Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0820 REG MINMINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 20, 1996 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Laws, Reid, Hagen and Thompson were present, Councilor Wheeldon and Hauck were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular meeting of August 6, 1996 and adjourned meeting of August 14, 1996 were approved as presented. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees. 2. Approval of liquor license for Si Casa Flores, 1209 Siskiyou Blvd. Councilors Hagen/Thompson m/s to approve consent agenda. Voice vote: aH AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM Carl Oates/776 Glendale Ave/Spoke regarding follow-up on problems he has seen with planning on middle Clay Street. Submitted written information regarding implications brought about by the approval of Planning Action 96-048 which is between Siskiyou Blvd. and the railroad right-of-way. Stated that this area is not maintained by the City, but by Jackson County and is a problem because it is a split jurisdiction. Would like to know how the Planning Staff briefed the hearings officers before the approval decision was done. Submitted his comments to council. Council offered to spend additional time with staff and Mr. Oates discussing this matter at a council study session Wednesday, August 21, 1996 at 4 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission, modifying the conditions of approval for P.A. No. 96-080, a 26-1ot subdivision north of Orange Avenue. (Daryl Bonin, Applicant/Appellant) Mayor Golden read the procedure for Land Use appeal process. Council meeting 8-20-96 1 Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Councilors Reid, Hagen and Thompson reported site visits. Councilor Reid reported knowing individuals living in subdivision, Councilor Thompson reported having sat on past Planning Commissions when development was first outlined. Letter submitted to council by Ken Larson was made available to applicant and entered into the record. Staff Report Planning Director John McLaughlin stated that this subdivision was approved in outline plan by the Planning Commission in August of 1993 and received final plan in February of 1994. The subdivision was approved in three Phases, because Orange Avenue was not improved there was a condition in the approval that said Phase III was not to be developed until Orange Avenue was paved. McLaughlin explained that what happened was when development was done in two Phases in order to get services for the subdivision the developer had to go the full length of the property out to Orange Avenue. The applicant had to extend services from Mountain View Drive to Orange Avenue. At that time the developer found that it was in his interest to build all the infrastructure for the whole subdivision at once. Services were extended and it was understood that Parkside Drive would not be open to vehicle traffic and accessed until Orange Avenue was improved. The conditions still remain concerning the Phase III restrictions. Because Phase II was platted all at once, there was no true separate Phase III done. McLaughlin admitted that the Planning Department made a mistake issuing building permits for Phase III. When the Planning Department became aware of the error, the developer and builders were notified that no further building permits would be issued for Phase III. The developer and builders were instructed that they would need to request modification of the approval would need to be done before permits would be issued. Because the developers were interested in continuing on with development in that Phase, the appeal requesting modification was made. Applicant requested to allow all lots in Phase III, not gaining direct access off of Orange Avenue to obtain building permits prior to street improvement. McLaughlin commented on several issues surrounding this subdivision, including formation of a Local Improvement District and assignment of costs for Orange Avenue LID. Stated that formal requests for formation of a local improvement district for Orange Avenue have already been filed by the developer (May 22, 1996) and the neighborhood (June 10, 1996). The Engineering Division has met with the neighborhood on design issues and is finishing up the preliminary design and cost estimates. The final decision on the assignment of costs for the improvement of Orange Avenue would be done at a future public hearing. Council meeting 8-20-96 2 McLaughlin concluded that council could take one of the following options: 1) approve the developer's request, which would allow building permits on all lots in Phase II, with the exception of the two vacant lots accessing directly onto Orange Avenue; 2) deny request, which would restrict any issuance of building permits for the remaining lots in Phase III until Orange Avenue is improved, the developer would retain the option of doing a "1/2 street" improvement as required by the original approval or 3) follow the Planning Commission's lead by allowing a building permit on lot 22, allow building permits on lots 28 & 23 only after an LID if formed and allowing building permits on lots 24 & 26 only after Orange Avenue is fully improved. Commented that there are a lot of concern over the LID on who will pay what portion, how it would be formed, how it would be assessed. These are not land use issues that can be addressed in the current appeal process. Clarified that the issue before the council, is to look at this condition and determine whether they agree it should be modified or if it should stand as it was originally written. The condition being, that prior to the development of Phase III in the connection of Parkside Drive to Orange Avenue, that Orange Avenue would be improved. Improvement being either 1/2 street improvement or full improvement by a local improvement district. McLaughlin clarified for council that it is not necessary to plat land before a city road is built. Discussion by council and city attorney regarding risk to the city if building permits are revoked and building is stopped. Originally Phase III was to be held off until Orange Street was paved. There was question as to why it has taken two years for the city to form an LID. McLaughlin explained that there had been no formal request for an LID until this year, there had been informal discussion with Public Works Engineering. Discussion by council as to how the neighborhood is suppose to know if the 50% level for local improvement districts had been reached. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 8:05 p.m. Carlyle Stout/1080 Otis/Attorney spoke on behalf of applicant. Gave history of process for development which was followed by applicant with the city. Applicant believed that the process for forming a Local Improvement District was completed and that is why he continued to build and sell property. Stated that the staff report indicated that the applicant was not responsible for the problem surrounding the forming of the LID. Proposal is to allow building permits for the last three lots to ensure completing the development. Does not believe the applicant should be punished by holding up the construction on these lots when he had acted in good faith with the city. Council meeting 8-20-96 3 Stated that the barrier had been moved at times, but dealt with this problem when as it happened. Felt that the true objective is that the applicant pay in full for the paving of Orange Avenue. Requests that council follow original suggestion by staff and overturn modification made by Planning Commission. It was clarified that the applicant was aware that a condition of this subdivision was to have an Local Improvement District formed and that Orange Avenue be paved before the beginning of Phase HI. Daryl Bonin/359 Kearney St/Stated that there was no opposition from any city department that said they could not develop this subdivision in three phases. If he had known originally he would not have included them. He was under the impression that the Local Improvement District was being created in the process. IN FAVOR: Steve Asher/1060 Elkader/Purchased lots from applicant in subdivision. Feels there is a completed subdivision with the exception of the three lots. Property owners are concerned about the open lots that are still under construction. Would like to see building continued on the inside perimeter lots. John Schleining/1293 Park St/Reported that he had gone to the Planning Department and had lien searches done on the property. He believed everything had been completed through the process. Reported that he has lost customers over this issue. OPPOSITION: Robert McCoy/160 Orange/Submitted in writing his position in regards to this subdivision. Does agree that the property owners believe the applicant should pay for 1/2 of the paving of Orange Avenue. Believes that this appeal would not be happening if the ordinance dealing with a land partition of three or more lots that required the developer to pave across the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street and all work done prior to construction. Believes that the Planning department should not have approved Phase Two along with Phase Three because the applicant had not complied with the requirements. Suggested three possible solutions, one is to enforce the City Ordinance 18.76.050 and stop all work on all lots in the entire development until the street is paved, two is allowing more building permits on any of the five lots in Phase Three and allow no building on the two empty lots in Phase Two, and three is for the applicant to pay 1/2 of the Orange Ave paving and the remaining property owners to pay for the remainder of the cost. The city could issue permits on all lots except the lots fronting on Orange. The property owners would request that the applicant be required to provide a bond guaranteeing that the paving is paid for Council meeting 8-20-96 before he would be allowed to continue or place liens against the two lots fronting on Orange as collateral that the street will be paved and paid for. Ken Larson/176 Orange/Feels that the city ordinance should be enforced that Orange Street be paved and improved. Complained that the construction workers have repeatedly driven across the dirt fields and through the barrier. Finds it hard to believe that the LID is an oversight. Pointed out statements made by applicant which made him willing to accept the improvements to Orange Avenue whether an LID was formed or not. Jim Dean/395 Helman/Spoke in regards to compliance and how LID's are formed. Requested future clarification on this matter. Spoke at the issue of enforcing covenants and compliance. John Reynolds/505 Helman/Complained of unfriendliness by applicant, debris left by construction workers and dust. Kindler Stout/130 Orange/Would agree to sign onto an LID. Staff Response Planning Director John McLaughlin clarified that Lot 22 was left off intentionally and Phase One was released from obligation of a Local Improvement District. Hagen stated that he felt the Planning Commission made a mistake when they agreed to either a 1/2 street improvement on the full length from Laurel Street to Helman Street or waiting until the local improvement district happened. He felt that a developer would not spend the money to pave 1/2 of a street when a local improvement district could be formed by a complete neighborhood sharing the cost of the improvement. Discussion by council trying to determine when original LID began formation. Reid recalled that at the time of the minor land partition, it was determined that there would be more activity in this area and they would want to include this area in an LID in the future. McLaughlin clarified that only Phase One has been released from obligation to the local improvement district. Nolte explained that the Planning Commission imposed a condition that the covenants be changed to reflect how the assessment would be imposed when Phase II and Phase III were developed. The developer complied with those conditions by recording covenants that say only the lots fronting on Orange Avenue will be assessed in the local improvement district. Technically, this complied with the Planning Commission condition, this does not mean that the Council is bound to this, which is a legislation decision. REBUTTAL Council meeting 8-20-96 5 Bonin stated that what was originally approved by the Planning Commission is, that the Orange Avenue assessment would only be applied to three lots. When he agreed to participate in the LID, it was based on the entire 5 acres which was one lot (Tax Lot 600) at that time. His agreement to participate was attached to only one lot. When Phase I was separated off from Tax Lot 600 and made into nine lots it was mistakenly cast onto all of the lots in the subdivision. Clarified that the time limit imposed had nothing to do with construction, only on infrastructure. Applicant stated that he was not trying to get out of commitment to an Local Improvement District. He also does not believe there has been a debris problem. Bonin believed that both the Planning Commission and City Council stated that it only be the three lots off of Orange Avenue involved in the local improvement district. The initial approval included in the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions was to address the local improvement district issue of Orange Avenue. In the CC&R when the properties were being sold, the potential owners knew if they were buying a lot which would be part of an LID. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:45 p.m. Councilor Laws stated that if you read item number 12 in the conditions by the Planning Commission, it states that prior to the development of Phase III and the connection of Parkside Drive to Orange Avenue that Orange Avenue be improved. He believes that there was a mistake by both the Planning Commission and Planning Department the city owed the property owners of Orange Avenue an apology. Stated that there is an obligation to the neighbors and the developer to try and straighten out the situation in a way that retains as much as possible the original intent. Believes that the Planning Commission has done the best they could do and that council should support the commissions decision. Councilor Thompson commented that there does not seem to be any benefit in holding up lots under construction. Councilors Laws/Hagen m/s to deny appeal of P.A. No. 96-080. Roll call vote: Laws, Reid and Hagen, YES; Thompson, NO. Motion passed 3-1. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Oral report by Counselor Hagen on progress toward site selection for Community Resource Center for Community Works. Reported on progress in selecting a site for Youthworks. Working on process of city purchasing additional storage space which made available space for the site. Proposed building is approximately 7300 sq.ft. Location of site has many amenities. Council meeting 8-20-96 6 City Attorney Nolte reported to council the status of contracting for lease with Community Works and stated that the council could approve in concept with the understanding it would need to come back to council for final approval. Councilors Thompson/Hagen m/s to approve in concept. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 2. Discussion on request for waiver of fire flow requirements for private hangars at Ashland Airport. City Administrator Brian Almquist presented request by lessees of hangar spaces that the City waive the Uniform Fire Code requirements in the exception of the future construction of a loop feed water line to the Airport, scheduled for 1999-2000. He reported that staff staff pointed out the need to rectify a long-standing fire risk at the airport that needs immediate attention. It is recommended that only the 10" connection and loop feed to the existing 6" main be constructed at this time. Estimated cost is $75,000, of which the source of funds would be $26,000 from water revenues for correcting fire flow deficiencies and $49,300 from SDC revenues. Revenues are available from both sources and will not affect any other construction projects scheduled for 1996-97. Staff requested permission to call for bids on the waterline installation this fiscal year. Councilors Laws/Hagen m/s to approve permission to call for bids. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance withdrawing an annexed area from Jackson County Fire District No. 5 (Access Annexation). Councilors Reid/Laws m/s to approve Ordinance//2786. Roll Call vote: Laws, Reid, YES; Hagen, Thompson, NO; Mayor Golden, YES. Motion passed. 3-2. 0 First reading by title only of "An Ordinance to permit signing of plats by staff advisor rather than Planning Commission Chair". City Administrator Brian Almquist read ordinance for first reading. Councilors Laws/Reid m/s to approve first reading and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call vote: Reid, Hagen, Thompson and Laws, YES. Motion passed. 3. First reading of "An Ordinance amending section 4.27.020.0 of the Ashland Municipal Code to delete the exclusion of Roca Canyon drainageway from the definition of storm drainage facilities". City Administrator Brian Almquist read ordinance for first reading. Council meeting 8-20-96 7 Councilors Hagen/Reid m/s to approve first reading. Councilor Reid withdrew second to motion. Discussion: Council questioned whether property owners should have been notified by mail and whether these property owners would now be getting a bill that they had not received in the past. City Attorney Nolte explained that when this ordinance was first adopted alternatives were made so that if storm drains were going into natural systems then the storm drain fee would not be imposed on a property owner that did not drain into a improved facility. Significant parts of Roca Canyon are improved and developed by the City for storm drain and the city is about to spend approximately $250,000.00 to improve Roca Canyon. Almquist clarified that the property owners have been previously billed the storm user fee. But, have not been notified of this ordinance amendment. Nolte explained that this ordinance amendment would not affect these owners because the interpretation of the ordinance has been lower drainage that was brought to the council attention and not part of this exemption. Laws questioned whether the property owner addresses could be accessed and notification sent out. Councilors Hagen/Thompson m/s to approve fa'st reading and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call vote: Hagen and Thompson, YES; Reid and Laws, NO; Mayor Golden, YES. Motion passed. 3-2. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS City Administrator Brian Almquist reported that the city had received a letter from Access indicating that there is some additional BPA money available for low-income weatherization. Council consensus to approve sending out a letter requesting for $25,000.00 which would be matched with $25,000.00 of Access money and $25,000.00 from CDG money next year to make a $75,000.00 program in next years budget, this would be subject to budget approval. Almquist explained that this money would not be available until after July 1, 1997. Councilors Thompson/Laws m/s to place on agenda discussion by Cate Hartzel involving the System Development Charges. Voice vote: aH AYES. Motion passed. Cate Hartzell/Would like to have public meetings open for comment in regards to System Development Charges, Capitol Improvement Plans and Local Improvement Plans. Feels this would help to deal with key issues. Councilor Laws stated that there have been public meetings on these issues and that maybe them needs to be a different type of meeting. A suggested type of meeting would allow alternative means of participating in an informal seating. Council meeting 8-20-96 8 Council discussion on phone calls Councilor Hagen received from citizens; 1) Whether the city should hire a professional unbiased individual to look at Hillside Development Standards in a comprehensive way; 2) Possible study of expansion and estimate of cost; and 3) Concern of citizen on the potential removal of private property from the tax rolls for the new Fire Department. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Barbara Christensen, Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Council meeting 8-20-96 9