Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-1130 Adjourned Mtg PACKET rr rt nt: Any citizen attending Council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you wish to speak, please rise and after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and address. The Chair will then allow you to speak and also inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to heard. and the lencith of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE ADJOURNED MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 30, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 P.M., Civic Center Council Chambers II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of November 16, 1993. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Appeal by the City Council of Planning Action No. 93-127 a site review approved by the Planning Commission for a proposed building to house the Planning and Public Works (Engineering Division) Departments, V. ORDINANCE. RESOLUTION & CONTRACTS: 1. Second reading by title only of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2724 S relative to the creatiop of an intergovernmental entity known as the Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency. VI. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 16,1993 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7:30 P,M.and led the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL Councilors Laws, Hauck, Acklin, Winthrop and Arnold were present Councilor Reid was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of November 2, 1993 were accepted as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Mayor Golden presented a special award to Julian Henry for volunteer work on backyard composting education and certificates of appreciation for Ashland Backyard Composting.project volunteers. Mayor Golden discussed the recent 1993 Cities 'Awards for.Excellence" program at the League of Oregon Cities Conference. City of Ashland won second place award for the Save Mt.-Ashland project. Mayor Golden presented award for City Administrator Brian Almquist. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees. 2. Monthly Departmental Reports - October, 1993. 3. Request for modification of an existing public utility easement on Lots 19 and 20 of Clear Creek Subdivision. 4. SoRedi Quarterly Report. 5. Liquor license application: Fireside Dining, 438 N. Main Street (new ownership). 6. Liquor license application: Weisinger's Winery, 115 E. Main Street (new business, second location). Arnold/Winthrop m/s approval of Consent Agenda items. Voice vote all AYES.' PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Proposed construction of a building at the Civic Center to house the Planning and Public Works (Engineering Division) Departments. City Administrator Brian Almquist read into the record letters from Terry Skibby, 611 Beach Street opposing; Michael Donovan, Chateaulin Restaurant, supporting; John W. and Ilse S. Nicholson, 1575 Greenmeadows Way, opposing. He reviewed timeline prepared on proposed construction planning. Councilor Winthrop read postcard received from Planning Commissioner Brent Thompson opposing proposed construction. The following audience members spoke in opposition: Larry Cooper, 346 High Street; Woody Wood, 173 Heiman Street, spokesperson and member of Ashland Historic Commission; Marilyn Briggs, 590 Glenview Drive; Terry Skibby of 611 Beach Street; John Fields, 845 Oak Street; Bill Emerson, 90 Fifth Street; Ron Roth, 6950 Old Hwy 99S; Rick Vezie, 446 Walker Avenue; and 'Susan, Hunt, 220 Nutley Street. , The following audience members spoke in support: Al Alsing, 970 Walker Avenue; Greg Williams, 744 Heiman, and read letter from Lois Wenker of Ashland Sanitary Service; Darrell Boldt, 1850 Tamarack; Russ Silbiger, 562 Ray Lane. Public hearing was closed 9:15 p.m. Winthrop/Hauck m/s to suspend 9:30 p.m. rule and continue public hearing. Voice vote all AYES. Laws/Arnold m/s to direct staff to proceed with building construction. Discussion followed. Laws/Arnold m/s to close debate. Mayor Golden asked that Council put motion in resolution form rather than minute order. Council did not believe resolution was necessary. Laws withdrew motion to close debate. Arnold/Hauck m/s to end discussion. Roll call vote on Arnold motion all YES. Roll call.vote on Laws motion to proceed with building construction four YES, Winthrop NO. Motion passed. 2. Appeal by the City Council of Planning Action No. 93-127 a site review approved by the Planning Commission for a proposed building to house the Planning and Public Works (Engineering Division) Departments. Laws/Hauck m/s to continue to November 30. All AYES. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Airspace licensing agreement between City of Ashland and Allen Sandler as Licensee. Postponed to 12/7/93 Council meeting. PUBLIC FORUM None. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS 1. First reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2724 relative to the creation of an intergovernmental entity known as the Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency. Hauck/Laws m/s to second reading. All AYES. 2. Authorization for the City Administrator to sign intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement for the Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency. Hauck/Winthrop m/s authorization. All AYES. (r.11-1693,MhOp`.2 3. Authorization for the City Administrator to sign a "Local Agency Fund Exchange Agreement for Intermodal Surface Efficiency Transportation Act (ISTEA) funds. 'Acklin/Arnold m/s approval. All AYES. 4. Authorization for the City Administrator to sign an intergovernmental agreement regarding gaming law enforcement. Hauck/Laws m/s authorization. . OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS None. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:05pm.. Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor (r.11-16.93=Wn.3 ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT FOR PA93-127 (omitted from previous Council packet) ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT October 12, 1993 PLANNING ACTION: 93-127 APPLICANT: Cify of Ashland LOCATION: 1175 East Main Street ZONE DESIGNATION: E-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Public Facilities ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.40 Employment Zone 18.72 Site Design REQUEST: Site Review for the construction of an 10,000 sq. ft. Planning/Public Works Office building. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: In October, 1980, the Planning Commission approved a Site Review and Conditional Use Permit (PA80-78) for the construction of the Justice Center/Council Chambers at this location. The Staff report and findings of. that approval are attached to this staff report. In November, 1982, the Planning Commission approved a Site Review for the construction of a new public warehouse facility at this location (PA82- 75). The administrative findings of that approval are included as part of this staff report. There are no other planning actions of record for this site. There were two errors in the notice mailed on this action. The first stated. that the building is approximately 8000 sq. ft. when in fact the proposed area is 10,100. The second is that the land does not have a Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment, but rather Public Facilities. Staff does not believe that either of these errors are grounds for delay of the action. Adequate notice was given, and those wishing to participate in the hearing have been provided notice of the time and opportunity at which to speak. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: The site is the present location of the Council Chambers and the Police Station, as well as warehousing. The site was purchased in the 1970's for the purpose of re-locating some city facilities, such as the Police Department, Council Chambers, Court functions, warehousing functions (moved from "A" Street), Electric Department, some Public Works functions, as well as provide yard storage for materials. In the previous approvals, the site plans have indicated this site as the location of "future offices." The Staff Report from the 1980 approval discusses the possibility of a future building being added to the Police/Council Chambers complex at a later time. That later time is now. The City is proposing to construct an approximately 10,100 sq. ft. office building on the grassy area directly behind and north of the Council Chambers. This is the area indicated on the adopted site plans from the previous approvals indicated for "future offices." The building is designed to match the existing Council Chambers and Police Station to provide a consistent campus design. It will house both the Department of Community Development (Planning, Building, & Conservation) and the Public Works Department (Engineering, PW Administration). It is essentially a single-story design, with a small interior loft area of approximately 1000 sq. ft. for mechanical equipment and some storage. No office space will be located in the loft area. The building's primary entrance is through a courtyard area behind .the Council Chambers that can be reached either directly from East Main Street between the Police/Council Chambers buildings, or from the parking lot by walking behind the Council Chambers. Employee entrances will also be located at the rear of the building (north side) towards the warehouse buildings. The building is also proposed to be fully sprinklered, to aid in fire fighting should a structure fire occur. As stated earlier, this site is located in an E-1 zone, with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Public Facilities. This building is a permitted use in the E-1 zone, subject to Site Review approval. Section 18.40.020 E-1 Zone Permitted Uses lists the following: PA93-127 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland October 12, 1993 Page 2 A. Professional, financial, and business and medical offices, and personal service establishments. M. Public and quasi public utility and service buildings and yards, structures, and public parking lots, but excluding electrical substations. By design, this use is essentially a professional office, but it is also a public structure. Both of these uses are listed as permitted uses in the E-1 zone. II. Project Impact Since the approval of the Police/Council Chambers in 1980, a future office building has been envisioned at this location. The City is following up on its original plan for this area by the construction of this building. Money for this building has been budgeted for many years, and the construction of this building has been included in the Capital Improvement Plan and budget documents for several years as well. The original plan, when the land was purchased in the 1970's, was to locate all City functions at this site, ultimately abandoning the downtown City Hall building. However, when the Downtown Plan was adopted in July, 1988, the following paragraph was included in the "Regulation" section: CITY HALL Finally, the city should officially state that City Hall will remain in its present location for the immediate future. While as the city grows some functions will have to be relocated, the continued presence of the municipal government ties it to the downtown, and therefore to the people. With the absence of a City Hall downtown, there is some danger that the downtown will lapse into a tourist amenity. The presence of a City Hall downtown provides at least three important enhancements. it shows a commitment to the downtown to work together on its problems, reii}forces the downtown as the city center, and continues a tradition begun by the first settlers. It is not the City's intent to abandon the downtown City Hall, but rather to relocate some city functions that require additional space, in this case the Planning and Public Works Departments. All other departments will remain in City Hall, including the City Administrator, Mayor, Personnel, City Attorney, Utilities, and Finance/Accounting. Recently, the City completed a space study to identify the needs of the various PA93-127 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland October 12, 1993 Page 3 City departments for future office areas. After the conclusion of that study, it was determined that the City cannot afford to lose the office space provided by the current City Hall, but that additional space will be necessary to meet the current and future demands of the various departments currently located in City Hall. The logical choice is to follow along with the original plan for office space on City-owned lands. While the "decision" to re-locate several departments out of the current City Hall to the Justice Center location appears to be the greatest "impact" of this application, the Commission must remember their limitations under the land use ordinance. Decisions regarding the appropriateness of the construction of an office, or moving of a business are the responsibility of the "management" of that organization, and not under the purview of the Planning Commission. Just as the Planning Commission would not have the discretion to prohibit a downtown business from relocating out to Tolman Creek Plaza, neither does it have the discretion, under the Site Review ordinance, to prohibit the City from choosing to construct additional office space on E-1 zoned lands on East Main Street. Therefore, the Commission should confine their review of this action to the issues associated with Site Review, and limit discussions that go beyond the scope of the ordinance. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The main issues associated with the application involve the criteria for approval of a Site Review, which are as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed . development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. 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. In Staff's review of this project, it is our belief that all applicable city ordinances have been met by the application. Since there are not setback requirements in the E-1 zone, the structure complies with the locational requirements. Parking is being provided by the existing spaces. 23 spaces are required by this use. The site is currently non-conforming by having too much parking (in excess of 10% PA93-127 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report City of Ashland October 12, 1993 Page 4 over the minimum required), and this new building will end up bringing the site much closer into compliance. Therefore, the additional office space will result in a more efficient use of the current excess parking area. The site exceeds the required landscaped area, with a detailed landscape plan prepared for the area around the building. The plan has been reviewed by the Tree Commission and they have recommended approval of the landscape plan. The building is well below the allowable maximum height limits for the E-1 zone (40'). All requirements of the Site Review chapter have been met by this proposal. All required plans have been submitted, including exterior elevations, landscaping, and energy consumption information. It is the City's intent to construct this building to Energy Edge standards, meeting the most stringent and efficient energy standards. The development complies with the Site Design Standards. The complex already has its primary orientation towards East Main Street, with direct pedestrian access from the street. This structure, while being located behind the current buildings, provides an infill of the site, with its main entrance accessible from the existing East Main entrance. Staff, however, would recommend that an additional 3' wide sidewalk be installed from East Main along the current auto driveway entrance, providing a "curbside" refuge for cars parking along this drive, as well as providing an alternate pedestrian entrance from East Main to the building entrance. There are adequate City facilities serving this site. Water is available from the main in East Main Street that is currently serving the site, sewer service is presently available from the lines currently serving the existing buildings, and paved access is available from East Main Street, a fully improved arterial street, to the currently paved and improved parking area. Electricity is available from power lines adjacent to the site, and urban storm drainage is already established on the site, through a previously installed storm drain system. The new building will have its storm drains tied into this existing system. Adequate transportation is also currently available, with the site served by East Main Street, a fully improved arterial street, with sidewalk improvements along the entire frontage of the property. A bike path also is incorporated into East Main Street, providing linked bike access from several locations.' Also, an additional bike path will be developed along the nearby railroad tracks in the future, further providing for alternate modes of access. The nearest transit service is available at Siskiyou Boulevard, at Siskiyou and Mountain. Staff believes that the application complies with the criteria for approval. Primary arguments in opposition to the application to date have generally been somewhat "philosophical", regarding the City's relationship with the downtown, PA93-127 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland October 12, 1993 Page 5 and whether there are other options available that may be more appropriate for this building. This general argument has been addressed above. However, a letter from Brent Thompson has been received that raises some specific points that should be addressed. The first involves his contention that public buildings are a conditional use in the E-1 zone. During 1992, the City went through a process of updating the C-1 and E-1 ordinances land use code. These were ultimately adopted in October, 1992. After those revisions, "public and quasi-public utility and service buildings and yards, structures, and public parking lots, but excluding electrical substations" were made permitted uses in the E-1 zone. Mr. Thompson is correct that they were Conditional Uses in the previous ordinance, but the revisions made them permitted uses. Secondly, Mr. Thompson states that there is not "adequate transportation" available to the site, specifically stating that public transit is not available. The phrase "adequate transportation" is not defined specifically, however, Staff believes that there must be adequate measures in place to ensure that there are reasonable options available to access the site. As stated above; East Main Street is a fully improved arterial street, providing auto access to the site. East Main also has bike lanes integrated as part of the site, and provide direct bike access from several areas of town. Pedestrian access is also accommodated by the available sidewalks along East Main to the site. Several residential areas are nearby, easily within walking distance for those residents who may work or use City services provided at this site. Finally, regarding public transit, the nearest bus stop is located at Mountain and Siskiyou Boulevard, or Palm Ave. and Siskiyou Boulevard. Either stop is approximately 1/2 mile away. While the ideal transit stop is within 1/4 mile of the intended uses, Staff believes that 1/2 mile from mass transit still provides "adequate transportation" options. Mr. Thompson refers to several Comprehensive Plan policies as part of his objection to this project. However, those policies are implemented by Council Policy, and not a specific land use ordinance. Therefore, they are not applicable in this request. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan, in the Public Services Chapter is the following policy: IX-5 Encourage early planning and acquisition of sites for needed public facilities (e.g., fire stations, schools, roads, parks, etc.)' This policy is implemented by Cduncil policy and the Capital Improvement Program. As stated earlier, this site was acquired in the 1970's for city PA93-127 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report City of Ashland October 12, 1993 Page 6 s ' office/warehouse expansion and relocation, and this office construction project has been included in the Capital Improvement Program for many years. While this policy is not directly applicable to a Site Review, it does indicate that there is supporting policies within the Comprehensive Plan for such a use. Finally, Mr. Thompson refers to the Downtown Plan and its text in relation to this application. However, the Downtown Plan only applies within the downtown area. As stated on page 50 of the "Site Design and Use Standards", The City of Ashland Downtown Plan is the guiding document for all downtown site design. The plan does not apply to site reviews outside of the downtown area. Further, Staff does not believe that this application is in conflict with the paragraph regarding City Hall included,in the Downtown Plan, since City Hall is not being abandoned in the downtown, only that "some functions are being relocated." In general, Staff believes that Mr. Thompson has raised some very interesting issues that may be food for thought for the City Council on a policy level. However, we do not believe that they directly address the criteria for approval of a Site Review, or do not apply in the context presented by Mr. Thompson. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Given the limited scope of review for this action, basically only on the Site Review level, and not on any "use" level, Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That 4 covered bike parking spaces be provided at the rear of the building, near the employee entrance, and that 4 additional spaces be provided at the entrance/courtyard area for the new structure. 3) That a 3' wide sidewalk be provided along the driveway entrance from East Main Street to the rear of the immediate site, providing a pedestrian refuge adjacent to the parking area, and an alternate pedestrian access to the building from East Main Street. 4) That all landscaping be installed as per the approved plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure. 5) That all necessary easements for sewer, water, and electric be provided as required by the City Engineering Division. PA93-127 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report City of Ashland October 12, 1993 Page 7 S PA93-127 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland October 12, 1993 Page 8 C['j'Y �c'Izca2l�t�n RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ESTABLISI-IING AN AD I-IOC CITY SPACE NEEDS STUDY COMMITTEE WFIEREAS, the City Council believes there are present and future city government space needs; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is in the best interest of the City to secure widespread support for any proposal to meet these needs, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council agrees to postpone any action on the proposed new city office building from the date of adoption of this resolution until such matter can be properly resolved through an ad hoc committee process as outlined below. SECTION 2. That the City Council authorizes the Mayor to appoint an ad hoc committee to examine the space needs of the City, propose the best feasible solutions to any space needs, and to recommend how and when the solutions should be implemented. In addition to the Mayor the committee may consist of but not necessarily be limited to one or more individuals from the Planning Commission, Historic Commission, the Our Town Committee, Friends of Ashland, city employees,the City Council, and citizens at large. SECTION 3. That if the City Council does not adopt the committee's report, the City Council will place on the ballot at the next election date authorized by state law the Our Town Committee's proposed initiative measure. SECTION 4. That the City Council withdraws the City's application for a site review for a building located at 1175 East Main Street. The foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED on the 30th day of November, 1993. Nan E: Franklin, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day,of _, 1993. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Suggested change to resolution to be proposed by Councilor Laws: EC '0 Council ;Ur To r [Note, this change would mean that section one of the proposed initiative measure could be clarified to read. "Section 1. Expansion or New Construction. The expenditure of public funds by the City of Ashland for new construction or expansion of city government offices outside of properties adjacent to or which lie wholly or partially within 200 yards of the present City Hall building located on the Ashland City Plaza without prior approval in the form of a majority vote of the eNzens of Ashland at a designated election shall be prohibited with exceptions listed below in Section 2. 7 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ESTABLISHING AN AD HOC CITY SPACE NEEDS STUDY COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City Council believes there are present and future city government space needs; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is in the best interest of the City to secure widespread support for any proposal to meet these needs, . NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council agrees to postpone any action on the proposed new city office building from the date of adoption of this resolution until such matter can be properly resolved through an ad hoc committee process as outlined below. SECTION 2. That the City Council authorizes the Mayor to appoint an ad hoc committee to examine the space needs of the City, propose the best feasible solutions to any space needs, and to recommend how and when the solutions should be implemented. In addition to the Mayor the committee may consist of but not necessarily be limited to one or more individuals from the Planning Commission, Historic Commission, the Our Town Committee,Friends of Ashland, city employees, the City Council, and citizens at large. SECTION 3. That if the City Council does not adopt the committee's report, the City Council will place on the ballot at the next election date authorized by state law the Our Town Committee's proposed initiative measure. ECTION 4. That the City Council withdraws the City's application for a site review for a building located at 1175 East Main Street. The foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED on the 30th day of November, 1993. Nan E: Franklin, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of Catherine M. Golden; Mayor I INITIATIVE: Article XX Government Offices Section 1 . Expansion or New Construction. The expenditure of public funds by The City of Ashland for new construction or expansion of city government offices outside of properties adjacent to or which lie wholly or partially within 200 yards of the present City Hall building located on the Ashland City Plaza without prior approval in the form of a majority vote of the citizens of Ashland at a designated election shall be prohibited with exceptions listed below in Section 2 . Section 2 . Limitations of Prohibition. This prohibition shall not apply to any facility in the Parks and Recreation Department, Ashland Community Hospital , Ashland Public Library, Ashland Fire Department or to offices supporting city operations that , as of 11/1/93, are already 'located at the East Main Civic Center, the Community Center and Pioneer Hall on Winburn Way, the sewage treatment plant, the water treatment plant or substations for electric service . Section 3. Government Offices Defined. For the purposes of this amendment Government Offices shall be defined as: the building, room or series of rooms in which the affairs of government are executed on a regular basis . City Attorney City of Ashland (503) 482-3211, Ext. 59 MEMORANDUM November 30, 1993 TO: Nan Franklin, City Recorder FROM: Paul Nolte ' SUBJECT: Initiative Petition -City office building limitation Pursuant to ORS 250.275(3), 1 am providing you with the ballot title for the prospective petition for local initiative measure regarding limiting the construction of city offices: CAPTION: "Amends charter to limit construction of city government offices." QUESTION: "Shall charter limit spending public funds for construction of city government offices in certain locations unless voted upon by citizens?" EXPLANATION: "This charter amendment limits expenditure of public funds by the City of Ashland for construction of city government buildings or rooms unless within 200 yards of the Ashland City Hall. Exempted are buildings for city parks, hospital, library, fire department, Community Center, Pioneer Hall, sewage or water treatment plants, electrical substations or operations already located at the civic center as of November 1, 1993. By citizen vote, public funds could be expended for buildings or rooms at other locations or for other operations at the civic center.° l ;i (pAoVni-offi.bnl) 9 i 11/24/93 WHO IS THE CITY AND WHAT IS PLANNING? An open letter- to the Ashland City Council from Ron Roth Like many other citizens , I am concerned and somewhat puzzled by the City' s rush to construct a building that has already been designed on a site that has already been chosen to contain a pre- determined number of city offices and employees, without ever asking us , the citizens , what we think. First of all , what ' s the hurry? The City owns the property. It ' s not going to be taken away or sold to someone else. It ' s ours . Why the 1175 East Main location? Yes we own it . Yes we have the money saved for construction . But why not study the feasibility of other locations , especially downtown locations . I would like to suggest that we consider Public Works and Community Development as separate entities , rather than Siamese twins that need to travel together wherever they may go. Public Works is about Infrastructure-Construction, Repair and Maintenance. Its requirements include large functional machines , a place to store them and skilled personnel to maintain and operate said machines . Community Development is about Planning and Building. Its requirements include office space, information services and accessibility to builders , homeowners and business owners . Its function is careful planning of Community Development . We as a city need to be careful about moving this vital function away from the Downtown Core. My first public testimony on this subject was at the Site review hearing before the Planning Commission last month . Many of the Commissioners and citizens in the audience seemed to share my bewilderment as to why we were having a site review on a building that had not yet been approved . However, after being told by the Chair and the City Attorney that this hearing was strictly a technical legal matter, that their personal opinions as to the validity or wisdom of the plan were irrelevant , the site review was unanimously approved with one abstention. The Council then appealed /( the decision to itself in order to again review any concerns or misinformation on the process or the earlier decision . )" At the council hearing, most of the public testimony was in opposition to the project . The City countered with a five page "Civic Center Decision Process" that goes back almost 16 years and was essentially proof that the project is already approved and further citizen input is neither necessary nor desirable. However, many questions remain in my mind . First--Has need been established? Public Works-Yes . Brian Almquist and Al Alsing have convinced me that Steve Hall should be closer to his machines and crew. So lets build or remodel the appropriate space at 1175 East Main. Community Development--NO. Total number of Planning Actions averaged 143 for the years 1986 , 1987 and 1988 . Then we had a boomlet , 207 in 1989 and 218 in 1990 . For 1991 , 1992 and 1993 the average has dropped back to 141 . What about dollar value of building? The total value for all commercial and residential building peaked at $38 Million dollars in fiscal 1989 ( 7/1/89 to 6/30/90 ) . For the last three years the numbers have been: Fiscal 1990-- $22 million Fiscal 1991-- $26 million Fiscal 1992-- $22 million On November 17 , 1993 Gary Afseth, City Architect is quoted in the Tidings , "Construction has dropped off lately in the City an, and there' s a lot of interest in this project among contractors right now. " So. Construction is down . Building and Planning actions are down. Therefore we need a lot more space for our Community Development offices . I 'm having some trouble with this concept . What about fiscal responsibility? If need for 8000 square feet were proved beyond a doubt and capital cost of the building was the only consideration, then yes , 1175 East Main in the second row of the Civic Industrial Park is the way to go . But there are questions that do not have an answer that can not be measured in dollars . what about employee morale? Do the people working in Community Development want to move? The Historic Commission is on record as opposing this project . Does their opinion count? Does the building have to be as dull as the existing civic center building already on the site? In a town filled with architectural treasures, including some new ones--the Allen Pavilion at Shakespeare, Fish and Wildlife Forensics Lab, the new Ashland Community Food Store and the Natural History Museum, does the Civic Center have to have a military barracks look to it? How about we save our money for a couple more years and build something really nice downtown if we, the Community, decide we need it . In closing, may I suggest that we go back to the beginning and have a real public planning process on this issue. Ron Roth has worked in downtown Asland for 17 years . ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT FOR PA93-127 (omitted from previous Council packet) ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT October 12, 1993 PLANNING ACTION: 93-127 APPLICANT: City of Ashland LOCATION: 1175 East Main Street ZONE DESIGNATION: E-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Public Facilities ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.40 Employment Zone 18.72 Site Design REQUEST: Site Review for the construction of an 10,000 sq. ft. Planning/Public Works Office building. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: In October, 1980, the Planning Commission approved a Site Review and Conditional Use Permit (PA80-78) for the construction of the Justice Center/Council Chambers at this location. The Staff report and findings of that approval are attached to this staff report. In November, 1982, the Planning Commission approved a Site Review for the construction of a new public warehouse facility at this location (PA82- 75). The administrative findings of that approval are included as part of this staff report. There are no other planning actions of record for this site. There were two errors in the notice mailed on this action. The first stated that the building is approximately 8000 sq. ft. when in fact the proposed area is 10,100. The second is that the land does not have a Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment, but rather Public Facilities. Staff does not believe that either of these errors are grounds for delay of the action. Adequate notice was given, and those wishing to participate in the hearing have been provided notice of the time and opportunity at which to speak. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: The site is the present location of the Council Chambers and the Police Station, as well as warehousing. The site was purchased in the 1970's for the purpose of re-locating some city facilities, such as the Police Department, Council Chambers, Court functions, warehousing functions (moved from "A" Street), Electric Department, some Public Works functions, as well as provide yard storage for materials. In the previous approvals, the site plans have indicated this site as the location of "future offices." The Staff Report from the 1980 approval discusses the possibility of a future building being added to the Police/Council Chambers complex at a later time. That later time is now. The City is proposing to construct an approximately 10,100 sq. ft. office building on the grassy area directly behind and north of the Council Chambers. This is the area indicated on the adopted site plans from the previous approvals indicated for "future offices." The building is designed to match the existing Council Chambers and Police Station to provide a consistent campus design. It will house both the Department of Community Development (Planning, Building, & Conservation) and the Public Works Department (Engineering, PW Administration): It is essentially a single-story design, with a small interior loft area of approximately 1000 sq. ft. for mechanical equipment and some storage. No office space will be located in the loft area. The building's primary entrance is through a courtyard area behind the Council Chambers that can be reached either directly from East Main Street between the Police/Council Chambers buildings, or from the parking lot by walking behind the Council Chambers. Employee entrances will also be located at the rear of the building (north side) towards the warehouse buildings. The building is also proposed to be fully sprinklered, to aid in fire fighting should a structure fire occur. As stated earlier, this site is located in an E-1 zone, with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Public Facilities. This building is a permitted use in the E-1 zone, subject to Site Review approval. Section 18.40.020 E-1 Zone Permitted Uses lists the following: PA93-127 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland October 12, 1993 Page 2 A. Professional, financial, and business and medical offices, and personal service establishments. M. Public and quasi public utility and service buildings and yards, structures, and public parking lots, but excluding electrical substations. By design, this use is essentially a professional office, but it is also a public structure. Both of these uses are listed as permitted uses in the E-1 zone. II. Project Impact Since the approval of the Police/Council Chambers in 1980, a future office building has been envisioned at this location. The City is following up on its original plan for this area by the construction of this building. Money for this building has been budgeted for many years, and the construction of this building has been included in the Capital Improvement Plan and budget documents for several years as well. The original plan, when the land was purchased in the 1970's, was to locate all City functions at this site, ultimately abandoning the downtown City Hall building. However, when the Downtown Plan was adopted in July, 1988, the following paragraph was included in the "Regulation" section: CITY HALL Finally, the city should officially state that City Hall will remain in its present location for the immediate future. While as the city grows some functions will have to be relocated, the continued presence of the municipal government ties it to the downtown, and therefore to the people. With the absence of a City Hall downtown, there is some danger that the downtown will lapse into a tourist amenity. The presence of a City Hall downtown provides at least three important enhancements: it shows a commitment to the downtown to work together on its problems, reinforces the downtown as the city center, and continues a tradition begun by the first settlers. It is not the City's intent to abandon the downtown City Hall, but rather to relocate some city functions that require additional space, in this case the Planning and Public Works Departments. All other departments will remain in City Hall, including the City Administrator, Mayor, Personnel, City Attorney, Utilities, and Finance/Accounting. Recently, the City completed a space study to identify the needs of the various PA93-127 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report City of Ashland October 12, 1993 Page 3 City departments for future office areas. After the conclusion of that study, it was determined that the City cannot afford to-lose the office space provided by the current City Hall, but that additional space will be necessary to meet the current and future demands of the various departments currently located in City Hall. The logical choice is to follow along with the original plan for office space on City-owned lands. While the "decision" to re-locate several departments out of the current City Hall to the Justice Center location appears to be the greatest "impact" of this application, the Commission must remember their limitations under the land use ordinance. Decisions regarding the appropriateness of the construction of an office, or moving of a business are the responsibility of the "management" of that organization, and not under the purview of the Planning Commission. Just as the Planning Commission would not have the discretion to prohibit a downtown business from relocating out to Tolman Creek Plaza, neither does it have the discretion, under the Site Review ordinance, to prohibit the City from choosing to construct additional office space on E-1 zoned lands on East Main Street. Therefore, the Commission should confine their review of this action to the issues associated with Site Review, and limit discussions that go beyond the scope of the ordinance. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The main issues associated with the application involve the criteria for approval of a Site Review, which are as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. 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. In Staff's review of this project, it is our belief that all applicable city ordinances have been met by the application. Since there are not setback requirements in the E-1 zone, the structure complies with the locational requirements. Parking is being provided by the existing spaces. 23 spaces are required by this use. The site is currently non-conforming by having too much parking (in excess of 10% PA93-127 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report City of Ashland October 12, 1993 Page 4 over the minimum required), and this new building will end up bringing the site much closer into compliance. Therefore, the additional office space will result in a more efficient use of the current excess parking area. The site exceeds the required landscaped area, with a detailed landscape plan prepared for the area around the building. The plan has been reviewed by the Tree Commission and they have recommended approval of the landscape plan. The building is well below the allowable maximum height limits for the E-1 zone (40'). All requirements of the Site Review chapter have been met by this proposal. All required plans have been submitted, including exterior elevations, landscaping, and energy consumption information. It is the City's intent to construct this building to Energy Edge standards, meeting the most stringent and efficient energy standards. The development complies with the Site Design Standards. The complex already has its primary orientation towards East Main Street, with direct pedestrian access from the street. This structure, while being located behind the current buildings, provides an infill of the site, with its main entrance accessible from the existing East Main entrance. Staff, however, would recommend that an additional 3' wide sidewalk be installed from East Main along the current auto driveway entrance, providing a "curbside" refuge for cars parking along this drive, as well as providing an alternate pedestrian entrance from East Main to the building entrance. There are adequate City facilities serving this site. Water is available from the main in East Main Street that is currently serving the site, sewer service is presently available from the lines currently serving the existing buildings, and paved access is available from East Main Street, a fully improved arterial street, to the currently paved and improved parking area. Electricity is available from power lines adjacent to the site, and urban storm drainage is already established on the site, through a previously installed storm drain system. The new building will have its storm drains tied into this existing system. Adequate transportation is also currently available, with the site served by East Main Street, a fully improved arterial street, with sidewalk improvements along the entire frontage of the property. A bike path also is incorporated into East Main Street, providing linked bike access from several locations. Also, an additional bike path will be developed along the nearby railroad tracks in the future, further providing for alternate modes of access. The nearest transit service is available at Siskiyou Boulevard, at Siskiyou and Mountain. Staff believes that the application complies with the criteria for approval. Primary arguments in opposition to the application to date have generally been somewhat "philosophical", regarding the City's relationship with the downtown, PA93-127 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report City of Ashland October 12, 1993 Page 5 and whether there are other options available that may be more appropriate for this building. This general argument has been addressed above. However, a letter from Brent Thompson has been received that raises some specific points that should be addressed. The first involves his contention that public buildings are a conditional use in the E-1 zone. During 1992, the City went through a process of updating the C-1 and E-1 ordinances land use code. These were ultimately adopted in October, 1992. After those revisions, "public and quasi-public utility and service buildings and yards, structures, and public parking lots, but excluding electrical substations" were made permitted uses in the E-1 zone. Mr. Thompson is correct that they were Conditional Uses in the previous ordinance, but the revisions made them permitted uses. Secondly, Mr. Thompson states that there is not "adequate transportation" available to the site, specifically stating that public transit is not available. The phrase "adequate transportation" is not defined specifically, however, Staff believes that there must be adequate measures in place to ensure that there are reasonable options available to access the site. As stated above, East Main Street is a fully improved arterial street, providing auto access to the site. East Main also has bike lanes integrated as part of the site, and provide direct bike access from several areas of town. Pedestrian access is also accommodated by the available sidewalks along East Main to the site. Several residential areas are nearby, easily within walking distance for those residents who may work or use City services provided at this site. Finally, regarding public transit, the nearest bus stop is located at Mountain and Siskiyou Boulevard, or Palm Ave. and Siskiyou Boulevard. Either stop is approximately 1/2 mile away. While the ideal transit stop is within 1/4 mile of the intended uses, Staff believes that 1/2 mile from mass transit still provides "adequate transportation" options. Mr. Thompson refers to several Comprehensive Plan policies as part of his objection to this project. However, those policies are implemented by Council Policy, and not a specific land use ordinance. Therefore, they are not applicable in this request. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan, in the Public Services Chapter is the following policy: IX-5 Encourage early planning and acquisition of sites for needed public facilities (e.g., fire stations, schools, roads, parks, etc.) This policy is implemented by Council policy and the Capital Improvement . Program. As stated earlier, this site was acquired in the 1970's for city PA93-127 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report City of Ashland October 12, 1993 Page 6 office/warehouse expansion and relocation, and this office construction project has been included in the Capital Improvement Program for many years. While this policy is not directly applicable to a Site Review, it does indicate that there is supporting policies within the Comprehensive Plan for such a use. Finally, Mr. Thompson refers to the Downtown Plan and its text in relation to this application. However, the Downtown Plan only applies within the downtown area. As stated on page 50 of the "Site Design and Use Standards", The City of Ashland Downtown Plan is the guiding document for all downtown site design. The plan does not apply to site reviews outside of the downtown area. Further, Staff does not believe that this application is in conflict with the paragraph regarding City Hall included in the Downtown Plan, since City Hall is not being abandoned in the downtown, only that "some functions are being relocated." In general, Staff believes that Mr. Thompson has raised some very interesting issues that may be food for thought for the City Council on a policy level. However, we do not believe that they directly address the criteria for approval of a Site Review, or do not apply in the context presented by Mr. Thompson. W. Conclusions and Recommendations Given the limited scope of review for this action, basically only on the Site Review level, and not on any "use" level, Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That 4 covered bike parking spaces be provided at the rear of the building, near the employee entrance, and that 4 additional spaces be provided at the entrance/courtyard area for the new structure. 3) That a 3' wide sidewalk be provided along the driveway entrance from East Main Street to the rear of the immediate site, providing a pedestrian refuge adjacent to the parking area, and an alternate pedestrian access to the building from East Main Street. 4) That all landscaping be installed as per the approved plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure. 5) That all necessary easements for sewer, water, and electric be provided as required by the City Engineering Division. PA93-127 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report City of Ashland October 12, 1993 Page 7 PA93-127 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report City of Ashland October 12, 1993 Page 8