HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-0607_SSMINMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
June 7, 2000May 17, 2000
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m.
ATTENDANCE
Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine were present. Staff present included City Administrator Mike Freeman, Assistant City Administrator Greg Scoles, Public Works
Director Paula Brown and Director of Community Development John McLaughlin.
PRESENTATION ON THE REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING PROJECT
Project coordinator, John Eads provided background information on regional growth planning in the Bear Creek Valley. He explained that the project was originally awarded to facilitate
long-term planning in Jackson County in the geographical area centered around the cities of Jacksonville, Central Point, Eagle Point, Phoenix, Medford, and unincorporated White City.
He explained that these jurisdictions have been working together for almost two years to establish an urban reserve for Medford. He stated that the project’s first order of business
was to consider additional participants, as well as identifying the final study area. The cities of Ashland and Talent were specifically identified as important potential additions.
Eads explained the LCDC policy history, procedures and how it would affect communities that participate in the Regional Problem Solving Project.
The Regional Problem Solving Project is outlined as the following:
Short Description: Achieving self determination through regional cooperation or “How can we plan nicely together.”
Major Task Areas: Governance, public involvement and communication, future non-growth areas, and future growth areas.
Governance Tasks: Establish policy committee; establish technical committee; formulate decision-making process; invite additional participants; determine final study area; establish
resource lands review committee (RLRC) (required); ensure on going and final jurisdiction and state buy off.
Public Involvement & Communication Tasks: Establish project citizen involvement committee (PCIC); mobilize jurisdiction citizen involvement committees (JCICs) goals; public presentations
on request; maintain project web page, distribute copies o f our region report to committees and stakeholders.
Future Non-Growth Areas Tasks: Determine most valuable agricultural areas; critical review of FCA (farming conservation zone) concept; determine non-buildable areas; determine buffer
areas (between jurisdictions); design standards for buffer areas, determine most valuable open space areas; critical review of open space zone concept; non growth plan (end result).
Future Growth Areas Tasks: Establish high end population range; determine in-fill and redevelopment potential for each jurisdiction; draft map of future growth areas; project population
in future growth areas; adjust future growth areas proposal; examine allocation of future growth areas; final growth areas; proposal; periodic review, jobs/housing balance; utilities.
Eads noted that Michael Cavallaro, the Executive Director of Rogue Valley Council Governments, was present to answer any questions.
Eads shared that rural homesteads are going to be very rare and valuable and explained the restrictions that are placed on parcels less than 10 acres in size.
Eads felt that the benefit that the community of Ashland could receive from participation is having some type of control over the development standards in the lands on the fringes of
the city, and further into the county, possibly including the interface with the City of Talent. Suggested that at some point, there will likely be some form of regional government
in Southern Oregon, either voluntary or state-imposed, and having a participatory stake would be wise at this point.
Laws commented that with the anticipation of the city building on EFU land surrounding the city, and concerns with the view shed, it may be wise to be a part of this group to have a
say in the decisions that are made.
Shaw not impressed with how land use has been managed outside the City of Ashland and used examples of prior projects completed by other communities that were not managed well. She
does not feel that others in the region appreciate what is trying to be done in Ashland and this is the reason why she would be hesitant to join. She did comment that it would be wise
for the city to participate as she supports the concept of the project and should keep in mind what we hope to create in Jackson County. She feels that this is an opportunity to encourage
other communities in their regional growth planning. Shaw also stated that if this process is used as a way to circumvent State Land Use Policy she would be very disappointed.
Laws suggested that there have been real changes going on in attitudes in the county, and cited Medford, Central Point, Jacksonville and Talent as examples. Noted his optimism about
the future for the county, and noted his belief that Ashland should be involved.
Reid felt strongly that communities should work together, as the valley is really one linked community. Emphasized her desire for the city to be involved in this process, and her hope
that social engineering issues can be addressed.
Shaw discussed concerns with unincorporated areas, and the need to include transportation infrastructure with any large scale development. Shaw stated that any efforts made will only
be as strong as those who are at the table, and for that reason Ashland should be involved.
Assistant City Administrator Greg Scoles explained that if the council intends to be involved, then someone from the city’s political leadership will have to be involved at all levels.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin concurred with Scoles that individuals from the city political leaders would need to be represented in all the committees that are organized
for this project.
Eads explained that the project is biannual with a plan completed at this time to send to the State for approval. He stated that the facilitation of this project can be difficult, but
that this project is designed to eliminate most or the problems associated with regional sovereignty issues. Emphasized that some difficult issues, such as growth allocation, do not
require that an agreement be reach although they will be considered. He explained that the project is driven by the Rogue Valley Council of Governments.
Eads explained that the other communities have adopted resolutions when joining this program, and stated that he will send copies of these resolutions to Ashland.
TOLMAN CREEK ROAD LID
Reid explained that she had requested a progress report on the Tolman Creek Road LID and noted her concern when this project was not included in the recently passed budget. She stated
that there is a public safety issue due to the pedestrian and automobile traffic, and suggested that she would like to get back on track in moving this project forward.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained that there have been some conflicting issues regarding this project, and commented on the role that Public Works plays in forming
local improvement districts (LIDs). McLaughlin noted that the Strawberry/Westwood LID has been given priority in the past few months since the council action on the LUBA remand.
McLaughlin explained that there is only enough money in this fiscal year’s budget to do either Strawberry/Westwood or Tolman Creek. He stated that it is a matter of priority and requested
council direction, as Strawberry Lane is in the current budget and Tolman Creek is in the next fiscal year budget.
McLaughlin stated that the Tolman Creek project was stopped when council asked staff to look at arterial streets. He stated that a street design has not been done at this time for Tolman
Creek, but that a street design has been completed for Strawberry/Westwood.
Shaw noted how violently the neighborhood had responded to the possibility of an LID, and suggested that Reid needs to be more fair to staff given the history of the LID and the other
projects assigned to staff.
Laws noted his preference to move the Strawberry/Westwood before the Tolman Creek project mainly because the Tolman neighborhood continues to be divided over what they want done. Expressed
his feeling that consideration should be given to the fact that Strawberry/Westwood is further along than the Tolman Creek project, and recognized that given the new LID policy council
needs to provide more clear direction staff as to their priorities.
Freeman noted the land use issues involved, and noted the difficulty that would be encountered in trying to switch directions.
Brown emphasized that there are other smaller LIDs on the list, which would need to be pushed further down on the list to do these projects in the same year.
Reid stressed her desire for staff to give some type of idea of a timeframe for when the Tolman Creek project may begin.
Brown explained that the design phase for Strawberry, which should take about six months, is slated for the second half of the 2000 calendar year. Construction of Strawberry would then
begin around May of 2001. Tolman Creek Road design is anticipated to begin in June 2001 and then will follow the normal steps required to move this type of project forward. Brown
stated that this LID should be completed in October 2002, and is included in the capital improvements plan. Brown emphasized that there are other issues besides sidewalks here, and
other things that need to be done as part of this project, including storm drains. Brown noted that staff has dealt with ODOT on this project, and has applied for a grant for Mistletoe
Road and Tolman and has done bike lane work.
Fine stated that he shares Reid’s concern regarding the safety issues and feels that staff has been given the proper priority on staff’s part. Emphasized that this has been a time consuming
process, but that it has to be to get the level of community involvement sought.
Council discussion of the sense of urgency they feel for addressing traffic problems on Tolman Creek Road.
SISKIYOU BLVD/GRESHAM/E. MAIN INTERSECTION
Public Works Director Paula Brown presented map of proposed changes to intersection and requested direction from council in regards to who is going to pay for what pieces.
Brown noted the possibility of seeking jurisdiction over this intersection from ODOT, and discussed some of the proposed design elements. Noted that discussions are underway to determine
how to best utilize Gresham Street parallel parking to serve the library, as well as adding parking on Siskiyou and looking at possible island redesigns. Noted which pieces will be
done as miscellaneous concrete projects, and which will be part of the library redesign, the fire station, and the Siskiyou Boulevard redesign.
Brown stated that the area in front of Evo’s could be a raised crosswalk and would help to slow traffic, and that this could be included in next year’s miscellaneous concrete projects.
McLaughlin stated that this crosswalk could also be added into the Downtown Plan for sidewalk/crosswalk improvements.
Laws suggested that speed limit signage could be moved further down Siskiyou Boulevard, and Brown stated she could look into this further. Hauck stated that changing the speed limits
along this area on Siskiyou might be a good interim measure.
At Fine’s request, Brown stated that she would follow up with ODOT in regard to the possibility of a signal at this intersection being put in at state expense.
ADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
Submitted by
Barbara Christensen
City Recorder
Page 4 of 4
June 7, 2000 Study Session