Districts is
maintained or enhanced through the addition of public: art. Thank you for your continuing support
and stewardship of Ashland's historic resources and four nationally recognized Historic Districts.
Sincerely,
A71'
Dale Shostrorn, Chairman
Ashland Historic Commission
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashlarnd.or.us
i
April 27, 2009
Ann J. Seltzer, Management Analyst
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Ann:
As discussed during our April 24, 2009 meeting, the City of Ashland Public Arts Commission
supports the proposed amendment to the Site Design Review Chapter of the Ashland Municipal
Code (18.72,030), as it relates to the installation of Public Art on buildings listed as contributing
resources within a Historic District.
We understand that Public Art projects that fall under this section of the Code would be handled
as a Land Use application under the city's current review procedures. We also understand that
the Historic Commission's review of Public Art projects would be limited to the standards
outlined in the Site Design & Use Guidelines, and that the content of the public art project would '
not be subject to review. We further understand that Community Development staff will work
with the Public Arts Commission to identify the salient issues for further discussion and dialogue
with the Historic Commission,
The PAC expresses this support for the proposed amendment recognizing that the aesthetic
integrity of Ashland's historic districts is in keeping with the PAC's mission.
Sincerely,
City of Ashland Public Arts Commission rs
j
i
r;
{
CI'T'Y OF
ASHLAND
April 22, 2009
Honorable Members of the City Council and Mayor
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
The Historic Commission has reviewed in depth the proposed changes to the Sign Code and wishes to extend our support for
the inclusion of the amendment of the following section:
SECTION 18. 72.030 Applicability.
g. Any exterior change to a structure which
and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing
property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic
Places that requires a building -permit, or includes the installation of
Public Art.
The primary role of the Historic Commission is the protection of architectural and cultural resources in the city. Historic and
historic contributing structures within the four national register districts in the city deserve the highest level of citizen review
f
that we can provide to ensure that the stewardship of these resources is maintained.
While we share in the concerns of the Public Arts Commission that public art be separated from the Sign Code and afforded
special consideration-that consideration must be subject to reasonable and prudent citizen review. The Historic Commission
seeks solely to maintain our ability to protect the historic resources of the districts. We do not seek to be the arbitrator of what
is or is not public art.
We do however, take seriously the responsibility of carefully reviewing any alteration or modification of historic or historic-
contributing structures. This would include the proposed application or installation of public art projects directly to these
structures. Historic structures are recognized public resources, arguably a form of public art in themselves, directly enhancing
our community, its value, and its overall sense of place. Altering or otherwise changing the building by adjoining or
mounting an additional piece of art to these structures has tremendous implications. If the project is not carefully reviewed,
we risk the possibility of impacting the architectural features of the building as well as actually damaging the physical
structure of the building. This level of review is a recognized standard within national historic register districts, and it is our
responsibility to ensure that we maintain that standard.
The Historic Commission continues to be committed to working closely with the Public Arts Commission in partnership to
3a
ensure that they can fulfill their responsibilities to the citizens of Ashland with regard to the selection and placement of public
art. We look forward to continuing in our ability to be strong advocates for these very public resources. Your adoption of this
amendment will be of great assistance towards that end.
Sincerely,
Dale Shostrom, Chairman
Ashland Historic Commission
r
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 804-735-2900
~r
www.ashland.ar.us