Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-1012 Parks & Rec. MIN City of Ashland PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION and ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES October 12, 1999 A~rENDANCE: Present: Absent: Present: Absent: Commission Teri Coppedge, JoAnne Eggers, Sally Jones, Rick Landt, Laurie MacGraw, Director Ken Mickelsen None Council Councillors Don Laws, Steve Hauck, Cameron Hanson, David Fine and Mayor Catherine Shaw Councillors Wheeldon and Reid Io CALLTO ORDER Chair Eggers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Senior Program Building at Hunter Park. II. CALLE GUANAJUATO RESTORATION PROJECT Chair Eggers briefly outlined the history of the public process to develop a Master Plan for the Calle Guanajuato Restoration Project. She indicated that this meeting was intended to be the culmination of that process. Consultant Brian McCarthy from Cameron, McCarthy and Gilbert was present to review the proposed Master Plan and to answer any questions which the public, Councillors or Commissioners might have. If appropriate, following the presentation, the Commission and then the Council would independently make a decision to adopt the plan as presented or modified in discussion. III. ATTACHMENT OFCITY RECORDER'S MINUTES As City Recorder Barbara Christiansen has indicated that only one set of minutes is needed for the public record, a copy of the Recorder's minutes are attached for the Commission's review and approval. Ann Benedict, Business Manager Ashland Parks and Recreation Department MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL & ASHLAND PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION October 12, 1999 Hunter Park Senior Building CALLE GUANAJUATO RESTORATION PROJECT CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Eggers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., in the Hunter Park Senior Building. Councilors Laws, Hauck, Hanson, and Fine were present, along with Commissioners Jones, Eggers, Landt, Coppedge and McGraw. Councilors Wheeldon and Reid were absent. Mayor Shaw arrived late. PRESENTATION BY CONSULTANT Consultant Brian McCarthy of Cameron_McCarthy_ Gilbert Landscape Architects, L.L.P., identified thc four steps involved in this project: 1) A decision on the public involvement process; 2) A public workshop to generate ideas; 3) A presentation of the draft preferred option; and 4) Presentation of the final master plan. McCarthy spoke about the process and progress that has been made so far. Explained that four milestones have been determined, and that this is the last step, the f'mal presentation of a master plan. Discussed the public involvement process, noting that this is where discussion regarding the budget of $1 million budget was determined. Noted that project goals were established, but that they were not prioritized. Recognized the goal to reduce flood damage to personal property and to restore and enhance the Calle. Discussed the restoration project, noting the open house that was held and the two design schemes that came out of that process. Explained that common elements found in these designs of the Calle came out of the public workshops. Emphasized that the architects worked to develop flood design strategies that took into account both environmental and urban design concerns. Explained that issues to be addressed in the designs were: two more bridges, a more natural west side of the creek, and some minor changes on the east side. Noted that the process to be completed tonight involves reviewing the master plan, discussing the budget, approving the master plan, and then an authorization to move on to Phase II of the project. Presented a slide show illustrating the master plan, with all refinements to the original plan. Explained that there were three segments in the master plan. 1) South Calle; 2) Mid Calle; and 3) North Section of Calle. 1)South Calle, which is the upper section improvement area included the following: new pedestrian bridge further upstream, bridge placement procedures for better pedestrian access including access to new restrooms, addressing flood wall height, instream work to help channel water for fish, planting along the bank and the replacement of railing. 2) Mid Calle improvement area included the following: a "low-water" bridge that could be brought in and taken out as dictated by creek water levels, a pathway between the two bridges, removal of the old bridge as soon as possible, parking area off Granite Street, stairway and low-water walkway, splitting pathway using a step system. 3) North section of Calle, improvement area included the following: rejoining of pathway (both new and existing), Page 1 of 3 City Council/Parks Joint Meeting 10/12/99 building a new wall outside the Greenleaf restaurant area, replacement of transformer in the larger flood wall area, rebuilt river access and using buff-colured concrete. McCarthy stated that the entire area is accessible, and that ADA standards have been met in the areas necessary. Explained that not every area is required to be ADA-accessible, as long as you can demonstrate that it was not accessible before the improvements. Noted issues beyond the scope of the current discussion: active flood management for Lithia Park; restroom construction with the Hillah Temple remodel; relocation and improvement of the waste and recycling facilities; and improvements to the North Main Street bridge's hydrology. With regard to the project budget, direct construction costs can be estimated after the final design is complete. These were estimated at approximately $1 million. Noted that contingency needs are higher (25%) and indirect costs might be an additional 20%. It was noted that restroom and recycling areas need to be included at an approximate cost of $150,000. Freeman explained that because he was under the assumption that the restroom and recycling areas were damaged during the flood in 1997, that they would be included in the Calle project. Noted that this was his assumption, as he had not heard anything to the contrary. It was suggested that phasing of the plan would be possible, and that it might also be possible to delay some construction. Stated that some work might be able to be done by 'rome accounting", such as the landscaping. McCarthy voiced the concern that too much phasing would increase the total construction costs. It was noted that the proposed project budget is $1.5 million, which includes $312,000 in contingency funding and $207,000 for indirect costs such as plans, permits, etc. McCarthy stated that issues still need to be decided, which include the approach to be taken and the general concept. Discussed the preferred options, as outlined in the handout. Pointed out the concerns of business owners over delivery vehicle problems, and noted that the master plan has larger turnout areas to address these concerns. Noted that a gate system needs to be put back in place, and suggested that this would be a matter of management and enfomement. It was pointed out that there was an interest in making the Calle more like its namesake, the City of Guanajuato. COUNCIL/COMMISSION QUESTIONS Commissioner Coppedge questioned the project budget. McCarthy clarified that the budget costs included contingencies for all master plans. Further explained that the terraces would be paved areas that people would occupy. Clarified the size of the gathering area, which would be smaller than the previous proposal. Eggers noted her concerns with the wing wall. McCarthy explained that rock wall be used at the base of the wall to break up the level of the wall. Stated that the wing wall will be from, the planting, to the rocks, and up. It was noted that specific flood measures have not been determined. Stated there would have to be permanent changes before fmsl flood determinations can be made. Emphasized that water has a mind of its own, and stated that secondary flood measures would be available, including sandbagging. Questions were raised regarding the level of rehearsal necessary for flood preparation, and whether additional emergency management training was necessary. McCarthy stated that he didn't believe so, but stated that he did not want to encourage complacency. Suggested looking at the engineer's report. Also stated that once a design is set, then flood management measures can be more effectively addressed. Discussion on what would happen in this area, when it floods, in relationship to the bridge. PUBLIC COMMENT The following suggestions came forth through public comment: 1) The need to look at the budget for the additional bridges; 2) Restrooms and recycling area can be a separate project, and that construction on this project should begin ASAP. 3) Transformers should be protected from a variety of things besides flooding, including delivery vehicles; 4) Area below Winburn Bridge be looked at for aesthetics, stream restoration, and the need to make the channel narrower and deeper; 5) Large ashtrays be distributed in the area; 6) Dogs be allowed on leashes; 7) Determination Page 2 of 3 City Couucil/Parks Joint Meeting 10/12/99 be made as to whether bridge removal is considered ~in-stream" work; 8) Grout being placed in-stream wasn't preferable, and could be done better; and 9) Large trees be planted and have established root systems. COUNCIL/COMMISSION COMMENTS Councilor Hanson questioned the factors driving the project, stated that the project is aesthetically driven. Noted the need for bridge removal, as the existing bridge could lead to significant damage in future floods. Also noted the positive ramifications on beautifying the area. Councilor Fine recognized the importance of restoring the integrity of this area, but questioned the costs associated with the project. Questioned pursuing a costly project that is mostly for the benefit of the plaza memhants. Councilor Laws suggested that the council not take action, and that this item be placed on a future agenda for full council discussion and action. Laws stated that the costs were irrelevant here, as that the charge of the Parks Commission, has requested by council is complete with presentation and recommendation of the master plan. Commissioner Coppedge voiced her concern that these questions were not brought up from the start. Councilor Hanson noted his concern that the original budget of $1 million has grown. City Administrator Mike Freeman explained that the initial budget was set in order to set parameters for what might be realistically accomplished. Commissioner Landt noted his concerns with the master plan which include the following: 1) encroachment into the creek' 2) continued urbanization of the East-side of the creek; 3) lack of definition of the east side amenities; 4) lack of oppommity to maximize public input; and 5) felt that the West-side organization could be improved. Freeman stated that the staff's recommendation is to place a priority on the restrooms and recycling area. McCarthy addressed the concerns of Commissioner Land, and noted that there was a push to set some kind of budget, and that the goal was to seek a long range plan that meets the needs of the majority. Stated that he dues not believe that encroachment will be an issue, and that the West-side design was to create something that allows for gatherings and activity. Also suggested that simplification of the master plan may occur naturally with budget constraints. ADJOURN TO COMMISSION MEETING Commissioners Coppedge/McGraw ntis to adopt the master plan. Roll call vote: Jones, Eggers, Coppedge and McGraw, YES. Lan&, NO. Motion passed 4-1. ADJOURN TO COUNCIL MEETING Councilors Hauck/Fine m/s to put this item on the agenda for a future council meeting for discussion and a decision. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Page 3 of 3 City Council/Parks Joint Meeting 10/12/99