HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-1217 REG MINMINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 17, 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, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon and Thompson were present.
Reid left meeting shortly after presentation of Community Attitude Survey.
Councilor
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular meeting of December 3, 1996 were approved with the following
amendment: page 2, item 2, paragraph 3; Councilor Wheeldon requested that minutes reflect
the question of whether to open up the parameters of that fund in the case of an arterial street
request.
SPECIAL PRKSENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Presentation of Community Attitude Survey by Western Attitudes, Inc.
Conservation Director Dick Wanderschied and Barbara Tull from Advanced Marketing
Research presented results of survey.
The survey was summarized as follows listing the top choices; 1) Like most about Living in
Ashland: Size; 2) One Thing to Change about Ashland: Growth issues; 3) Satisfaction with
City Services: Generally "somewhat" or "very" satisfied; 4) Rating the Quality of City
Services: Highest marks for "maintaining city park grounds and equipment", "fire response
time" and "ambulance response time"; 53 Population Growth: People still feel population
growth in Ashland is "too fast" or "just right", definitely not "too slow"; 6) Economic
Growth: People feel economic growth in Ashland is "just fight" (45%), or "too slow" (30%);
7) Change in Local Conditions: "recycling opportunities" is perceived to have gotten
appreciably better over the past year or two; 8) Quality of Life in Ashland: "physical
attractiveness of Ashland" and "cultural opportunities" were rated highly; 9) Cultural
Diversity: Residents feel there is a moderate amount of ethnic and cultural diversity; 10)
Trust in Local Government: Residents feel there is a moderate amount of trust in local
government in Ashland; 11) Attitude Toward Tourists: Generally positive; 12) Crime: same
level of safety as a year or two ago; 13) Input on City Decisions: "somewhat satisfied"; 14)
Participation in City Government: 18% "very willing" to attend forums, 18% "very willing"
to serve on a short-term committee, 10% would be "very willing" to serve on a four-year
committee; 153 City Council Meetings: 60% have watched a City Council meeting, 23 %
have attended a City Council meeting; 16) Use of City Facilities: Lithia Park and local
natural or scenic areas are most widely used; 17) Shopping Behavior: majority of people buy
appliances and do major clothes shopping in Medford; 18) Sources of Information: Ashland
Daily Tidings and TV news programs; 19) Newspaper readership: front section of the
newspaper; 20) Contact with the City: 51% have contacted the City of Ashland by phone in
City Council Meeting 12-17-96 1
the last year or two; 21) Employment Status: 42% of Ashland residents are employed in
Ashland, 23% are employed outside Ashland, 29% are retired, and 6% are unemployed.
Councilors Laws/Thompson m/s to rearrange agenda, placing unfinished business after
Public Forum portion of agenda. Voice vote: Laws, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon,
Thompson, YES; Reid, NO. Motion passed, 5-1.
CONSENT AGENDA
1 Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees.
2. Monthly Departmental Reports - November, 1996.
3. City Admlnistrator's Monthly Report - November, 1996.
4. Letter from Ashland Sanitary & Recycling Services concerning closure of Valley
View Landfill effective January 1, 1997.
5. Authorization for Mayor and Recorder to sign agreements with ODOT for
Sherman Street and Central Ashland Multimodal Path.
6. Memo from City Administrator regarding Council goal-setting on January 17-18,
1997.
7. Memo from the City Attorney concerning litigation between Thierolf and City of
Ashland, LUBA No. 96-011 and LUBA No. 96-022.
8. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Russell Rickert to Bicycle Commission.
9. Acceptance of Annual Audit for 1995-96.
Councilor Wheeldon requested that item #5 be pulled from Consent Agenda. Mayor
Golden requested that item #7 be pulled from Consent Agenda.
Councilors Hagen/Wheeldon m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1-4 and #6, #8 and
/~). Voice vote: aH AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
I. Adoption of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Director John McLaughlin and Assistant Planner Maria Harris presented suggested
modifications to Transportation Element. Harris noted changes based on issues and concerns
that were raised at past public meetings. Clarification on the concept of "modal equity", or
the equal opportunity to use all modes of travel. Noted that there is a new section on
Freeway Access. Suggested adding a new policy to the Street System section, which
coordinates the Ashland downtown plan. Under the pedestrian bicycle goals and policies,
there has been a policy added that the city will encourage the establishment of a community
owned bicycle program. Also under pedestrian bicycle goals and policies, there is currently
a policy that says we will promote a mixed land use pattern and pedestrian environment
design that supports walking and bicycling trips. "Where appropriate" has been added,
which reflects the language that is in the present economic element of the Comprehensive
Plan.
City Council Meexing 12-17-96 2
McLaughlin commented that this document is not for us today, it will be the one that will
result in the changes that will occur over the next 20 years. This is to be used to guide the
future generations in their transportation uses and options for the future. Recommends
adoption of the element.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:40 p.m.
Jim Schakelford/745 Iowa/Commented that he was glad transportation was a priority.
Commented on the perception that it is safer to drive Siskiyou than to ride a bike.
Liked the idea to make a plea to the general public regarding changing mode of
transportation. Commented that it would better to keep traffic flowing well in smaller
communities.
Dennis Sweet/l135 Wrighton Drive/Commented on the work by the TPAC committee. Felt
the document should be more conclusive of other modes of transportation. Distributed to
council statistic information. Concerned with the availability of parking and Highway 66
configuration. Concerned with change of ownership from State of Oregon to the City of
Ashland on Highway 66.
Wayne Leeman/147 Blue Heron/Feels the transportation proposal inadequately deals with
the automobile. Commented on several places in the document which he feels is negative
toward automobiles. Document sites time saved in regards to bicycles and walking but does
not take automobiles into account. Feels that the role of automobile should be taken more
seriously as to what its benefit is.
Russ Rickert/164 Almeda/Representing bicycle club. Appreciated the element that went
into the transportation proposal. Feels the automobile has dominated the city for a long
time. Commented that their club does ongoing education of bicycle ways. Feels a bus
service would help when the weather is a negative element.
Renee Rickert/164 Aimeda/Commented that some people do not feel there is a safer method
of transportation than the automobile. Would like to have seen all modes of transportation
treated equally in the document.
Richard Jensen/9159 Wagner Creek Road, Talent/Commented on his resolution to use
alternative ways of travel. Feels the proposed Transportation Element is an excellent
document. Commented on his disappointment with the stand that the Chamber of Commerce
has taken on the transportation proposal. Feels this plan would encourage drivers to get out
of their vehicles.
Brian Norton/46 Lincoln/Urged Council to adopt transportation plan. Feels this document
would make the city a bike friendly town.
City Council Meeting 12-17-96 3
David Bubb/975 Anderson Creek, Talent/Feels many proposals in transportation document
are user friendly for the city. Commented that the City of Ashland has been noted for the
high level of alternative means of transportation currently.
Zach Brombacher/1370 Toiman Crk Rd/Stated that it was hopeless to change the council
perception to the transportation proposal. Commented that he understood that the State
Highway is going to divert drivers down Siskiyou Boulevard which would mean that Siskiyou
Boulevard may be widened. Doesn't feel the future is going to get any better for streets.
Bob Taber/97 Scenic Drive/Commented that he felt the document was conservative.
Appreciated that transportation was being addressed. Need to find other ways for
transportation, other than getting into their cars. Feels this is an opportunity for the City to
create a unique transportation plan. Need to have in place and growing, a mass transit
system and with dis-incentives to not driving the car. Feels the proposed transportation
document is a good start. Need to show businesses that this is a viable and beneficial to
their businesses.
Martin Levine/2122 Creek Drive/Read statement to council on his position regarding
proposal. Noted whether it would be reasonable to expect hillside residents to walk or
bicycle from locations difficult to reach by car and how elderly would get around.
Questioned the reality of expecting people to use bicycles or walk to downtown stores and
restaurants in poor weather conditions.
Larry Medinger/ll60 Oak Street/Feels the transportation document addresses the tourist
season. Feels we should do more with what we have.
Peter Finkle/785 Beach Street/Spoke on his experience on the TPAC committee and how
they were trying to enhance the quality of life in Ashland.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:25 p.m.
Mayor Golden clarified that nowhere in the plan does it say people cannot drive. It is
understood that there are times for the elderly when it would be more difficult to take
alternative modes of travel. The public transportation portion of this is to try to help with
this and also to increase shuttle cars throughout the city for the elderly is an important
component. It is understood that people who live on the hillside will have to drive, but
hoped to encourage more development in the flat land where eventually as infill happens,
buses become more economically feasible, or walking and bicycling. Narrowing streets are
intended to slow traffic and make pedestrians and bicyclists safer. It is felt that is a very
positive plan for downtown businesses in Ashland. Plan is about providing opportunities for
individuals to choose alternative modes of transportation. Plan is meant to be visionary.
Council commented that this plan is a way of looking toward the future. This plan will
provide opportunity to use other forms of transportation which are safe and reasonable means
of alternative transportation. Feels there is a false sense of perception that the document is
City Council Meeling 12-17-96 4
trying to force people from using automobiles. Plan is to encourage other means of
transportation and the only way to do that is to provide other means of transportation that is
both convenient and easy to use.
Councilors Thompson/Wheeldon m/s to approve adoption of Transportation Element
with the additional proposed amendments. Roll Call: Wheeldon, Thompson, Laws,
Hauck and Hagen, YES. Motion passed.
2. Request for Outline Plan approval for a seven lot subdivision under the
Performance Standards Option located at 25 Westwood Street.
Mayor Golden read statement regarding procedure for Land Use Hearing. Called the hearing
to order.
EXPARTE CONTACT:
Councilor Wheeldon: Met with residents of Westwood; Councilor Hagen: attended prior
Strawberry/Westwood planning meetings; Councilor Hauck: site visit.
Planning Director John McLaughlin and Assistant Planner Bill Molnar presented the
standards and criteria for outline plan approval. Stated this is a straight-forward subdivision
of seven lots, reported that during the testimony at the Planning Commission there was
concern raised about the improvement of Westwood Street. Westwood is now an unpaved
street from its intersection with Orchard south to where it goes through this project. The
applicant has proposed that Westwood be improved through the project at her expense or a
Local Improvement District formed. As a condition, the applicant has been required, should
an LID not be formed, that before the subdivision would be approved by signing the final
plat, an LID must in place or the applicant has improved the street or provided full bonding
for this improvement to guarantee that the improvement would be done.
Council questioned whether there were properties that had signed "in favor" of an LID.
McLaughlin explained that there are property owners who have previously signed "in favor".
McLaughlin explained that in the Pinewood West cul-de-sac there is potential pedestrian
linkage and this has already been proposed.
Council questioned whether this was an LID issue. McLaughlin explained that one of the
conditions to approval of the development is a condition that there be a improvement of
Westwood Street.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 8:55 p.m.
APPLICANT:
Anna Hassell/25 Westwood/Dan Harris 2101 Dead Indian Road, representing Ms.
Hassell/Property was purchased over 10 years ago with the intention that it provide for her
in retirement. Commented that Hassell has met with neighbors many times and city staff
City Council Meeting 12-17-96 5
also. Feels the only issue is, who is to pay for the improvement of Westwood Street.
Commented that the language in the city ordinance requires that Hassell show that paved
access to and through the development can be provided. The findings made by the Planning
Commission indicate that the applicant has proposed to improve Westwood Street from
Orchard Street up and along the frontage of her development through the formation of a
Local Improvement District. A preliminary plan for the proposed street improvement has
been provided by the applicants consulting engineer. If a local improvement district is not
formed the applicant will have the option of improving Westwood at her cost. The
information provided in the record this far establishes the fact that this is an unimproved dirt
road, but the requirements, by city ordinance does not allow this to remain unimproved if a
development is approved. Commented that the LID issue, is a issue for council hearing at a
later time. Commented that the merits of the application have been stated by the planning
staff in that this is a application for a seven lot subdivision with future plans of developing
three more lots.
IN FAVOR: None
APPELLANT/OPPOSED:
Richard Stevens/131 No. Bartlett, Medford representing the Westwood Neighbors/Feels
the issue of the LID has been exaggerated. Feels the real issue and primary concern of the
Westwood Neighbors, is Section 3, item #2 of the Planning Commission order. The
Westwood Neighbors do not want to pay for the improvement of the street which would be
to the benefit of the applicant. Stated that if the council were to remove this first phrase, the
Westwood Neighbors would probably go away, and not object to this development.
Concerned that there is no way to determine, at this stage, the procedure and cost of a Local
Improvement District. Feels it is the responsibility of the subdivider to provide street
pavement to and through their subdivision. Does not believe the City can allow subdividers
to use Local Improvement Districts as an assistance for subdivisions.
Raised two issues, one of procedural and one of substantive issues. The procedural issue
involves the criteria, sites application of ORS 197.763 S3. States that this ORS requires that
notice of a hearing list the applicable criteria from the ordinance and the plan that apply to
the application at issue. Stated that the notice of the public hearing before the Planning
Commission and the City Council which was read previously by the staff, "that the
development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland", is not
adequate. Further stated, you must extract from your plan and your ordinances the
applicable criteria, inform all parties involved what the criteria is, failure to do this, is a
procedural problem. Submits to council, that requiring that a Finding be made, that an
application meet all applicable ordinances of the city of Ashland, fails to meet that standard.
Feels that procedurally this application and the process used by the City of Ashland is flawed
and the due process rights of the opponents have been prejudiced. Urged council to reverse
the decision of the Planning Commission because of the due process problems with regards
of the listing of applicable criteria.
City Council Meeting 12-17-96 6
The second issue raised is a substantive one. Cautioned council that it is difficult for him to
raise substantive issues based on the procedural flaws. If he does not know the criteria, and
they have not been articulated to him, what is he suppose to address to the council. Mayor
Golden clarified that Stevens may not know what the ordinance requirements are.
Comments on Planning Commission Findings Section 2, item 2.2, that Performance
Standards chapter 18.88 is the first time this chapter appears in this proceeding as an
identifying criteria. Also points out that the Planning Commission did not state how the
application met those identified sections of the Ashland Muncipal Code, nor did they make a
definitive finding that all applicable ordinances of the City of Ashland have been met.
Points out that the decision in the order by the Planning Commission is conclusary, they did
not go through the steps and processes to identify the proper criteria or to say this is the
criteria, these are the facts in the record and this is the discussion, reason and conclusions
met, and this is the decision. Does not go through the process of stating how a particular
application met the standards.
Gave examples of criteria noticed, "that the development meets all applicable ordinance
requirements of the City of Ashland", the Commission concluded that the application
satisfied section 18.88 of the AMC. He is confident that section 18.88 does not contain all
the standards or all of the applicable criteria of the City of Ashland.
Stated that applications are required to demonstrate that key facilities can be provided. They
are identified as sewer, water, paved access (to and through the development), electricity,
urban storm drain, police and fire protection and adequate transportation. The Planning
Commission based on information submitted to the record, addressed some of these, but the
Planning Commission is silent in regards to storm, sewer, police and fire protection and
adequate transportation. And, the Planning Commission failed to determine whether or not
the development will cause a city facility to operate beyond capacity.
The third criteria requires that the natural features be identified and be set aside. Of the
natural features identified in the Planning Commission order, only trees were of apparent
concern. Feels there are other features that require consideration by the City of Ashland,
such as Wrights Creek.
The fourth criteria requires that the development will not prevent adjacent land from being
developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. He understands that in the
process, you have to look at the entire parcel when doing an Outline Plan. This was
amended with a 11 lot subdivision. Part of the original 7 lots which are on one side of
Wrights Creek, shows a open space easement for the creek itself, but when expanded to the
additional lots, the map shows a dedicated way 36 feet wide which consumes a great portion
of the set aside open space. He does not feel this meets the criteria, in that the development
will not prevent adjacent land being developed. Questioned if you can adopt a "pan" of a
outline plan.
City Council Meeting 12-17-96 7
There are some additional problems with the summary document in that the density
requirements needs to be revisited. States there are 11 lots on this particular subdivision, not
10 as reported or 7 as approved. There is a split jurisdiction that was never addressed and
by subdividing this land created a nonconforming parcel.
Stated that chapters 18.62, 18.80, 18.88, 18.14, 18.16 of the AMC were either not
addressed or were inadequately addressed. Burden of proof lies with the applicant and does
not believe the applicant carded the burden of proof.
Daryln Adams/189 Westwood Street/Supports appeal being overturned, because there are
so many things wrong with it.
Henry Kneebone/449 Orchard/Asks that the subdivision be denied until the issue of who
pays for the improvement of Westwood is straightened out.
STAFF RESPONSE:
McLaughlin stated that the issues raised during this hearing, were not raised at the Planning
Commission hearing. These were not points that the staff, the applicant or anyone had an
opportunity to address. The opponents addressed different issues than what are the
substantive ones that were raised throughout the process.
The Findings were not written to address these issues as they were not issues raised during
the Planning Commission heating. Some of the Findings are short, because there were no
opponents arguing about these points, so the Findings are adequate based upon the level of
opposition. Does make the Findings vulnerable when opponents are given an opportunity to
raise issues that were not raised previously. What this means is that the applicant will need
to go back and address all of these issues and find answers to everything that has been
raised.
McLaughlin explained for council regarding the issue of dedicated open space with the road,
that the applicant modified the application to do an ou~ine plan of only 7 lots. The other
ones are what the applicant is considering, but are not up for approval at this time. This
application is for a seven lot development.
City Attorney Paul Nolte stated that the notice does state that applicable criteria are attached
and is in the document on page 2, which is the criteria for an outline plan approval. Within
those criteria, there is a listing that the development meets all applicable ordinances
requirements of the City of Ashland. The council would have to make a finding that there
are no other applicable ordinances, if that in fact is the case. If there are, it is incumbent
upon the opponents to identify and raise those, if the Planning Commission or the Council
thinks there are no applicable ordinances. Nolte stated that Stevens has raised a series of
chapters that he feels are applicable, and if they are and have not been addressed, then the
decision would fail if they are applicable and there is not evidence in the record to address
them. This needs to analyzed, but the notice does meet with the statute by listing what the
City Council Meeting 12-17-96 8
applicable criteria are. If there are some that weren't listed, and have now been identified,
we will have to make sure that are satisfied in this proceeding.
REBUTTAL:
Dan Harris stated that the only issue raised to the Planning Commission dealt with the cost
associated with improving Westwood Street. Explained that during the Planning Commission
hearing the opponents were continually reminded to address the criteria and there was no
mention of anything other than the LID. Does not feel there is any standing for the
opponents who made this appeal. Commented that during the Planning Commission hearing
there was a cost estimate made of $5,000 per lot for the improvement. Clarified that this is
an application for seven lots.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:30 p.m.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
It was clarified for Council, that because this is a de novo Hearing, anything that is
introduced to the Council becomes part of the record.
City Attorney Paul Nolte, explained that chapter 18.108 was revised within the last year and
that chapter concerns procedures that the Planning Commission and Council are to use in
Land Use matters. Matters appealed to the Council, the appellant must specify or give
specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified based on the
applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. The council also provided that the appeal shall
be a de novo evidentiary heating. The intent of the language is that the appellant must
specify something that the Planning Commission did wrong based on applicable criteria. The
council wanted to leave the hearing open to all issues that it wanted to consider and all issues
would be fair game for council. The appellant did not list any of the things that Mr. Stevens
brought forward to the council, except the one on transportation to and through the
subdivision. These are valid issues before the council, and council will have to either find
that they have been addressed or are not relevant, or allow a continuance for the applicant to
address these issues.
Council discussed the unfair advantage to the applicant and should consider a continuance to
allow applicant time to address the issues raised.
Hagen stated that he had heard nothing that would lead him to believe that the applicant has
not met all the necessary criteria. Felt the real issue is the formation of an LID and who is
going to pay. Based on this, sees no reason to delay.
Council discussed the need for additional information to determine if applicable standards are
met according to the requirements of the city ordinances. Nolte clarified for council that
their obligation is either to find there are no other applicable ordinances, but they would have
to in doing that, address the ordinances that were raised as being applicable, and find
City Council Meeting 12-17-96 9
whether or not they are relevant and the councils reasons for finding whether or not they
were relevant.
Council discussion regarding sending plan back to the Planning Commission and questioned
procedure if appealed to LUBA.
Councilors Hauck/Thompson m/s to continue public hearing to January 7, 1997 in order
to deal with specific issues on applicable ordinances. Discussion: Nolte clarified for
council that the assnmption he is foil.wing the law is correct, the problem is, because
the issue has been raised, it has to be addressed ff it is appealed to LUBA. What the
council would be protecting, is that whatever decision is made, that it would stand if
appealed to LUBA. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
o
Adoption of an increase in the Transportation Utility Fee to establish an "Arterial
Street Assistance Account" (37C) and to restore 15-30 minute bus service (67C).
No time allowed, to be placed on future agenda.
4. Proposal from RVTD for Restoration of Service.
No time allowed, to be placed on future agenda.
PUBLIC FORUM
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS from December 3, 1996.
1. Oral report of City Attorney on A.D.A. issues relative to Highway 66 sidewalk
repairs.
No time allowed, to be placed on future agenda.
Request from Lester Zimmerlee, 250 Clay Street, for water connection outside of
City limits.
Lester Zimmerlee stated that his well has become contaminated and requests approval for
water connection. The property is 4.77 acres and is a single residence. The property is
served by city sewer currently.
Council discussed the need to re-visit policy regarding connection of city services outside the
city limits. There is general agreement that this policy needs clearer guidelines.
Councilors Thompson/Hauck m/s to approve request for water connection. Roll Call
vote: Laws, Hauck and Thompson, YES; Wheeldon and Hagen, NO.
Motion passed: 3-2.
City Council Mee. i~ 12-17-96
Councilors Hauck/Hagen m/s to continue meeting past 10 p.m. Voice vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Replacing Chapter 18.106 of the
Ashland Municipal Code in Order to Modify Approval Standards for
Annexations."
Councilors Hauck/Hagen m/s to approve first reading and place on agenda for second
reading. Roll call vote: Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon, Thompson and Laws, YES. Motion
passed.
Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending chapter 4.20 of the
AMC relating to Systems Development Charges."
Councilors Hagen/Hauck m/s to approve Ordinance # 2791. Roll Call vote: Hauck,
Hagen, Wheeldon, Thompson and Laws, YES. Motion passed.
Reading by title only of "A Resolution directing the City Administrator to give
notice to owners to repair sidewalks on Siskiyou B!vd., Oak Block (Old Armory),
Lincoln School, and Triangle Park; or charge such owners if City makes
repairs."
Councilors Hagen/Wheeldon m/s to approve Resolution # 96-50. Roll Call vote: Hagen,
Wheeldon, Thompson, Laws and Hauck, YES. Motion passed.
NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Report from Park Director and City Administrator on cost of alternative water
for Oak Knoll Meadows Pond/Oak Knoll Golf Course irrigation.
City Administrator Brian Almquist read memo regarding alternatives of water supply at Oak
Knoll and memo from Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 10:15 p.m.
Chris Skrepetos/4424 Hwy 66/Presented council with packet information which he requests
the council to re-consider the affect of competing with property owners outside the city for a
limited resource up which they are totally dependent. Urged council to withdraw application.
Stated that the deadline is January 3, 1997.
Mary Eaton/155 Westwood/Stated that she owns property in the vicinity that has dry holes
and has to haul in water. Encouraged council to not approve another well.
Pat Super/305 Maywood Lane/Stated that her well of four years has dropped. Not
convinced that the proposed well would not effect the wells in the neighborhood.
City Council Meeting 12-17-96
Vera Kirkpatrick/10950 Corp Ranch Road/Objected to the density increase in their area
due to the increase level of use in water. Requests council to re-consider putting in a well.
Feels the cost of the alternate is a much better solution.
Del Tobiasson/3045 Hwy 66/Commented on how he has experienced wells that have quit
flowing. Feels that it is possible the well will effect other wells.
Joseph Tobiasson/231 Van Ness/Does not believe this is a good neighborhood policy.
Suggests enlarge pond, use ravine as additional pond and utilize TID water.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 10:25 p.m.
Council discussion on allowing a well to be drilled when selling water outside the city is not
allowed. The issue of keeping the golf course green and if this well would keep the pond in
question filled. Question was raised as to what the impact would be on the neighbors. It
was noted that there could be alternatives to drilling this well in the future.
Councilor Hauck commented that he understood that the reason council put this off in the
first place was to give Mr. Skrepetos time to get his facts together and take this information
to the Water Resource Council. Hauck does not feel competent enough in making this
decision and would feel more comfortable in having Water Resources make this decision.
Laws commented that the Parks Department had indicated that the well would only be used
in the early spring and late fall when TID water would not be allowed. The Parks
Department indicated that there would be only a minimal amount of water used by the well
and would have minimal impact on the neighborhood.
Councilors Thompson/Hagen m/s to withdraw application for well permit. Voice vote:
all AYES. Motion passed.
2. Election of Budget Committee members (2).
No time allowed, to be placed on future agenda.
3. Authorization for Mayor and Recorder to sign agreements with ODOT for
Sherman Street and Central Ashland Multimodal Path.
No time allowed, to be placed on future agenda.
4. Authorization for Mayor and Recorder to sign agreements with ODOT for
Sherman Street and Central Ashland Multimodal Path.
No time allowed, to be placed on future agenda.
5. Memo from the City Attorney concerning litigation between Thierolf and City of
Ashland, LUBA No. 96-011 and LUBA No. 96-022.
No time allowed, to be placed on future agenda.
City Council Meeting 12-17-96
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Setting a Public Hearing in the Formation
of a Local Improvement District on Orange Avenue from Helman to Laurel
Streets" for January 21, 1997.
Councilors Hauck/Hagen m/s to approve Resolution #96-49. Roll Call vote: Laws,
Hauck, Wheeldon, Thompson and Hagen, YES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
"/c ,dt ,,
B/arbar~ Christensen, City Recorder
City Council Meeting 12-17-96 13