Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0402 REG MINMINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL April 2, 1996 CALLED TO ORDER Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. , Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon and Thompson were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular meeting of March 19, 1996 were approved with the following amendment to page 4, paragraph 8; "from the" was deleted from sentence reading "The county still owns Tolman Creek... south of Siskiyou Boulevard and a small portion to the north of the mobile home park." SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Proclamation of April 8, 1996 as Arbor Day in Ashland. Mayor Golden read proclamation proclaiming a special day be set aside for the planting of trees, called Arbor Day. Proclamation recognizes Ashland as a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation for eleven years and desires to continue its tree planting ways. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees. 2. Monthly departmental reports for February 1996 and March 1996. Councilors Hauck/Hagen m/s to approve consent agenda. Voice vote: aH AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Continuation of Planning Action No. 96-018, a request for annexation and rezoning of 11.25 acres of property located on the west side of Tolman Creek Road, south of East Main SWeet, for low-income housing (ACCESS, Inc., applicant). PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED 7:10 p.m. IN FAVOR: Joanie McGowan/676 Liberty Street/Addressed her concerns regarding the cost of rents in Ashland. Stated that she is aware of many friends that have had to leave the community because of the high cost of living. Co~acil ~4eaing 4-02-96 IN OPPOSITION: Babs McDonough/215 Toiman Crk Rd #3/Submitted a letter with a number of signatures stating their opposition. Letter ou~ined several concerns regarding traffic congestion, pedestrian risk, problems to sewer system by additional load in annexation of property. Pete Peterson/215 Tolman Crk #13/Concerned with traffic issue. Joe Eckhardt/108 Bush St/Cites conflict with goals of the LCDC, particularly the wildlife area. Feels that this area should be protected. Does not feel there is a need for low income housing and states his concern regarding the traffic issue. It was his judgement that an annexation could not be within the ORS, until such time changes were made in the Comprehensive Plan in the Land Usage Offices. Barbara Ryberg/373 Vista/Concern that parcel was zoned R1-3.5 and questioned the procedure in which the property was zoned. Concerned that RVTD is expanding service to this area, and how will this work out. Feels there is a traffic problem if this area is dependent upon RVTD. Questions community integrity. Marilyn Briggs/590 Glenview Drive/Addressed the need criteria, questioned the study that was done showing the need. Questioned whether the Council had actually seen this study. Does not feel that the criteria has been met. Felt the Council should have a list that shows 98 families that are in need of this low income housing. Sites the increase of a possible 400 population to the city. Questions how much the city would be losing in taxes by allowing a tax free project. Requests Council to wait. Carroll Muuson/215 Tolman Crk #11/Stated his opposition in concurrence with others. Debbie Miller/160 Normal/Submitted information to council regarding LCDC planning goals. Used these as a guideline with current annexation proposal. Cited density, transportation and how it would not be able to accommodate, no sidewalks and urbanization criteria. Questions how much Ashland needs to accommodate low income housing. Asks Council to check out accountability and merit. Betty Northcutt/1340 E. Main/Stated opposition as a tax paying property owner. Feels annexation of tax free, SDC units is discriminating and puts an additional burden on those that pay taxes now. Asks council to not be swayed by the affordable housing issue. Betty Elerath/840 Pinecrest Terrace/Questions how much the city will not be receiving in SDC charges and how much will be passed on to current property tax payers. Questions whether this project will pay its share of taxes as other property owners pay. If not, why not? Feels this proposal is discriminating. c~a u~ 4-o~-~ 2 Betsy Bishop/280 Normal/Lives in an area right next to the proposed annexation. Feels it is important to protect the urban areas. Feels there are areas inside the city that could be used to facilitate the need for low income housing. John Fields/35 Oak Street/Opposes proposal because it encourages tax subsidy developments. Questions how this fits into Ashland urbanization. Feels that there should be more effort put into finding other solutions to affordable housing. STAFF RESPONSE: Planning Director John McLaughlin addresses questions raised by those in opposition. He explained that the reason the R1-3.5 zone was applied to this property, was that during the comprehensive planning process it was determined that this area was to be a higher density area. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted with these plans in 1981 with periodic review. McLaughlin did not have tax information on this property as it is based on the value of the property when development is completed. He reported that a rough estimate on the SDC charges based on 96 units, all multi-family to be around $300,000. Stated that our Comprehensive Plan when it was acknowledged by LCDC complied with all the Statewide goals. As the plan has periodic reviews, those updates are reviewed with these goals. He feels that our plan meets these goals and it is what rules and governs in this process. When city ordinances are adopted they in concurrence with our Comprehensive Plan and the state has found these to be in compliance with our Comprehensive Plan. When the city follows it ordinances for annexations and development, it means that the city is following the statewide goals as acknowledged by LCDC. McLaughlin explained that the improvement of East Main and Tolman Creek is proposed to be done along with the development. McLaughlin clarified that the traffic level with a proposed development of 96 units, additional traffic could be 7-8 trips per unit (600-700 trips per unit). He explained that East Main and Tolman Creek Road would be able to handle the additional capacity of traffic. Wheeldon questioned whether the city would be able to satisfy its need for vacant land recommended by the state through rezoning of property within the city limits. McLaughlin clarified for Council that they do have the authority to rezone properties as they see it necessary in order to meet statewide goals and to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. McLaughlin clarified that the bike lanes on East Main are not standard size and the distance from this parcel to the nearest sidewalk on East Main is approximately 1/2 mile. It was questioned as to whether this development could be situated within the city limits. McLaughlin explained that it could be within the city limits although there are no parcels large enough to accommodate the project. City Attorney Nolte clarified for council that co~a u,,~ 4-o~-9~ 3 there are no case laws that he is aware of that addresses the issue of having property available for project developments. Council was reminded that criteria being used is based only on the land, not on the potential development. The need criteria for this application is based on the type of zoning. Questions regarding access points to the property for transportation was addressed by McLaughlin. He explained that there is some initial work on the access points. There is one potential access off of Tolman Creek Road that would link into a street system which connects over to Clay Street. There is another possible access off of East Main. McLaughlin stated that the recommendation to Council would be that before an ordinance is passed annexing the land, there be a condition on the applicant to get a site review approval. If all conditions and requirements regarding the development are not completed, then the land would not be annexed. Councilor Hauck stated that a transit district or service area is 1/2 mile on either side of a route and is considered served by the fixed route. McLaughlin stated that they had determined a five minute walking distance to the nearest transit route. McLaughlin stated that it is correct that CPAC is non-existent at this time, but that this action falls under the City's goal to ensure citizen involvement for participating in Land Use actions through Public Hearings. There is a review process for Comprehensive Plan changes, zone changes, etc. for Land Use. Because this is quasi-judicial involving one parcel of land, this is normally a Planning Commission item that goes through Planning Commission hearings and then on to City Council hearings. These Public Hearings are opportunity for public comment. APPLICANT REBUTTAL: Debbie Price, ACCESS Housing Manager and Patty Clays, Executive Director of ACCESS/Addressed concerns raised by opposition. Clarified that in regards to the property tax exemption, it is available to different type of affordable housing projects. ACCESS as a non-profit organization will pursue any property tax exemptions available to their organization. There is no guarantee that tax exemption status would be granted. Stated that a complete market study was done on affordable housing in Ashland, which showed a very low rate of availability. Does feel application meets all necessary points of criteria. Preliminary estimates have been done on unit mix, 96 units with an average of 2.3 persons per family, 10 four bedroom units. This type of balance could be designed to meet the need in Ashland and would be flexible. Clarified that Access is a community service prorider and taking steps to make permanent solutions is necessary. Their goal is to provide affordable housing using state subsidies that co, rata Mecti~ 4-02-~ 4 are available. Stated that this property would be managed by a professional management company. The average rent for these units based on a 2 bedroom unit would be $357.25 a month. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:35 p.m. Discussion by Council regarding the possibility of additional expenses due to the development that may be passed on and become a burden to other property owners. It was commented that the city portion of property taxes is very minimal, how city monies are generated is through utility taxes and utility charges which will continue to be paid by individuals even if property taxes are exempted. There is a possible credit that can be applied against SDC charges for improvements to streets, etc. around a project. Councilor Laws stated that one tool to help in providing low income housing are based on providing tax credits or forgiving of taxes. Councilor Reid commented on the positive aspects and livability of current affordable housing areas in Ashland. Stated that there is a difference in ownership of property versus rental property. Councilor Hagen stated that the proposed annexation does not meet the adequate transportation criteria. Concerned that there is no bicycle facilities that meet standards on East Main street and there are no sidewalks. This forces pedestrians to use the same lane as bicycles which this does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan. He is also concerned with the safety of the East Main and Tolman Creek Road intersection. Councilor Thompson stated that he does not believe the application meets criteria for approval based on criteria number four (4). Feels there is a need for affordable housing and projects need to be done on a scale that people in Ashland want. Councilor Wheeldon questioned as to whether this might not be an opportunity to create better transportation in this area. Councilor Hauck commented that the transit district has set service areas of 1/2 mile on either side of an existing route and will not do other routes unless the density calls for additional route or there is an unserved area that needs this service. He feels this proposal falls within that service area and under their definition it does get adequate public transportation. Mayor Golden voiced her concern that the arguments used in a past application for annexation are not being used with this development. Raised the issue of public need for additional land and commented that 96 units on 4 acres is not suburban residential zoning, but rather R-2 zoning. Feels that because of the density of this development, it is a R-2 zone coming in as a Rl-3 zone. Concerned that there is adequate need for R-2 land within the City and unless the density changes, R1-3.5 cannot be justified. co~u M~,~i~ 4-a2-9~ 5 Councilor Reid stated that approval should not be tied to the ACCESS project, but that any project should pass or fail according to our stringent site review in place. Councilors Laws/Hauck m/s to approve request for annexation and rezoning of 11.25 acres of property, Pbnning Action No. 96-018. Roll Call vote: Thompson and Hagen; NO. Wheeidon, Hauck, Reid and Laws; YES. Motion passed 4-2. PUBLIC FORUM Linda Richardst300 W. Hersey/Requests support from Council in neighborhood development of park space on north end of town. States there is one vacant piece of land that would be perfect for a park. Parks Department tried unsuccessfully to obtain this piece of property. Feels there is a safety issue for children. Commented on possible future building of condominiums by owner Albert Teitlebaum. Council requested City Administrator Almquist to contact owner Albert Teitlebaum to see if he would be interested in selling. Almquist reminded Council that property can only be purchased with meals tax monies if in the open space program. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Public Works Department request for authorization to cut surface of Seventh Street to install a manhole and sewer line. Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson presented background on sanitary sewer line on Morton Street which has been a source of sewer back-ups and maintenance problems. Councilors Laws/Hauck m/s to approve request for cutting. Voice vote: aH AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS. AND CONTRACTS 1. Approval of Grant of Easement from Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad, Inc., to the City of Ashland for $75,484 for the purpose of installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, repairing, and replacing a public bicycle trail. Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to approve Grant of Easement. Roll Call vote: Wheeldon, Laws, Reid, Thompson, Hagen and Hauck; YES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Councilor Thompson voiced concern that the public forum was not soon enough on the agenda and that citizens were having to wait until sometimes after 9:30 p.m. to be heard during the public forum section of the agenda. It was explained to Thompson that this had been addressed in the past and that it is currently sooner than it had been in the past. The importance of finishing public hearings by 9:30 p.m. and the possible education process that the public may gain by waiting through a public hearing for the public forum outweighed the need to push it ahead of public hearings. Thompson questioned the progress being made on the widening of N. Main and questioned whether it would be possible to offer any pedestrian refuge yet in the design. City Administrator Almquist explained that the state has stated no to this request. Thompson suggested to Council the possibility of holding a Public Hearing to discuss a minimum wage in Ashland. Councilor Hagen informed the Council that a check had been received from the Ashland Community Food Store to get the effective cycling video on cable access. ADJOURNMEaNT Meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Barbara Christensen, Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor co.~a u~ti~ 4.-m-~ 7