Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-0502 REG MINMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MAY 2, 1972 III. I. ROLL CALL: The regular meeting of the Ashland City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Ashland City Hall, by Mayor Charles McKeen. On roll call, all Council members were present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: IV. City Recorder Joe Butler noted that, in the minutes of the special meeting of April 14, 1972, in the second paragraph, the "five million" should read "five billion". Conklin moved that the minutes of the special meeting, as corrected, and the minutes of the regular meeting of April 18, 1972 be accepted and placed on file; McCannon seconded; on voice vote, passed unanimously. STANDING A. B. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Public Service Committee: None Streets & Traffic Committee: 1. Soderberg moved that the staff be directed to prepare a resolution implementing the designation of "B" Street as a through street, with stop signs to be placed at intersecting streets with a four-way stop at Fourth and "B'~ Streets. Roble and Conklin seconded; on voice vote, passed unanimously. 2. City Administrator Almquist gave background information regarding an unopened street in the Bellview area, noting this was originally dedicated in 1888 (westerly from Siskiyou Blvd. midway between Clay and Bellview Streets) when the land was in the County, and had never been opened as a public road. Since the development bisects the property on which the AStt development is located, it was recommended that the street vacation proceedings begin. The developer was willing to pay filing fees involved, and had initiated petitions to property owners involved. Staff recommended public hearings be held in two sections in order not to delay the development. Roberts then moved that a public hearing be set for June 20 at 8:00 p.m. and that the staff be authorized to secure the consent of abutting land owners in the other section; McCannon seconded. Soderberg asked to be excused from voting, since she owned property in the area under question, Roble moved that she be excused; Willstatter seconded; passed unanimously. On roll call, original motion passed unanimously. COmmUNICATIONS: Oral from the Audience Concerning Business Not Included on the Agenda Mr. Donald Cleaver of 353 Ridge Road noted that considerable time, energy and money has been spent to make Ashland beautiful, and asked whether there were any plans to reforest the gravel pit area off Granite Street. Director of Public Works Alsing stated that this property was privately-owned and gravel removal operations were allowable under the present ordinance, although complaints had been llar Meeting Ashland City Council May 2, It VI. VII. (continued) and suggested the City Attorney check into the matter. Mr. Singmaster, in the audience, pointed out the money from the tax foreclosure sale was being held in trust for the City and School District back taxes. After further discussion, Roberts felt the staff was monitoring connects and disconnects very closely at the present time, and was doing a good job considering the number of transients in Ashland because of the college and theatre. At this point, the Council proceeded to the Public Hearings. NEW 1. & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: Public Hearing concerning an application for Zone Change from R-I:B-8 (single-family residential) to R-3:2.4 (multiple-family residential) at 1850 Fremont (Caryl Sanford, applicant) was opened by the Mayor. City Administrator Almquist read a memo from the Planning Commission recommending the Zone Change. After no comments from the audience, the public hearing was closed. McCannon moved to approve the application; Willstatter seconded. On roll call, passed unanimously. The Public Hearing concerning an application for Zone Change from R-1 to $-3 at 368 Bridge Street (for Tau Kappa Epsilon) was opened by the Mayor. Almquist again read a memo from the Planning Commission in support of the proposed Zone Change, and presented a map to the Council. Willstatter wanted to be sure abundant parking was provided. Hugh Simpson, advisor to the fraternity, sketched the proposed off-street parking area. Soderberg questioned whether this would be paved, to which he replied that there would be gravel now and blacktopping later. Roble questioned living conditions in the old house; Simpson then detailed improvements planned, noting redesign of the interior; he stressed the fraternity wanted to be a showplace for the campus. Roble then questioned whether the house had been inspected by the State Fire Marshal and whether it met State electrical and plumbing requirements; Simpson gave his assurance of compliance with all codes. McCannon pointed out the hearing dealt with land use and not occupancy. Mr. Charles Pendleton, a neighbor of the fraternity, was in favor of the proposed change. He also was speaking for Mr. and Mrs. Jeff Gwin, in favor of the change. Mrs. Dickerson, the next door neighbor, also agreed. The Mayor thanked them, then closed the public hearing. Willstatter moved that the Zone Change be approved; Conklin seconded. Roble moved to amend the original motion to include "...be approved subject to all regulatory provisions for fire, electric and plumbing being met". The Mayor pointed out this may not be in order, since it was a zone change under consideration. Simpson stated he had no objections to the motion, since such compliance was in the plans. Willstatter and Conklin withdrew their original motion and second. Roble then moved that the application for zone change be approved, subject to approval of the State Fire Marshall and electric and plumbing inspectors. In reply to McCannon, City Attorney Salter confirmed that this -3- ~ular Meeting Ashland Ci.ty Council May 2, 1 VII . (continued) action could not be taken, since conditional zoning was not allowed under Oregon law; however, he noted that approval of the zone change could be held pending approval by such inspections. Roble did not want to discourage improvements and was in favor of the zone change; therefore, he moved that it be approved; McCannon seconded; on roll call, passed unanimously. The Public Hearing concerning the adoption of site design review procedures in the Zoning Ordinance was opened by the Mayor. City Administrator Almquist read a memorandum from the Planning Commission recommending approval of the proposed Ordinance. Mr. E. H. Singmaster of 2560 Siskiyou Blvd. was opposed to the ordinance, feeling that the Council was delegating its authority and that the present laws were adequate. Mr. Robert Knoll of 943 Clay Street disagreed, pointing out that developments were constructed primarily for financial reasons; this reason, he felt, should not override the appearance and livability of the City (i.e., the "tail wagging the dog"). Mr. Knoll felt the ordinance would provide a degree of protection for citizens, and that there was a system of "checks and balances" provided. Conklin felt the proposed ordinance should go back to the Planning Commission for further study and revision, with the following comments as guidelines: Page 1, Item (2)(b)--the type of trees should not be stipulated; Item (3)(a)--standards should be put in writing; Item (4)--too time-consuming for both the City and builder; Items (6) and (7)--giving too much power to the Planning Commission to be able to impose additional standards. Willstatter felt the City could not legislate esthetics and impose such requirements. Also, he wanted "Staff Advisor" and "Building Official" specified. McCannon reported that Mr. & Mrs. Wm. Kraus of 6950 Old Hiway 99 South called him supporting the ordinance. McCannon also stated the Council should do everything it could on future building in Ashland to see it remained a desirable community. Roble didn't think the Planning Commission should review plans and require additional conditions; McCannon pointed out this was one of their functions as Planning Commission for the City. Dr. Elliott MacCracken, member of the Planning Commission, stated the proposed ordinance came as a result of the various experiences by the Commission regarding zoning and land use. He felt the provisions established in 1964 were now insufficient and the contours and variations in Ashland should be considered. Dr. MacCracken noted that the majority of builders made an effort to provide for esthetics and were careful of adjacent properties, but there were some builders for whom controls should be provided. Because of the many ways in which a piece of land can be used satisfactorily, it was difficult to prepare an ordinance unless being general and allowing for other conditions to be imposed. Noting the sharp increase in building, he felt the proposed ordinance was not a "monster" but would impose restrictions that would benefit both the City and the builder. -4- l~lar Meeting Ashland City Council May 2, 1r VII. 3. (continued) Mr. Bob Voris of 633 Iowa was opposed to the ordinance, stating that guidelines relative to restrictions and conditions to be imposed should be spelled out. He also wanted to see some time limits included. Mrs. Jessie Fitch of the Ashland League of Women Voters, read a statement supporting the ordinance and urging its adoption. Mrs. Kathy Newcomb read a decision of the U. S. Supreme Court, and pointed out it was not only the prerogative of local govern- ments (i.e., the City Council) to legislate esthetics, but a duty to provide for a livable environment. Willstatter felt this was an infringement of personal choice. McCannon, referring to the questionnaire recently circulated, pointed out that 93% of those responding favored better planning and controls. Mrs. Betty Cross of 760 Clay Street did not feel the ordinance was giving enough authority, if anything, to the Planning Commission, who was also a representative of the people; she urged passage of the ordinance. Voris felt that esthetics were simply a matter of opinion and should not be regulated, and felt that increased controls would lead to increased taxes. Singmaster felt most of the problems were through improper land use rather than site development. Knoll said there could be poor site planning that would affect residents even if they were not neighbors to it. Soderberg was in favor of site design review, but agreed there should be time limits detailed. After further discussion and a short break, McCannon moved to return the Ordinance to the Planning Commission and that a joint meeting be held to work out criticisms and detail time elements; Soderberg seconded; on voice vote, passed unanimously. 4. City Administrator Almquist read a petition from 58% of front footage owners on Crestview Drive, and a petition from 88% of the footage owners on Linda Avenue, requesting street improve- ments (with costs to be assessed in proportion to respective benefits). Also, a signed agreement regarding future improve- ments was received from owners on Coventry Place. Almquist recommended setting Public Hearings for May 16, 1972; Conklin so moved; Soderberg seconded; on voice vote, passed unanimously. The Mayor requested these be staggered. 5. City Administrator Almquist read a memorandum relative to results of the first billing by PP&L under the new energy purchase contract. At this time, Roble requested the Council return to an uncompleted item on the agenda. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (Continued) City Attorney Salter reported to the Council regarding the lawsuit by the U. S. Government against the hospital, wherein the City was being sued for unfair discrimination in wages for positions of substantially similar work. The Government had offered to settle -5- ~lar Meeting Ashland City Council May 2, IF VI. VIII. (continued) out of court for $5,000; the Hospital Board was requesting Council approval to counter-offer with $3,750. Willstatter wanted to go on record as requesting the Council be apprised of any such future instances before the fact (or entering into a lawsuit). Conklin moved that the offer to settle be approved; Roble seconded. On roll call, passed unanimously. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: 1. City Administrator Almquist gave the first reading of an Ordinance authorizing the issuance of City Improvement Bonds in the matter of paving city streets in what has been designated as Street Improvement District No. 37 (portions of Randy, Willow, Orange, Glendower and Park) and declaring an emergency. Conklin moved to pass to a second reading; Willstatter seconded; on roll call, passed unanimously. 2. Before second reading of an Ordinance concerning the adoption of revised parking and loading standards in the Zoning Ordinance (and declaring an emergency), Conklin asked that some changes be made. City Attorney Salter confirmed that, by reading those sections not deleted, the ordinance would have a full second reading and thus could be passed. Conklin wanted a compromise of 5%, rather than 10%, required landscaping. He felt the type of shrubbery or trees should not be dectated; he wanted to protect new parking provisions, but could not accept the requirements for "Wall" (or protective screening of parking areas) and "Landscaping". McCannon felt that some landscaping was very important; Willstatter pointed out these sections could be deleted now, studied and amended into the Ordinance later. Soderberg felt the provisions were included to protect abutting property owners and property values for both builder and neighbors. Conklin then moved that, on Page 5 of the proposed ordinance, Sections 6 ("Walls") and 7 ("Landscaping") be deleted; Roble seconded. Some discussion followed, with McCannon stating that he was very much opposed to deleting some requirements for parking areas. Soderberg felt that they were, in some respects, similar to trash areas, and could be offensive. On roll call to delete sections, McCannon and Soderberg - NO; Conklin, Roberts, Roble and Willstatter - YES. City Administrator Almquist then read the remaining portions of the ordinance; Conklin moved for adoption as read; Roble seconded; on roll call, passed unanimously. The City Administrator then read a letter from Foremost Systems and Pacific Empire Land Corporation, requesting consideration of a variance on parking requirements, since this was a $1.2 million development. Almquist noted they had provided for 1-1/2 parking spaces per unit, versus the common practice (till now) of 1-1. It was also noted that, in the ten-year period from 1962 - 1971, units averaged 61 per year; this year alone there were 62S units proposed or being built. Willstatter said he was very concerned about parking; consideration could be given when the plan was -6- ~lar Meeting Ashland City Council May 2, 1c VIII. (continued) studied. McCannon moved that a study session be held with the Planning Commission on Tuesday, May 9 to consider those portions deleted; Conklin seconded; on voice vote, passed unanimously. Dr. MacCracken pointed out that plans for the new development by Foremost Systems should be looked at as a whole, and parking should not be considered separately. Almquist read a resolution transferring appropriations within funds. McCannon moved that, under suspension of the rules, the resolution be passed to a second reading by title only; Willstatter seconded; on roll call, passed unanimously. Almquist read by title; Willstatter moved for adoption; Soderberg seconded; on roll call, passed unanimously. At this time, Councilwoman Soderberg moved that a public hearing on the proposed budget be set for June 6, 1972 at 8:00 p.m.; Conklin seconded; on voice vote, passed unanimously. Soderberg then called the Council's attention to the Budget Committee recommendations. She then moved to direct the staff to write a letter to the State Highway Commission to acquire State and Federal funding for a new freeway interchange (in the vicinity of Eagle Mill Road) and connecting routes, as approved by previous Councils, this Council and many City plans. Conklin seconded. Roble wanted no City monies involved. McCannon did not feel future Council's actions should be outlined. On voice vote, motion passed with Willstatter dissenting. It was suggested the staff also write our legislators concerning the interchange. Soderberg then moved that the City Council urge passage of the vehicle license fee measure and that the Council commit or "earmark" the fund as follows: $50,000 annually for the City's share of widening Hiway 66 until widening is completed to the City limits and, after that, annually for arterials and other city streets; one-half of the remaining funds for a street resurfacing program, and the other half to remain uncommitted. Conklin seconded; on voice vote, passed unanimously. Conklin moved for adjournment; there being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m., subject to the call of the Mayor. Respectfully submitted, Joseph M. Butler City Recorder /nck