Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-0917 Study Session MIN MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION September 17, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Steve Hauck called the meeting to order at 12:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. In attendance: Councilor Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon and DeBoer. Mayor Golden was absent. City Staff present were Pete Lovrovich, Jill Turner, John McLaughlin, Paula Brown, Paul Nolte, Fran Berteau and Ken Mickelsen. A. Overview and Discussion of L.I.D.s City Attorney Paul Nolte explained this is a continuation of a series of discussions among City Council, who adopted recommendations in November of 1996 as to what could be done with LIDs to improve the process. He said some of the recommendations were discussed but not acted upon. One recommendation discussed was to take no action and to modify the current policy on land use approvals. Instead of an agreement for future improvements, the developer would prepay the estimated amount of the required improvements and pre-sign in favor of the formation of an LID. He said there has been great concern by those individuals affected by LIDs, but no one has come up with a solution as to how to resolve the issue of LIDs. He said that two other alternatives that the council may want to discuss would be to continue the present policy, or not carry out any LIDs unless 50% (excluding the 50% of the pre-signers) of current owners petition the council and ask for the improvements. Public Works Director Paula Brown exhibited two maps showing the underimproved arterials, collectors and streets and the unimproved streets (dirt streets). She explained there are about 9-10 miles of dirt roads out of about 85 miles within the system, which is about 10-12% (dirt roads). She showed what had been done so far with LIDs versus subdivisions. She determined the status of the pre-sign agreements on proposed LID areas, and said there are not that many residents with pre-signed agreements. Planning Director John McLaughlin indicated the examples of the subdivision LIDs were not in contrast to each other but an indication where neighborhoods paid for the street, either through development or through an LID where a neighborhood paid. Councilor Ken Hagen requested clarification on chipseal versus pavement. Public Works Director Paula Brown explained that chipseal provides an immediate, temporary fix, and the chipseal has to be renewed every other year or so. There are usually no stormdrain or gutter type improvements, so there is considerably more maintenance with a chipseal finish. Councilor Don Laws said that anything less than a full improvement which is up to City standards does not meet the obligation people have for paying for that street. He said that once a street has been brought to City standards then the City takes care of the maintenance. In response to Councilor Carole Wheeldon's question, John McLaughlin explained that street standards are variable depending on the nature of the street and what service levels are. He explained that in low density residential areas sidewalk standards can be as small as a four-foot sidewalk on one side of the street and in higher traffic areas larger sidewalks on both sides of the street can be required. Councilor Susan Reid questioned whether ADA requirements must be met in some rural neighborhoods. (Council Study Session 9/17/97) City Attorney Paul Nolte clarified that under the Americans with Disabilities Act whenever a program is provided it must meet the requirements of the act. If an improvement is made that becomes part of the program and it must be accessible. The only exemption to meet ADA standards would be if it is an undue burden for the government to comply with ADA then you can have an exception and not be in compliance. He explained that if there is no sidewalk at all, that is not a violation of ADA standards, but once a sidewalk is provided, then you must comply. Councilor Ken Hagen wanted an explanation and reasons for the "sign in favor" agreements. Planning Director John McLaughlin clarified that the ordinance requires the City to obtain "sign in favor" agreements when a planning action increases the use of an unimproved road. He said you see these most often in minor land partitions. He explained there is also a provision in the ordinance that is required when a new home is built on an existing vacant parcel. Up until the time of the building permit there is no traffic generated by the parcel so the construction of a home makes it necessary for the provisions of the agreement to be met. They are also required for accessory units when a separate dwelling is added to a property. Additions such as bedrooms to a private residence would not require road improvements whereas Bed & Breakfast establishments are required to make the improvements. Subdivisions are also required to provide a paved access. Councilor Susan Reid feels the pre-sign agreements have been fairly successful in the City if you look at the map overall and see the number of streets put together with LIDs. She feels it is unfair to ask a person to pave the whole street if they want to divide their lot at some point to build a separate dwelling. This would not encourage people to stay in the community. She also feels it does not matter whether you have a pre- sign agreement or not if a person receives notice they are to pay for something they do not want. She stated it is not just the pre-sign agreement issue but also the money issue. Councilor Ken Hagen feels that the City must adopt either a pre-sign or pre-pay agreement system. Councilor Carole Wheeldon questioned other council whether they feel pre-sign agreements are fine and when all are collected should the City proceed. She asked whether they felt if people were objecting to the going forward part, not the pre-sign. Planning Director John McLaughlin questioned council clarification and direction with regard to the LID in the proposed Sheridan/Schofield LID. Public Works Director Paula Brown wanted clarification for what is considered underimproved and unimproved as it takes a lot of time to maintain the streets and stormdrains. Councilor Don Laws questioned the cost of maintaining a dirt street versus the cost of paving a street, and was curious as to how much was spent per year by the City to maintain the dirt streets. Chairperson Steve Hauck opened up the discussion to the public. Harry Bartel, 365 Strawberry/Said until he moved to Ashland nine years ago he had never heard of an LID, so feels this is a localized form of improvement. He asked council to abolish the whole plan of the LID as a street is a public thoroughfare and should be paid for by public funds. He feels that the entire ambience of neighborhoods, especially in the wooded areas, are destroyed by improvements the residents don't want to begin with, (Council Study Session 9/17/97) Ed Pentkowski, 456 Monte Vista Drive/Agrees with Mr. Bartel regarding LIDs, feels the council can stop the LID process if they want to, and that citizens should not have to pay for something they do not want. He said a portion could be set aside from the storm drain, street users or utility tax paid into a fund for all citizens to use. He said LIDs are wrong and he would like the council to get together and use funds strictly for LIDs, which would benefit the whole conmaunity and eliminate bad feelings of the public toward government officials. Jack Blackburn, 805 Oak Street/Feels that LIDs penalize small groups of people and from his calculations using LIDs assessed so far, a sum of $19.23 a year would benefit all citizens from the improvements. He said he has investigated Medford's LID process and they have stopped it - if a development is to be made on a residential street, the developer will pay for all of the costs of paving one-half of the street plus an additional 12 feet to a collector or arterial street. He would like to see Ashland develop a policy wherein at least two-thirds of the residents approve the LID before it goes forward. Any improvements should be carried out either by general bond funds or the general funds. Jackie Reed, 1040 Clay Street/Said that because people sign in favor of LID agreements doesn't necessarily mean they understand what they are signing. She said that a resident she knows on Clay Street indicated years back that he became part of an LID because some of the streets were developed that way at the time but it didn't cost much money then, whereas today it costs a lot. She said she has lived in Ashland for many years and doesn't want to move if she cannot afford to stay here because of an LID in her neighborhood. Kathleen Kahle, 345 Clinton Street/She said that her street is currently under construction with an LID. She feels this is a policy of coercion, and is hoping the council can come up with another plan. From her personal experience she stated she discovered her street was up for an LID in 1995 from reading about it in the paper, attended the meeting and was told to come to come up with a plan within two months. The residents were unable to come up with a plan within the two months so the LID went ahead. She said that neighbors adjacent to her received bids to pave their streets which were approved. Her quote from Mountain View Paving for paving only was $29,000, whereas the bid for paving, including curbs and sidewalks was $109,000 from the City. She feels council should listen to comments regarding curbs and sidewalks if they are not desired in the rural areas. She will have to pay $35,000 to the City, whereas if they had been allowed to pave the streets themselves her share would have been $9,000, which over ten years is much more affordable. She feels this is being forced upon her, the city is becoming divided as these issues arise, and the policy should be reconsidered as this is not working. Patricia Haley, 400 Alnutt Street/She said she cannot understand why the City did not pave around her neighborhood when they built the reservoir. She said it doesn't make sense that just because there is going to be a development the residents will have to pay. Councilor Susan Reid commented there has been no decision as to how the division of payment will be made, and this will happen at another step when they determine who benefits the most, not necessarily per lot, but per benefit. She explained that at the time the Bond was passed the focus was on getting the reservoir built. Chairperson Steve Hauck said that when the LID is processed if the reservoir road is part of the LID then the City will pick up that part of the share. Austin Brayfield, 400 Monte Vista/Said her assessment for benefits is about $9,000 if the LID goes through and she does not want to pay this just because there is a development going on above. {Council Study Session 9/17/97) 3 Planning Director John McLaughlin clarified for council that assessed costs to residents on the proposed Sheridan/Schofield LID are formulated at 75 % based on the possible number of units on a property and 25 % based on frontage. A lump sum was also assigned to the developer for the entire neighborhood. Councilor Alan DeBoer feels that the time for LIDs has gone, and these assessments are much larger now. He said that LIDs encourage development in open-space areas as people can no longer afford to keep their large open lots and they in turn have to sell them off. He would propose using Jack Blackburn's figures of the City's 19 LIDs in place which is $1.5 million, and that the city not mark up the interest rate. He said that in the past LIDs were done when neighborhoods approached the City wanting improvements done in their area, and that most of the LIDs in the City have been accomplished that way. However, he said now when enough signatures are obtained an LID is forced. He said the cost to the city is about $15,000 a year, but to people affected it is a significant amount. He feels that LIDs should be owner-driven. A fund should be established to pay for the LIDs, and when a development goes in the developer should pay their share. Councilor Susan Reid said that because we are under State land use laws to encourage development within the City of Ashland, we have to provide development within our City boundaries. She indicated she would like to review some of Alan DeBoer's options. Councilor Don Laws said he liked Jack Blackburn's idea of funding LIDs. Jill Turner said that when the City goes through the assessment process is can vary but usually 50 % of citizens choose to pay now instead of over time. Councilor Alan DeBoer is in support of getting rid of LIDs, although he appreciates an individual's rights to develop their own property. He feels for instance the proposed 6-lot development on Strawberry would not have a significant impact on traffic as opposed to a 60-lot development. Councilor Ken Hagen indicated he would be happy to share in the cost of paying for others' LIDs but could not speak for all the other low-income people in the City or people who have already paid for their LIDs. He said he would like to see this go to an initiative. Don Laws indicated he would like the staff to put together some preliminary alternatives following these thoughts to come back at a study session or council meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 2:07 p.m. Frances Berteau Executive Secretary 4 (Council Study Session 9/17/97)