HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-1102_CC MINMINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
ASHLAND CITY COUNCILNovember 2, 1999
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shaw at 7:03 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine were present
Mayor Shaw congratulated the citizens on voter turnout in the city. Stated that Ashland is one of only two cities in the state that have, so far, shown a voter turnout of over 50%.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of October 19, 1999 and the executive session of October 19, 1999 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Mayor's Proclamation of "Recycling Awareness Week."
2. Mayor's Proclamation of "A Celebration of 100 years of Medford and Ashland Football".
Mayor Shaw read both of the proclamations in full.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Approval of a Street Cut on Park Street to install sewer and water facilities.
3. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Adding Section 2.04.095 to the Ashland Municipal Code to Establish Fiscal Priorities for New Programs."
It was noted that consent agenda item #3 should read as follows: Second reading by title only of “An Ordinance Adding Section 2.04.095 to the Ashland Municipal code to better identify
funding mechanisms for new programs.”
Councilors Wheeldon/Fine m/s to approve consent agenda items and Ordinance #2851 as amended. Roll call vote: Laws, Reid, Hanson, Hauck, Wheeldon and Fine, YES. Motion passed.
Council requested that second reading of ordinances be dealt with separately and placed on the agenda accordingly.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing and Motion regarding Appeal of Planning Commission decision: Planning Action 99-062 - request for Site Review Permit for the construction of six apartment units (three
duplexes) located on Van Ness Street between Helman and Laurel Streets (Applicant: Dave Green).
Mayor Shaw read the land use public hearing guidelines and procedures.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:13 p.m
ABSTENTIONS, CONFLICTS, EX-PARTE CONTACTS:
Hanson noted that he had made a site visit and had conversation with neighbors. Fine noted making a site visit, seeing media information and having brief contact with individuals who
wished to discuss the matter, and which he declined because the matter might come before council on appeal. Hauck noted a site visit and viewing of the Planning Commission hearing.
Reid noted that she had made a site visit. Laws noted a site visit and a brief conversation with the Director of Community Development. Wheeldon noted having made a site visit and
had a general conversation with neighbors.
Hanson clarified that his conversation with neighbors had to do with the history of the lot in question over the last fifty years. Wheeldon clarified that her conversation with neighbors
was about in-fill in general and the nature of the neighborhood. Wheeldon emphasized that this conversation provided nothing beyond what is contained in the record and what is general
knowledge from living in the city for a long time.
STAFF REPORT:
Director of Community Development John McLaughlin introduced Associate Planner Mark Knox, the staff planner on this project.
Knox read the applicable criteria to be used for the approval or denial of a site review: A) All applicable City ordinances have been met and will be met by proposed development; B)
All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met; C) The site design complies with the guidelines adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter; and D) That
adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided
to and through the subject property.
Knox explained that a similar application was approved by staff as a Type I review permit in 1996. The neighbors appealed, and the item went before the Planning Commission where it
was approved with some conditions, including that the alley not be paved. The applicant then allowed that approval to expire, and has submitted a new application.
Knox noted that there had been some concern over the possible existence of wetlands on the site, but that a consultant has confirmed that there are no wetlands. Knox noted that the
Division of State Lands had also done an analysis and issued written confirmation that there are no significant wetlands here.
Knox discussed the site, noting that there is a 4% slope to the north and relatively little in the way of natural features. Explained that the proposal is for three buildings with duplexes,
for a total of six units. Illustrated the site plan and parking with slides. Discussed the design details of the units, with slides of the elevations. Knox stated that staff believes,
and the Historic Commission concurs, that the development is compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Knox noted that a number of the concerns raised by neighbors had to do with the alley, and explained that neighbors have asked that the alley not be paved. Stated that staff has asked
that the alley be graded to at least twelve feet, and improved with “three-quarter minus” rock.
Knox noted that the fire department required fifteen foot clearance for emergency vehicle access. Stated that the back two units will also have fire sprinklers as an added precaution.
Knox explained trip-generation concerns, noting that national standards indicate the project will likely generate about 36 vehicle trips per day. Stated that typically, 10-15% of these
will occur within peak hours. Also noted that concerns over vision clearance at the alley have been rectified by contacting neighbors to have vegetation removed.
Knox stated that planning staff supports this application, and noted that the Historic Commission had also recommended approval. Pointed out that the Tree Commission had also recommended
approval, but had raised some concerns over some of the existing trees. Explained that Planning Commission felt that the trees were not significant and could be removed. Clarified
that the Tree Commission had not reviewed the item after the Planning Commission ruling.
McLaughlin clarified some items having to do with the appeal. Noted that the appellants’ letter raised the issue of the Planning Commission’s use of the site review criteria over elements
of the Comprehensive Plan that were raised during the process. McLaughlin briefly explained the multi-tiered process for statewide land-use in Oregon, noting that each city adopts
a comprehensive plan to implement statewide goals. In this way, statewide goals become localized goals and policies reflecting the values of the local community. From there, the localized
goals and policies are implemented with specific local ordinances. McLaughlin noted paragraph c in the appellants’ letter which confirms this.
McLaughlin emphasized that once a land use ordinance is adopted, decisions are made based on the specific ordinances rather than referring back to the goals and policies of the comprehensive
plan. By complying with the local ordinances, a plan complies with the comprehensive plan and statewide goals. As such, McLaughlin stated that the appellants’ perception of a procedural
error is seen as incorrect, as in fact the action had to be considered in the matter that it was. McLaughlin cited the major land-use decision reached in Murphy v. The City of Ashland,
wherein LUBA required reliance upon city ordinances in reaching decisions as a way of implementing the policies of the comprehensive plan. Emphasized that it is staff’s belief that
this is the only approach to use in these matters, and that is the way the Planning Commission arrived at its decision, which was unanimous.
Reid questioned how not paving the alley would meet the city’s track-out ordinance and the council’s policy of trying to pave alleys. McLaughlin stated that in the historic district,
with relatively flat alleys in residential areas having low traffic counts the neighborhoods have pushed to not have alleys paved to keep them more as linear parks/trails for the enjoyment
of the historic area. Stated that prep work done on the alley, and use of a “three quarter minus” crushed base can alleviate track-out concerns. Noted that this is only appropriate
to flat alleys, and that it does mean some increased maintenance. Recognized that there are still air quality and storm water run-off issues, but that the rock is considerably better
than decomposed granite. Stated that it fell to the council’s discretion to require paving if they feel it to be necessary in light of these concerns.
Wheeldon asked for clarification that this is a de novo hearing. Shaw confirmed that this item was being heard de novo, and explained that council was not restricted to a particular
issue and could look at all applicable criteria.
Wheeldon questioned whether the thirty foot rear setback included parking. Mark confirmed this, and noted that the alley right of way was sixteen feet and that the parking was about
eight feet from the building. McLaughlin confirmed that staff worked with the Fire Department and they were comfortable with the alley access. Knox noted that there are encroachments
at the Helman end of the alley, and letters will be sent asking property owners to remove their fences and hedges from the right-of-way. Confirmed for Wheeldon that alley maintenance
is not the developer’s responsibility – the developer does the initial work, which will likely be serviceable for two to three years. Knox also confirmed that the applicant need only
improve the alley from the rear property line to Helman Street. McLaughlin emphasized that council has the discretion to request additional requirements.
Wheeldon questioned the trees being affected here. Knox clarified that two trees are on the applicant’s property, and that a third tree is located on a neighboring property six feet
from the property line.
Discussed the capacity of this alley. McLaughlin noted that the true capacity of an alley is difficult to measure, given the physical possibility for traffic versus for the character
as an alley. McLaughlin noted that the capacity will handle the eventual level of development proposed for the neighborhood, which could be fifteen more units. Discussed the role
of alleys as parking and rear access to complement the role of public streets in an interconnected network.
Reid questioned the full build out that could be allowed on the lot being discussed. McLaughlin confirmed that the lot’s base density was 6.8 units, meaning that six would be the base
density with seven allowed with a density bonus if an affordable housing unit were included.
APPLICANT PROPOSAL:
Dave Greene/Applicant and Richard Stevens/211 Genesee Place, Medford, 97504 Pointed out that property is zoned R3, and the proposed use in permitted outright in that zone. Explained
that the process here is multi-level with general site plan review and historic review. Emphasized that the Planning Commission, Historic Commission, and planning staff have all reviewed
this application and concurred that it does in fact meet applicable criteria. Emphasized that the applicant’s position is that there has been extensive review confirming that criteria
have been satisfied, and asked that council confirm the Planning Commission approval.
Stevens stated that the applicant will improve the alley with three quarter minus gravel as required by the Planning Commission, and sign an agreement consenting to participate in the
local improvement district for paving when that district is formed. Explained that the applicant is willing to address the concerns of the neighboring property owner regarding the
tree and will hire an arborist to protect this tree, to the best extent possible. Stated that the issues raised by the appellants are not approval criteria or standards that can be
applied to this type of application. While the applicant empathizes, there are state requirements which are being followed appropriately for the type of application. Concluded that
the issues brought forward citing Oregon Revised Statutes and the city’s Comprehensive Plan are not approval standards or criteria for this type of application; noted that the application
has met all applicable standards under review by the appropriate bodies; asked the council to approve the application.
IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT:
Elaine Delsman/341 Beach St/Noted that she owns property on Van Ness, across the street from the proposed development. Explained that there are numerous apartment buildings in the area,
and stated that she feels that this project will be a benefit to the community.
OPPOSED TO THE APPLICANT:
Council discussion of whether speakers should be allowed to donate their time to other speakers. Laws stated that because the council has previously allowed this practice, it should
be allowed tonight. Suggested that council set policy for future meetings that donating time to other speakers will not be allowed. Council expressed their agreement with this as
future policy.
Robert Hirschboek/71 Scenic Dr/Read a prepared statement into the record (see attached).
Eva Ruth Cooley/143 Van Ness Av/Noted that two other speakers had donated time to allow her more time to speak. Explained that neighbors and concerned citizens filed this appeal because
the Ashland Planning Commission failed to follow proper procedure as stated in ORS 197 and 227. Emphasized that this procedural error deprived the appellants of a substantial right
to the reasonable opportunity to submit their case to the Planning Commission. Stated that the appellants contend that ORS 197 requires the provision for comprehensive plans, and read
requirements from the statutes. Stated that the Planning Commission hearing limited testimony which did not address the site review standards in the land use ordinance. Also noted
that staff advice to the commission directed them that their discretion was limited to the site review criteria. Suggested that this limited the scope of evidence to only the site
review standards, and stated that based on the previously cited statutes the comprehensive plan should precede these standards. Stated that the limitation of discussion to the site
review standards is not only a violation of the requirements of law but a breach of the appellants right to due process. Ask that council review the facts, admonish the Planning Commission
and instruct them as to their responsibility as stated in ORS 197 and 227. Further asked that this matter be sent back to the Planning Commission to be reopened subject to all of
the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
John Freedom/442 Holly St/Noted that council is being called upon in this appeal by the neighbors to correct a pattern or practice of decision making by the Planning Commission and Planning
Department that is in contravention to ORS 197 and 227. Specifically stated that this practice deprives citizens of a substantial right to reasonable opportunity to prepare and submit
their cases at public hearings. Suggested that officials handling planning and development in the city are neither aware of nor familiar with the laws requiring that development occur
in accordance with the comprehensive plan and applicable land use ordinances. Stated that the Planning Commission and Planning Department are in place to serve the people, and suggested
that it would be timely for the council to issue a directive admonishing both to operate within the scope of, and in compliance with, the ORS, comprehensive plan and the municipal code.
Concluded that making decisions is easy, but that making the right decision is the challenge for the council.
Alfred Wilstatter/128 Central Av/Noted that he has resided on this street for thirty years. Explained that he has no problem with the development, but suggested that land-locking this
development with only alley access is setting a dangerous precedent. Emphasized that street access is needed.
STAFF RESPONSE:
At the request of Councilor Hauck, City Attorney Paul Nolte confirmed that both Murphy v. City of Ashland and Miller v. City of Ashland which were decided roughly ten years ago specifically
require the decision to be made based on the ordinance in place to implement the comprehensive plan. Nolte concurred with the advice provided by Director of Community Development John
McLaughlin and Planning Commissioner Steve Armitage, and confirmed that council may not look at anything other than the site review standards. Reiterated that council is legally bound
in this matter.
Laws clarified that once ordinances are in place to implement the comprehensive plan, they then take over the job of carrying out the expressed comprehensive plan. McLaughlin clarified
for Laws that the current zoning ordinance and site review standards do carry out all aspects of the comprehensive plan that would be relevant in this matter. Explained that the comprehensive
plan includes a chapter on implementation listing specific ordinances addressing requirements of the plan’s goals and policies.
At Reid’s request, Nolte clarified that he was pleased to hear that the Planning Commission and planning staff recognized the need to follow the criteria stated in the city’s implementing
ordinances.
McLaughlin noted that the condition requiring the applicant to sign in favor of future paving addressed the possibility that council may eventually implement paving standards for alleys.
McLaughlin clarified that staff is following the Ashland Municipal Code’s chapter 18.72 very closely. Explained that land use in the ORS becomes very complex, but that the approval
of needed housing must be reviewed by “clear and objective standards.” Stated that reverting to the comprehensive plan standards would completely change the process.
APPLICANT REBUTTAL:
The applicant’s attorney Richard Stevens noted that most of his concerns had already been addressed in the staff rebuttal. Noted that while this type of development is relatively simple,
the fact that it is in the historic district means that the review process has been quite extensive. Emphasized that the applicants have demonstrated compliance with applicable standards,
and stated that this compliance was upheld in the Planning Commission’s decision. Noted that while he didn’t believe there had been any procedural errors, the possibility is adequately
addressed by conducting this de novo hearing tonight. Stevens noted that there are numerous court cases requiring the use of criteria, and explained that ORS 197.763 requires listing
all applicable criteria in the public notice which is mailed out, and these criteria must be recited by staff at the hearing. Emphasized that these then become the only applicable
criteria to be addressed in the hearing. Issues raised by opponents must be specific, and the level of specificity must be such that the applicants can address it. Stated that no
issues raised by the appellants have any degree of specificity, and are not approval criteria but general policies. Asked that the Planning Commission decision be upheld, with the
conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, and allow the project to move ahead.
In response to Wilstatter’s concerns, Stephens noted that the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan states that parking spaces and structures should be located in alleys,
and the applicant was encouraged to do this.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:24 p.m.
Fine stated that the council has no other option but to follow the applicable criteria. Emphasized that the Comprehensive Plan consists of general norms which are too vague to serve
as requirements. Noted that there may be a need to better clarify what may be ambiguous goals, but in this case the standards are clear. Explained that council is sitting tonight
in a law-applying role rather than a law-making role. Asked that if citizens are unhappy with how strategies are outlined, that they hold the council accountable in the future as rules
are made. Stated that he would be voting in favor of the application according to the criteria.
Councilor Laws clarified that council is bound to the ordinances that are in place to carry out the comprehensive plan. Stated that if these ordinances are seen by citizens as poorly
designed, then the citizens need to come before the council to have these ordinances redesigned. At the present time, the existing implementation ordinances must be applied, as required
by LUBA.
Councilor Hauck pointed out that the site review criteria go well beyond their four short sentences, in that they require the applicant to meet all applicable city ordinances, which
are very detailed and complex in seeking to implement the comprehensive plan.
Councilor Wheeldon commented on the impact of in-fill projects and questioned what could be done to allow for less impact in the neighborhood. Wheeldon suggested some changes that could
be brought forward to better make the area more palatable to the neighborhood, such as better care of the alley, the appropriateness of fencing, and possibly the coverage of the parking
areas.
Councilor Reid voiced her concern with redesigning the project for this development, and stated that it may be inappropriate for council to do so at this time. Felt that these types
of conditions should be raised at the Planning Commission level, and that the council should not attempt to micro-manage neighborhoods.
Laws emphasized that any conditions imposed here would need to be specific, but stated that he would agree to requiring paving of the alley. Suggested that the required alley improvements
be extended to include the alley north from the property to the cross alley, and on the cross alley from the intersection to Van Ness. Emphasized that this did not need to be paving,
but could merely be three quarter minus gravel. Clarified that this would require changing the wording of condition five to require alley improvements “for the entire alley, between
Helman and Laurel” rather than from Helman to the property line.
Councilor Hanson clarified that there had been concessions made by the developer due to the concerns brought forward by the neighborhood during the process of this application before
the Planning Commission, Tree Commission and Historic Commission.
Discussion of the need for better communication in these matters. Wheeldon suggested that the general feeling of the comprehensive plan may not be translating specifically enough into
the implementing ordinances. Laws stated that the problem is that the ordinances are supposed to clearly spell out how to comply with the comprehensive plan by objective criteria as
required by state law. Suggested that these ordinances need to be looked at to make them better specific expressions of comprehensive plan implementation.
Wheeldon suggested that council ask the developer to meet with a group of neighbors in order to come up with mitigating requirements that would be mutually agreeable. Reid stated that
this is not the appropriate time to do this, and discussed that this matter is before the council on appeal and the processes have already been conducted.
Fine emphasized that there is a need to complete this matter under the 120-day rule, and there is not time under that rule to enter a broad ranging process. Suggested that staff look
at bringing back potential improvements to the in-fill ordinances and strategies. Discussion noting that this is a de novo hearing and needs to be conducted as such.
Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to approve the application with the suggested condition change suggested by Councilor Laws. Roll call vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon, and Fine,
YES.
PUBLIC FORUM
Eric Navickas/711 Faith Av/Spoke regarding the recent death of Jim Berkman and asked that listeners celebrate his life. Noted the amount of volunteer community involvement by Mr. Berkman,
and how very difficult it will be to replace an individual like Berkman. Navickas requested that council consider a grant in the memory of Jim Berkman to help fund the Ashland Community
Bike Program as a monument. Shaw suggested that Navickas contact her so that there could be discussion on doing something, possibly through the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission.
Bob Kiger/227 S Freeman St/Submitted proposal for Ashland Bicycle Center and stated that Ashland would make a world-class bicycle touring center, as he feels that Ashland is the best
qualified location on the Pacific coast. Noted the ingredients necessary for a center to exist and how this could be complemented by the Bear Creek Greenway project. Offered his assistance
to the city for economic development in this area, suggesting that this could be a $15-$20 million industry supporting 400 jobs. Councilor Laws clarified that the city does offer grants
through the budget process.
Russ Silberger/562 Ray Ln/Spoke regarding the new proposal by the City Administrator to charge a fee of $0.50 per page for requested documents. Noted that these fees are twice the amount
charged by the state. Feels that the new policy is designed to restrict access to documents and control information. Noted some previous requests for information that he has made,
and asked if it is appropriate to charge such high fees for access to public records. Concluded that he hopes that these new fees do not intimidate anyone who is seeking information.
Michael Gutman/1257 Quincy St, #5/Would like to revisit the issue of affordable housing. Noted the California Gardens affordable housing development next to Garfield Park. Asked that
council to reconsider how SDC charges are handled up front, and suggested deferring SDCs for later collection. Also questioned the condition of approval for fire sprinklers in townhouses
based on water flows, when the city could upgrade the waterlines on California Street.
Shaw urged Gutman to follow up with Public Works, giving the fact that the project is moving forward as a planning action and the matter is not appropriate for council discussion at
this stage.
Gutman explained that the water line would provide a great benefit to the future owners of these units, and that a waterline improvement would also benefit the Parkside Apartments, which
is currently under-protected from fire danger. Wheeldon volunteered to speak to Dave Petersen in regards to this issue, and Laws noted that the SDC deferral request would be best addressed
to the Housing Commission.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS None.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Council Meeting Look Ahead.
Presented for council information.
2. Application for Taxicab Certification.
City Administrator Mike Freeman briefly explained the background of this application for taxi certification, and noted the four criteria that must be considered to grant a certificate.
Stated that in staff’s opinion, the application does not adequately address those criteria, and recommended that council return the application and request additional information.
Freeman clarified for Wheeldon that the council is the regulatory body in determining whether or not to grant a person a certificate to do business.
Hauck suggested that the ordinance may need to be revisited. Fine stated that Finance Director Jill Turner is revisiting the ordinance at the staff level.
Councilor Laws/Fine m/s to return the application to Cascade Shuttle for further information, under advice of staff. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
3. Presentation by Oregon Shakespeare Festival regarding new theater project.
Dan Thorndyke, representing the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) board of directors, and Paul Nicholson, also from Oregon Shakespeare Festival, requested support from council for OSF’s
new theatre/parking lot proposal in concept, and also asked council to authorize city staff to work in conjunction with the festival to renegotiate the city’s lease with OSF in order
to accommodate this project in both scope and term.
Thorndyke gave a background on the effort and discussion that has occurred in this process. Noted that the festival does have a large and diverse board of directors and that this has
been a long, ongoing process. Stated that the current proposal came through the public input process and that the aim is now to maximize the positive impact, rather than simply trying
to minimize the negative impact, on parking. Emphasized that the proposed project will greatly improve the parking lot, as well as improving the artistic product and long-term viability
of OSF.
Nicholson explained that the proposal is near the end of the schematic design stage and that OSF is far from proposing a final design through the planning process. What is being presented
to the council here is the conceptual design and how that design would address current concerns and limitations. The proposal is as follows: 1)Leave Carpenter Hall where it is, and
upgrade it so that it can be made more available to local performing arts groups when OSF’s theatres are not in operation; 2)Construct a new, state-of-the-art theatre seating 260 in
a three-quarter thrust configuration and up to 350 in arena or in-the-round seating; 3)Build a two-level, 120 space parking structure, with one level at Hargadine Street and the other
as an underground area at approximately the lower level of the existing parking lot; 4)Continue to work in partnership with the City, the Chamber’s Parking and Transportation Committee
and Ashland businesses to develop a comprehensive plan that addresses transportation, traffic flow, parking and other issues; and 5)Enhance the landscaping surrounding Carpenter Hall
so the new theatre fits harmoniously into the neighborhood. Also pointed out the possibility of working with the Mark Antony to extend this new parking structure all the way to First
Street for a potential gain of 90 parking spaces.
Asked that the city re-energize a group to focus attention on developing real solutions to parking issues, traffic flow, and congestion, and tying that in to the comprehensive plan.
Noted that this is a $8-10 million investment on OSF’s part, and that pointed out that there are specific benefits to the City of Ashland. OSF will present plays at the highest level
of performance, plus there are economic benefits of approximately $6.5 million per year, and there will be an increase in the city’s hotel/motel tax and food and beverage tax and sales
to many local businesses. Feels that the project itself will serve as a catalyst for change.
Nicholson requested the general support of the council to continue in developing the design concept and to authorize staff to work with OSF both in planning process and in renegotiating
the lease. Nicholson noted the areas owned by the city, and explained that the Black Swan is expected to be kept as a working space for new play development and theatre education activities.
Thorndyke clarified that there have been long-term goals to redevelop the Black Swan building and its immediate area. Councilor Reid voiced her concern with losing additional street
level area on Hargadine Street, and suggested that the parking structure need not extend all the way to First Street. Stated that building/structure use and street scape should be
considered. Nicholson stated that Doug Neuman had indicated his interest in using the parking structure as a way to develop the parking lot, as Reid had suggested.
Thorndyke explained that because this is city property, OSF needs council approval to move forward with specific land use issues, both internally and through the city planning process.
Stated that they would like to work with staff to develop a lease that would encompass the entire area under discussion.
Nicholson explained for council that the issues surrounding the charge for parking has not been worked out and that they are continuing to explore options and have discussions. Explained
that they anticipate that anyone using the parking facility during festival times would be required to pay, and clarified that during the off-season and/or off-hours this may not be
a requirement.
Councilor Laws commented on the need to look at the report recently completed on the city’s transit system. Laws stated that he would like to see the city maintain control over the
necessity of charging for parking. Noted that he would like to take advantage of the opportunity to work with Doug Neuman, as owner of the Mark Antony. Stated that the idea of putting
a committee of fifty together may not be right for the present time, given the level of development that already exists in this plan. Suggested that a smaller working committee representing
major stakeholders and able to take action would be more suited to the present circumstances.
Councilor Wheeldon suggested dealing with “Ordinances, Resolutions, and Contracts” items which are time-sensitive now to reserve the remainder of the meeting for discussion of the OSF
proposal. Dealt with items #1 and 2 here as they were time sensitive.
Councilors Reid/Laws m/s to extend the meeting past 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC INPUT
Duane Smith/2165 W Jackson/Noted moving here 36 years ago as the city was the cheapest community he could live in with a five-year college program, and spoke of the way the town developed
with the Festival. Explained how the parking lot on Hargadine came about, noting it is only owned by the city because of the actions of the Festival. Stated that the Festival really
built the town, and they should be supported on their path to excellence.
Bill Street/180 Mead/Commented on the dynamics of the council chambers and how the audience does not feel a part of the discussion. Suggested that the experience is neither democratic
nor artistic, and that perhaps the Black Swan would be a more appropriate venue. Noted the letter submitted by Michael Donovan with the statement that it is conservatively estimated
that over 15,000 vehicles pass southbound on East Main, and 13,000 vehicles pass northbound on Lithia Way every single day. Emphasized that is more cars than travel both north and
south on Interstate 5 per day. Voiced concern with transportation and growth problems and asked how to limit the problem. Questioned if Festival’s proposal adds to the current problem
of transportation and growth, or contributes to the solution to that problem. Questioned whether Ashland is losing its small town character and moving away from a balanced economy.
Emphasized that this proposal is not a solution to the growth and transportation problems that must be addressed.
Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Voiced his surprise at learning that the city owns the parking lot that the OSF is proposing to develop. Commented on the design of the proposed building
and the arrogance of the festival in assuming that they can build what, where, and when they want. Emphasized that a windowless auditorium commanding magnificent views is a criminal
waste, when the site would have been ideal for the library. Pointed out that the maximum building height allowable under the areas zoning is forty feet, not the sixty four feet proposed.
Stated that the initial plan was to demolish Carpenter Hall, and pointed out that the lease with the city requires OSF to grant use of the grounds to civic groups, conventions, and
other such organizations. Stated that OSF is in arrears on this community obligation. Also noted planning for a 3000 square foot lecture hall over the Black Swan has been discussed.
Concluded that with $28 million in assets and a $2.8 budget surplus, no further handouts are in order from the city.
Bob Mayers/4890 Hwy 66/Noted that he is on the Chamber Board, and has been a business owner in Ashland for twenty years. Stated that in order to maintain a business, it requires a lot
of work. Commented on the positive influence of OSF and the community support for successful businesses. Feels that the community should share in the enthusiasm of the Festival in
their striving to excel. Noted some of the community organizations that support the Festival’s proposal, and requested that council support the OSF in this new endeavor.
Jim Lewis/640 A Street/Chair of Ashland Historic Commission/Commented on the Historic Commission’s top priority in keeping Carpenter Hall in its original location. Stated that the Historic
Commission would definitely prefer the proposal for the alternative development of the parking lot. Requested that if the council is to accept this development, he feels there should
be a substantial increase in community use of the building.
Gary Moore/668 N. Main St./Noted that he has been a B&B owner for six years. Commented on the difficulty guests have in obtaining tickets to the Black Swan theatre, and suggested that
the proposal wouldn’t necessarily bring more guests but might allow the same people to see more shows, and also allow for expanded shows in the spring and the fall off-seasons. Stated
his support for the proposal in that it provides for additional use in the off-season.
Cate Hartzell/881 E. Main St./Feels that the council is a bargaining position and that the foundation to be used in determining a new lease would involve fair judgement of previous agreements.
Expressed concern with previous commitments to allow use by community groups and the fact that these commitments may have been unfulfilled. Commented on individuals who are not at
the meeting and their concern that the festival may go back to original plan if the current plan is not approved. Suggested that this is organizationally selfish. Suggested that any
support she expresses tonight is based in resignation and disappointment that this is already a “done deal.” Stated that there should have been consideration given to adding on to
the Black Swan before moving into city-owned property. Asked that council consider seeking city ownership of Carpenter Hall as part of the bargaining process. Suggested that it be
made more accessible, with possible management by a community group. Stated that council needs to consider all citizens in this negotiation, and keep in mind the impact of the mass
and appearance of this building on the downtown. Stated that paid parking will have additional impact on the neighborhood around the neighborhood, and asked that council consider the
C-1-D zoning and revisit parking commitments required in that zone. Concluded that there is a need to have a better dialogue within the community.
Mike Gorton/106 S. Pioneer/Directly effected by the proposal. Commented on the advantages and disadvantages from the standpoint of residing on Pioneer Street. Expressed his support
for the project, but feels that it is important to have community input.
Councilors Wheeldon/Fine m/s to continue the public hearing to the November 16th council meeting. Discussion: Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution accepting Transfer of a portion of Tolman Creek Road from Jackson County to the City of Ashland."
Councilors m/s to approve Resolution # 99-63. Roll Call Vote: Hanson, Fine, Wheeldon, Hauck, Reid and Laws, YES. Motion passed.
2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Exempting from Competitive Bidding Equipment Purchases through the National Cable Television Cooperative for the Ashland Fiber Network Cable
Television System.”
Councilors m/s to approve Resolution #99-64. Roll Call Vote: Reid, Wheeldon, Hauck, Fine, Laws and Hanson, YES. Motion passed.
3. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Amending 93-35 by Deleting Advertising Contracts as an Exemption from Competitive Bidding," and reading by title only of "A Resolution Amending
Resolution 93-35 by Defining Advertising Contracts."
Item removed and placed on next council agenda.
4. Reading by title only of "A Resolution requesting that the United States Government ensure that certain provisions be included in the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI) Agreement
if it is to be ratified by the United States."
Item removed and placed on next council agenda.
5. Reading by title only of "A Resolution establishing a Training, Travel and Business Expenses Reimbursement Policy for the Mayor and City Council."
Councilors m/s to approve Resolution #99-62. Roll Call Vote: Wheeldon, Fine, Reid, Hanson and Hauck, YES. Laws, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 p.m.
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor
Page 9 of 9
Regular City Council Meeting 11/02/99