Council Communication

Request for Reconsideration of Council Vote on PA 2004-150 (Unitarian Church)
Meeting Date:	May 17, 2005		Primary Staff Contact:	John McLaughlin, 552-2043 mac@ashland.or.us
Department:	Community Development		Secondary Staff Contact:	Maria Harris, 552-2045 harrism@ashland.or.us
Contributing Departments:
Approval:	Gino Grimaldi

Statement: At the May 3, 2005 meeting, the Council approved the request by the Unitarian Church for the construction of a new social hall for their church at 4th and "C" Streets. At the end of the deliberations, concurrent with the motion to approve, two conditions were added by the Council, in addition to the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. Those two conditions are essentially as follows: That the sanctuary and social hall not be used simultaneously. - That the current use of the sanctuary be limited to the 108 seats stated by the applicant. The applicant has submitted a request for reconsideration of the decision to give them an opportunity to discuss the impacts of these conditions. The applicant asserts that these conditions were added without the opportunity for discussion or rebuttal by the applicant, and without consultation with staff. The applicant's representative, Tom Giordano, will be present at the May 17th Council meeting. During Public Forum he will request that this item be place on the agenda and that the Council reconsider their motion on this action.
0
Background: The Council heard this action on appeal at the May 3, 2005 meeting where they approved the request with conditions. The findings for this action have not been approved, so the city's decision is not yet final.
0
Related City Policies: None.
0
Council Options: In order for the Council to discuss this item, it will first need to be placed on the agenda. Should the Council choose to do this, it can be done by majority vote at the meeting. A motion for reconsideration of a decision may be made by a member of the Council who voted in the majority, and only at the meeting subsequent to the meeting where the decision was made.
0
Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs with the applicant that it may be beneficial for the Council to provide additional clarification regarding the conditions. As proposed, the conditions may not clearly address the Council's concerns, and may be difficult to enforce. Further discussion of the merits of such changes would be best conducted at a public hearing. Should the Council vote to reconsider the motion, Staff would recommend that the discussion of the merits be scheduled for a future meeting (either June 21 or July 19 depending on agenda and noticing requirements. The applicant has provided a 60-day extension to the 120-day limit). Staff would also recommend that the reconsideration and testimony be limited to the proposed conditions, and that the other portions of the decision by the Council be considered final. However, the scope of the reconsideration ultimately rests with the Council.
Possible Motions: Regarding placing this item on the agenda for discussion: • Move to place the item regarding reconsideration of the decision on PA 2004-150 on the agenda. • Take no action. Regarding the decision whether to reconsider the decision regarding PA 2004-150: • Move to reconsider the decision on PA 2004-150, limiting the review to the two proposed conditions of approval added by the City Council. (motion must be made by a Council member who voted in the majority). • Move to reconsider the decision on PA 2004-150. (with no limit on discussion topics. Motion must be made by a Council member who voted in the majority). • Take no action.
0
Attachments: Please click on the link below to view the following attachments:      • Letter from Tom Giordano on behalf of the Unitarian Church      • Request for extension of the Time Limit ORS 227.178(1)